1950-06-06

Mr. A. Phileas Cote (Maiapedia-Maiane):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, in the Ottawa Journal of yesterday there is an editorial entitled:
"Dominion day" wins; petty nationalism loses.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Alcide Côté: Wait a
moment with the cheers. The editorial concludes with these words:
Time, we think, that the great majority of the people of this country who despise this state of mind should stop appeasing it. For it is one of the ugliest, most barren and meanest things in our midst.
I am afraid I cannot congratulate the chief editor of the Ottawa Journal upon having made an outstanding effort toward national unity. Even if he is also the chief propagandist of the Tory party, even if with his unperturbed superiority complex and matured political acumen-


Mr. Graydon:: This is not a question of privilege.


Alcide Côté: -this chief propagandist-


Gordon Graydon: Surely we do not have to listen to this.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member has a question of privilege he should state it.


Gordon Graydon: He has no question of privilege; he is just trying to make another speech.


Alcide Côté: I know it hurts, but I shall not be long. Surely this editor must not be allowed to impute motives to any hon. member who has registered a vote in this house, as I submit is being done in this article! In order to keep the record straight I propose a correction of the false impression that this article may have created in certain circles, and I have no hesitation in stating that there is surely much less petty nationalism among the Grits or the Liberal-minded citizens of Canada-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Mr. Cole (Maiapedia-Maiane):: -than there is among the Tories or the reactionary-minded people in this country who practise narrow jingoism.



LIBRARY OF PARLIAMENT

[Stage Direction]
First report of joint committee of both houses on the library of parliament-Mr. Speaker.


Mr. W. G. Weir (Porlage-Neepawa) moved:: That the name of Mr. Carter be substituted for that of Mr. Kent on the special committee on the Dominion Elections Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved: the first reading of Bill No. 265 (from the Senate) respecting the units of electrical and photometric measure.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the leader of the house. In view of the statement made yesterday by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), indicating an entirely new concept of Canada's national defence role, may I ask when the estimates of the Department of National Defence will be before us, having in mind the necessity now for a wider examination of the work of the department?


Hon. Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, we expect that the special committee considering the two defence bills will report them today. If so, we shall be ready to take them up tomorrow. Then we will move to go into supply and take the remainder of Wednesday and Thursday on defence estimates.

Inquiries of the Ministry OLD AGE PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: I should like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare if he can give the assurance that old age pensioners in the Red river valley who have had their houses damaged will not have the financial assistance given them by way of compensation treated as other income under the Old Age Pensions Act?


Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: My hon. friend did not give me notice of his question. I would not want to give a snap answer. In any event I am guided of course, as is the hon. member, by the regulations, which are a matter of agreement between the provinces and the dominion, and also by the statute itself. I will look into the matter.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And give an answer
tomorrow?



FOREIGN EXCHANGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: I
should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance. When the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) in his speech on the Canadian Wheat Board Act yesterday introduced a discourse on the question of the exchange rate between Canada and the United States, was he speaking for the Minister of Finance, was it a private venture, or is he perhaps planning to invade the Department of Finance?


Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is fair to say that my colleague, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, was as usual speaking for himself.


Mr. Ross (Souris):: Not very authentic.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I did not hear his remarks, but I understand he expressed the view that exchange rates were not necessarily fixed in perpetuity. With that view I am in agreement.



INQUIRY FOR RETURNS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: I should like to ask the Secretary of State if he will be

kind enough to do what he can to expedite two orders for returns standing in my name. One was passed on May 15, and concerns public works contracts. The other was passed on May 24, and concerns the types and sizes of stationery used in various government departments. If it is not possible to have the complete returns brought down at an early day, may I ask the minister if he will consider letting me have interim replies as they are received?


Hon. F. G. Bradley (Secretary of State):: I shall be glad to look into the matter and do all I can to get the information for the hon. member.



BANKRUPTCY ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinton):: Mr. Speaker, I had a question to address to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson); perhaps in his absence the Solicitor General will look into the matter. Several weeks ago, in answer to a question, the Minister of Justice indicated that the Bankruptcy Act could not be brought into effect before July 1, but did not actually say it would be brought into effect on that date. Will the minister indicate as soon as possible on what date the act will be brought into effect?


Hon. Hugues Lapointe (Solicitor General):: I will look into the matter and see that an answer is given.



METEOROLOGY


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, June 5, consideration of the motion of Mr. Chevrier:
That it is expedient that the houses of parliament do approve the convention of the world meteorological organization signed at Washington on October 11, 1947, and tabled on February 14, 1949, and that this house do approve the same.
Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, having now had an opportunity to review the terms of this convention, I am going to suggest to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) that he have it considered by the standing committee on external affairs. This committee is now sitting, and there would be very little delay. I believe the committee has never had an opportunity to consider this convention. It would be possible to call before the committee not only officials of the Department of External Affairs, but also the chief meteorological officer of the Department of Transport, and other witnesses if necessary.

I am going to try to explain to the house why I think it is important that we give a little consideration to this convention rather than merely approve it in a perfunctory way, which is all that can be done if it is approved by the house in the present debate.
Apparently this is one of the two or three specialized agencies of the United Nations which have not yet been brought into operation. At page 41 of the report of the Department of External Affairs for 1949 I find the following statement, under the heading "Specialized Agencies":
Canada is also taking [DOT] part in the formation of the international trade organization, the intergovernmental maritime consultative organization and the world meteorological organization, which have not yet been established in their final form.
I repeat that this is one of the few specialized agencies which have not been finally established.
The purposes of the meteorological organization are set out in the convention in some detail. I wish to emphasize particularly the first two. They are:
(a)	To facilitate world-wide co-operation in the establishment of networks of stations for the making of meteorological observations or other geophysical observations related to meteorology and to promote the establishment and maintenance of meteorological centres charged with the provision of meteorological services.
(b)	To promote the establishment and maintenance of systems for the rapid exchange of weather information.
Then there are other purposes, but those are the two I wish to stress for the purposes of my submission.
Provision is also made in the convention for the setting up of what are called regional associations. These are associations of countries which are closest together. Under this provision for regional associations, not only can the members who belong to a regional association sit in on consultations, but also, under article 18, paragraph (b), the members of another regional organization may sit in. This means that anyone belonging, for instance, to an Asiatic regional organization could sit in with a North American regional organization. There is also the provision for the setting up of technical commissions.
Now, all of this may seem to be of very little importance so far as Canada is concerned; but I do submit, Mr. Speaker, that today we are not living in a world dominated by the United Nations. Instead of that we are living in a world divided into two groups. Everyone had hoped that the United Nations would be able to function as it was intended to do when set up in 1945. I think this world meteorological organization was planned on
Meteorological Convention the basis of the United Nations being able to function as originally intended. Unfortunately such is not the case.
This convention involves the interchange of weather information. For example, if the convention comes into effect, such nations as Russia and her satellite countries, should they become members of this world organization, would be entitled under the convention to have access to all our weather and meteorological services.
In view of the fact that these meteorological services are so tied up with aviation I do suggest that Canada should give careful consideration to the matter before she decides to join this particular organization. After all, should there be trouble between these two great world groups, Canada is in a worse position than any other nation. She would be the Belgium in a third world war. I believe every member of the house will agree that if there should be trouble between Russia and the United States, Canada would be subject to air attack on her Atlantic coast, probably in the prairies and the central part of Canada, and also on the Pacific coast where planes would cross Bering strait, and come down through Alaska.
Before the house adopts this convention we should know the extent to which Russia and her satellite countries are going to co-operate in the organization. For example, are they willing to give us all their weather and meteorological information, just as we would be bound to do under the convention? I notice one of the satellite countries has already deposited instruments of ratification; I am referring of course to Czechoslovakia. Yesterday the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) listed the following countries as having deposited instruments of ratification: Australia, Burma, Czechoslovakia, the Dominican republic, Norway, Peru, the Philippines, Sweden and a number of others. I have no way of knowing what the other countries are, but I presume there were not very many of them. Incidentally, thirty countries must deposit ratification before the convention comes into effect, so that there would seem to be no particular hurry for Canada to rush into it.
Furthermore, I suggest we should give consideration to the question whether we have anything to gain by joining the convention at this time. We are already working closely with the United Kingdom and the United States in all our meteorological affairs. We are also in a position to work closely with the other members of the British commonwealth, and with the other north Atlantic nations-those nations which have now signed the North Atlantic treaty. I doubt very

Meteorological Convention much whether Canada has a great deal to gain, under present conditions, by becoming a member of this world meteorological organization. I know there is a temptation for Canada to join all these international organizations. It is like joining a club; we like to become members of these different organizations, and that is an attitude which can easily be understood.


An hon. Member:: We are good joiners.


Howard Charles Green: Yes, that seems to be the picture. I am not saying that Canada should not join this world meteorological organization, but I am saying that before the house approves the convention we should send it to the committee on external affairs. That is a good committee, the members of which take their work seriously, and I am confident that they would go into the question thoroughly and bring back to the house a worth-while recommendation.
That is the course I urge upon the minister today. This convention instead of its being approved after two or three members have spoken, should be referred to the committee on external affairs, so that witnesses could be called to tell the whole story. Then if we do approve the convention we shall at least know what we are doing.


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, I Should like to add a word to what has been so well said by the hon. member for Van-couver-Quadra (Mr. Green). It is to be noted that this convention of the world meteorological organization was signed in Washington on October 11, 1947. Almost three years have passed without this country doing anything about its approval or ratification. This resolution was on the order paper in 1948, and I believe, although I am only speaking from memory, that it was on the order paper during the last session. The very fact that Canada took no immediate steps to ratify this convention speaks volumes. There is no particular reason why we should be rushing, toward the close of the session, to ratify a convention of this kind.
In addition a great deal of water has passed under the international bridge since 1947. Conditions with respect to the two-worid position have changed, as have the considerations upon which the members of the United Nations founded' their judgment in 1947. Moreover, one's suspicions-if one may use that harsh word; perhaps it is not appropriate, but I use it in any event-might be aroused by the lack of enthusiasm on the part of other members of the north Atlantic community. As I understand it, our powerful and friendly neighbour to the south has not


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the arguments to which we have listened so far in relation to the merits of the resolution before us, I must say I feel that if we were called upon to make a sudden-death decision in the house I would vote for the resolution. The argument that we should refrain from agreeing to this convention of this world organization, if carried to its logical conclusion, would mean that we should withdraw from other world organizations of which we are a member. I wanted to make that clear. If the minister will not agree to the request which has been put forward by the official opposition-in other words, if he insists on a vote now-my disposition would be to support the resolution.
However, I hope that the minister shares my view that a fair case has been put up for referring the matter to the external affairs committee before a decision is made. It often happens that a resolution is moved in the house and does not go through any other stages, with the result that we are cramped in not being able to ask the minister questions in committee of the whole. That is the case with this motion, and therefore it does seem to me that this resolution might well go to the committee. Since the minister has been nodding his head up and down-oh, he is nodding it the other way or which way is it?


Mr. Chevrier:: I am just listening.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I had dared to hope he was agreeing to the proposal to send it to the committee. If he would agree, that would certainly be the end of this debate.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I
should like to add a word, because I know the minister always likes to hear from me. I hope the minister will accept the suggestion of the member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green), because it seems to me manifest good sense. I can see a good many arguments in favour of it, and I entirely fail to see any valid argument against referring the convention to the committee on external affairs, as the member for Vancouver-Quadra has suggested.
The only other thing I want to say is that this seems to me such manifest good sense that if it is not acted upon I shall revert to a quotation I used in this house yesterday from the great Churchill, when he referred to the British government as the servant of parliament. If there is any validity in that remark here, I suggest that referring the matter to a committee is the proper way of
Meteorological Convention dealing with it. If there is no validity in what Churchill suggested with respect to this house, then no doubt we shall have a sudden-death vote, as we so often do.


Mr. Speaker:: If the minister speaks now, he will close the debate.


Lionel Chevrier: I should not like to lose my right to close the debate, but I do not want to close it at this stage.


Mr. Speaker:: If the minister speaks now,
he will be closing the debate, unless he has unanimous consent of the house to make a statement and then have discussion.


Gordon Graydon: By consent.


Paul Joseph James Martin: He wants to explain something.


Mr. Speaker:: By consent.


Lionel Chevrier: If the house would like to
know now, I may say that I intend to accept the suggestion that the matter be referred to the committee on external affairs, which I think is an excellent one. But in case there might be some misunderstanding as to the countries that have already indicated their intention of ratifying this agreement, I should like to put on the record the names of those countries, because there are far more than I mentioned yesterday. In fact the United States has consented, and that seemed to be the doubt in the mind of the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon).


Gordon Graydon: I understood they had not
ratified it.


Lionel Chevrier: Thirty countries have ratified the convention. I named several yesterday, but there are a large number that I did not mention. Perhaps I could put them on the record now. They are, in addition to those previously mentioned:	Byelorussian
Soviet Socialist Republic, Egypt, Finland, France, Greece, Iceland, India, Iraq, Israel, Lebanon, Mexico, New Zealand, Roumania, Switzerland, Thailand, Turkey, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of South Africa, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Kingdom, the United States and Yugoslavia.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) tabled this agreement over a year ago. I say that in answer to the suggestion that this matter is being brought down in the later days of the session. There was an opportunity of considering this matter before-I had the document before me-at least upwards of a year ago when the document was tabled in the house.
In view of the suggestions which have been made, and which I think are reasonable, it might be well that the committee on external affairs study the contents of the world

Department of Transport Stores meteorological convention. With that purpose in mind I move that this convention be referred to the committee on external affairs.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand that this motion [DOT] is presented and accepted with the unanimous consent of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion (Mr. Chevrier), for reference of convention to standing committee on external affairs, agreed to.



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT STORES


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, May 5, consideration in committee of Bill No. 135, to amend the Department of Transport Stores Act-Mr. Chevrier-Mr. Dion in the chair.
On section 1-Outstanding advances not to exceed $5 million.
Lionel Chevrier: When this matter came up for discussion on May 5, I believe there was some confusion-in fact, a great deal of confusion -in the minds of some members; and I would not be frank if I did not admit that there was an equal if not greater amount of confusion in my own mind. I think that can be readily understood when one realizes that this bill has reference to two departments besides the Department of Transport, namely, the Department of Finance, and the division of the Auditor General. In fact it is a matter which concerns the Department of Finance far more than it does the Department of Transport; it is more or less incidentally that it concerns transport, because of the situation in regard to the stores of that department.
During the debate a number of questions were asked, and perhaps, before dealing more particularly with section 1 of the bill, I should try as best I can to dispose of some of the apprehensions and misunderstandings that were voiced during that discussion.
In the first place I should like to say that there is, with reference to the department, what is called a stores capital fund. The stores capital fund is exactly the same thing as the advances to the Minister of Transport mentioned in section 1 of this bill. Thi stores capital fund means the total sum required (a) to cover the value of the inventory of stores on hand, which has already been indicated as $3-2 million, or, roughly speaking, $3 million; (b) to purchase stores in order to maintain stock levels required by the operating services; and (c) to cover the value of stores issued until payment for
EMr. Chevrier.]
them has been received from the appropriations or the votes under the various items.
The working capital means that portion of the stores capital fund which is not tied up in stores stock. In other words, with reference to the bill now before the committee, it means $2 million; because the amount tied up by stores in inventory amount to $3 million. The revolving fund means the same as stores capital fund; and the advances, as I have already stated, means exactly the same as the stores capital fund.
The Department of Transport includes three major operating services: canals, marine and air services. Because there is a considerable degree of uniformity in facilities operated by the canals service, the stores requirements in the canals service are fairly similar and fairly simple. They are a little bit more complicated when one gets into the division of marine and air services. Under marine, for instance, stores are required for various facilities known as aids to navigation, such as lights, lighthouses, lightships, beacons, buoys and fog alarms. Then there is the group, still in marine services, having to do with dominion icebreakers. They have a varied and long list of stores required for those operations. Then the air service embraces the operation of airways, airports, radio stations, meteorological stations, telegraph and telephone services, which require a broad range of stores. There are nearly 2,800 operating stations and establishments in the department, and they are divided as follows: 62 for canals; 1,164 for marine services; 1,544 for air services.
The purpose of this bill is to provide for a consolidation of stores in one account. The principle has already been approved in the two measures that have come before the house previously, and I will not deal with that feature. But with reference to this bill in particular, the purposes are manifold. First, it is to enable the establishment of an effective central purchasing control over the purchasing of stores. Stores purchased are paid for out of the stores capital fund, and the value of such stores, when issued, is charged to the appropriation of the services concerned and credited to the stores capital fund. The purpose of the bill is also to promote economy through bulk purchases; also to facilitate the transfer of stores from one depot to another; to promote the orderly planning of purchases of stores that are required for certain seasons of the year; and finally, to facilitate the acquisition of supplies for outlying districts.
I shall now deal more particularly with section 1, which reads as follows:
The amount of advances to the Minister of Transport shall at no time exceed $5 million.

The proposed $5 million would really be a stores capital fund, against which the present inventory value of approximately $3 million would become a first charge, leaving a balance of about $2 million of working capital which the Minister of Transport may draw upon for the acquisition and replenishment of stores as required from time to time. It is money that is voted to the minister for use; it is money that is in the Department of Finance in the hands of the Minister of Finance, which may be advanced to the Minister of Transport from time to time.
He may not need the $2 million; he may need only a small portion of it, but the information that has been provided to me is indicative of the fact that he will require it for the reasons that I shall give at a later stage.
May I revert for just a moment to the position which existed prior to the passing of this act-for instance, the position which existed in 1937. The stores act of that year provided in effect for a similar capital fund of $1,957,368, composed of inventory of $957,368, and, in addition, an authority to obtain advances from the Minister of Finance of $1 million. In other words, the position was: inventory of $957,368, plus advances to the minister of $1 million.
The information that has been given to me is that because of the advances, as indicated by the dominion bureau of statistics, in commodity wholesale prices, there has been a general increase in price, and on this basis the equivalent volume of stocks would be valued today at slightly more than $2 million. By adding to this figure the value of the inventories of stores taken over in Newfoundland about a year ago, which was roughly $1,200,000, we would have a total inventory of $3,200,000. This figure is somewhat greater than the actual inventory of stores as at March 31, 1950, which was given at $3 million in round figures, and which as we go along I should like to use as the amount of inventory with reference to section 1, now on hand. There remains $2 million, which is a sort of revolving fund. The $2 million remaining out of the $5 million which has been referred to previously as working capital will not actually be paid over to the Minister of Transport, but as already pointed out, will simply be available to be drawn upon as needed.
The figure of $2 million does not seem to be unreasonable considering the fact that in 1937 parliament authorized an advance of $1 million to be used as working capital in conjunction with the stores inventory of about the same amount, $957,368 to be exact. Today in reality we are asking for an advance for working capital of $2 million in relation to
Department of Transport Stores inventory of $3 million. These figures combined represent the proposed stores capital of $5 million referred to in the bill as advances to the minister.
It is estimated that approximately $2 million is needed to purchase stores required to maintain stocks at necessary operating levels and to cover the time lag between the dates when stores are issued and date when the stores account receives credit from the votes concerned.
This figure also includes a margin of around $500,000 to take care of temporary upward fluctuations in value of inventory, which may occur as a result of relatively light withdrawals and heavy receipt of stores during certain periods.
This is all I need to say at this time on section 1. There are a number of questions which I feel I should reply to, and I think I can do it fairly quickly.


Howard Charles Green: Before the minister leaves section 1, can he tell us the annual turnover?


Lionel Chevrier: The annual turnover, as I will indicate in answer to a question which was asked on the last occasion by an hon. member, is $8 million.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What guarantee will we have in the legislation, or anywhere else, that the $5 million asked for in this bill will include both the inventory now on hand and such additional advances as the Minister of Transport may get from the Minister of Finance?


Lionel Chevrier: I propose to move an amendment when I complete my statement which I think will cover the greater part of my hon. friend's suggestion, if not all of it.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre asked whether I would indicate, just as an example, where in the estimates there are items to pay for some of the things that have been bought out of these advances. These are to be found in most of the operating votes in the Department of Transport- certainly the vote for the operation of canals, the vote for the operation of marine agencies, the vote for the operation of airports, and so forth.
The hon. member for Greenwood asked this question:	"I should like to know how
much we have relative to what is used from time to time". That was not an easy question.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I do not
know what it means now.


Lionel Chevrier: I did not. I do not think I was able to give an answer; but if it means what we think it does, then the answer is this.

Department of Transport Stores The inventory as at March 31, 1950, was approximately $3 million, as I have already indicated, while the value of stores issued in the preceding twelve months was $8 million. That is the answer that I gave to the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra a moment ago.
The hon, member for Greenwood asked another question: "To what extent has Mr. Howe's promise of 1937 to eliminate surplus stocks been carried out; also to what extent are we piling up stocks in any way?" Inventory value as at March 31, 1937, was $957,368. The record shows that the value of the stores inventory as at March 31, 1939, two years later, was $876,877, or approximately $81,000 less than two years previously. The inventory value today-by "today" I mean March 31, 1950-exclusive of Newfoundland, was $2,059,730. And that of course, as already stated, was owing to the increase in prices from that date to this, and also to the addition of new divisions in the department.


Howard Charles Green: What is the Newfoundland
figure today?


Lionel Chevrier: It is roughly $1 million.


Mr. Higgins:: It was $1,180,000.


Lionel Chevrier: I say roughly $1 million.


Howard Charles Green: I understand it has been cut by several hundred thousands.


Lionel Chevrier: I will give that in a moment. I have it all here. I propose to answer most of the questions that were asked at the last sitting.
The hon. member for Greenwood asked: "To what extent have we got stock that is piling up and perhaps should be cleared out?" The answer is that with the exception of stores taken over in Newfoundland a year ago it is estimated that the value of stores inactive and unserviceable and obsolete in nature at the present is about $20,000. That is only about one per cent of the inventory value as at March 31, 1950, excluding Newfoundland stocks.
The hon. member for Greenwood wanted to get some kind of statement-not in exhaustive detail-as to what there is in stores now. I have quite a lengthy statement. I do not know whether the hon. gentleman wants me to put it on the record. Perhaps I can give some of the main divisions which will give an answer to what he wants.
For instance, in canals the divisions are something like this: general hardware and tools, metals, paints, spare parts, lumber, lubricants and fuel. In marine and radio the division is: general hardware and tools, metals, steamer supplies, lighthouse supplies,

paints, lubricants and fuel. In radio stations and airports the division is: general hardware and tools, radio equipment, parts and accessories, airport spare parts, accessories and miscellaneous supplies. In meteorological, the division is scientific instruments and miscellaneous supplies.
There is another long classification that I have, composed of twenty-seven different items, which are made up of iron, steel and other metals, castings, pipe and fittings of all kinds, tools, and so forth. Then there is a break-down of one of the depots in the canal service at Lachine.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I do not
think we will need to proceed any further unless we get into difficulties with the minister.


Lionel Chevrier: I hope my hon. friend will
not. I am the most co-operative minister in the house.
There was another question asked by the hon. member for Greenwood which I think is important and which should be clarified. He wanted to know why we buy all these different stores and carry them in stock when they might be purchased without delay in the ordinary course of merchandising. We buy in large quantities, and we like to buy in large quantities because we save substantial sums of money. For instance, by buying 5,000 gallons of anti-freeze for the various depots rather than buying it piecemeal for each requisition we save $2 per gallon. If we buy 10,000 gallons of paint in one lot we save $2 per gallon over the retail price. The same thing can be said of manila rope, white lead, binoculars, and so on.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra wanted to know by how much the department had exceeded the advances of $1 million authorized by the present act. The present act provides in effect for a capital fund of $1,957,368, composed of the April 1, 1937, inventory, $957,368, and $1 million which was authorized as advances to the Minister of Transport. That inventory, exclusive of Newfoundland stores, as of March 31, 1950, stood at $2,059,000.


Howard Charles Green: What about the increases?
There were amendments to the act in 1939 and in 1946, in each case increasing the amounts that could be held in stores.


Lionel Chevrier: The inventory as at March
31, 1950, exclusive of Newfoundland stores, was about $2,059,000. Therefore the advances were exceeded by $102,000 at that date. In the previous year, March 31,	1949, the
advances were exceeded by $72,491, exclusive of Newfoundland stores. Then on April 1, 1949, the Newfoundland stores inventory was

fixed at $1,158,000, but that has not yet been charged to the Department of Transport stores account. Provision for the acquisition of those stores was made in the supplementary estimates of 1949-50 under vote 673. However, when I stated in the original debate of May 5 that the advances were overdrawn to the extent of $1 million, that figure was based on the assumption that the Newfoundland stores had been transferred to the Department of Transport, but as stated, this is not so. The proposed amendments to the stores act provide for the inclusion of the Newfoundland stores in the over-all inventory.
So that there may be no misunderstanding about section 1, I intend to propose an amendment, which will cover the inventory. There was some anxiety indicated in the committee about the amount of the advances. It was thought that $5 million was far too much. Having regard to the explanations I have given and the conversations I have had with my officers since that time, it strikes me that if the committee were willing to authorize advances to the extent of $4,500,000, that would meet the position. I have asked the officers how they could get along with that, and they say that that would be running them pretty close but if they had less it would be difficult for them to operate. I hope it will be possible for the committee to approve this, and I intend to move an amendment to section 5.


Howard Charles Green: There is an amendment before the committee at the present time.


Lionel Chevrier: This would be a subamendment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You will have to wait until the amendment is disposed of.


Lionel Chevrier: When we get to it I will suggest an amendment providing that the amount of advances to the Minister of Transport shall at no time exceed $4,500,000, including the value of the stores from time to time on hand. There would then be no doubt that it included the $3 million inventory now on hand, and it would give a revolving fund or working capital of $1,500,000. Perhaps in view of these explanations the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra will consider withdrawing his amendment.


Howard Charles Green: The explanations given by the minister this morning help to clear up the difficulties we had when this bill was under discussion on a previous occasion. As the committee knows, the Department of Transport Stores Act was enacted in 1937. At that time there were two points that worried the members of the house. The first was that power was being taken to spend money before it
Department of Transport Stores was appropriated, and that is our main worry in connection with the proposed amendments now before us. Under this act the Department of Transport can spend a certain amount of money before it is actually appropriated by parliament, which is contrary to the whole basis of our parliamentary system. That particular objection was put very clearly by Mr. Bennett, then leader of the opposition, when he spoke on April 2, 1937, as reported on page 2488 of Hansard:
I say to the minister in the light of experience that there is nothing more inviting to permanent officials than the possibility of having an advance of great proportions.
The second worry in 1937 was that stores would be accumulated to a greater extent than was necessary. At that time the stores on hand were of a value of less than $1 million. The present Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), who was in charge of the bill at that time, said, as reported on page 2488 of Hansard of April 2, 1937:
It will be my aim to see that at the end of the year there are no surplus stocks.
The whole emphasis by the minister at that time was that surplus stocks would be cut right down to the minimum. In order to meet those two difficulties, provision was made in the original act that the advances to the minister would be limited to $1 million, and there was also a provision that the value of stores held after the inventory at the end of each fiscal year after 1936-37 should not exceed the amount of the stores inventory established as of April 1, 1937.
Those were the two restrictive provisions placed in the legislation to meet the objections raised. It is interesting to note what has since happened to each of these obstacles. That of the ceiling of $1 million has remained in the act to this date. In other words, right up to the present time the minister has never had the power to draw on the Department of Finance for more than $1 million. It is true that an amendment was made in 1939, but that was because of the wording of the original section 4. There had been some trouble with the Department of Finance. They read the original section 4 as still calling for an appropriation by parliament in each case. Therefore the act was amended in 1939 to provide for a straight advance up to a ceiling of $1 million. The value of the stores was increased in i939 to $1,250,000. Then during the war it was increased by order in council in 1943, I believe-the minister can correct me if I am wrong-to $1,500,000. In 1946, after the war, less than four years ago, it was increased again to $1,600,000.
Before I start discussing the terms of the bill now before the committee, I should like to

Department of Transport Stores point out that the position under the present law is that there is a ceiling of $1 million on the amount that can be advanced, and a ceiling of $1,600,000 on the value of stores that can be held in the inventory. Until this year the legislation has been based on those two different restrictions, one by way of ceiling on the advances, and the other by way of ceiling on the value of the stores in the inventory. For some reason or other the Department of Transport is now asking that those two items be lumped together, and that the new section read:
The amount of advances to the Minister of Transport shall at no time exceed $5 million.
In other words, they are lumping together the stores on hand and the amount that can be drawn before there has been an appropriation by parliament. We objected of course to the provision for an increase in the advances from $1 million to $5 million; at the same time there is a provision in the bill which strikes out the restriction on the value of stores; that section is being deleted.
I think the minister's offer to include in the new section 5 the words, "including the amount of stores on hand from time to time", meets one of the objections, but there remains the question as to the total figure that should be written into the section. Some of us have suggested to the minister that the figure should be $4 million rather than $5 million. We believe the amount that can be spent without appropriation by parliament should be carefully restricted. The minister is now basing his figure of $4,500,000 on an inventory of stocks amounting to slightly over $2 million, an inventory of stocks in Newfoundland of about $1 million, and then he wants working capital of $1,500,000. It is my understanding that the Newfoundland stores are largely at Gander airport, and that while at one time they reached the figure of about $1 million they have since been reduced by $300,000 or $400,000. It does not seem reasonable that half as many stores should have to be kept in Newfoundland as in all the rest of Canada. Yet that is exactly what the minister's figures mean. There are $2 million worth of stores in the rest of Canada and $1 million ih Newfoundland. That does not seem to be reasonable, As I said a moment ago, I am told that the Newfoundland stores have been drastically reduced, and that they are still being reduced.
Of course it was stated time -and again in 1937 by the present Minister of Trade and Commerce and also by Mr. Dunning, then minister of finance, that an attempt would be made to keep the stores down to a minimum. I believe the Minister of Transport should agree to a new figure of $4 million. I think that gives him ample leeway, and

it serves as a check on his officials. They are getting the right to spend money that has not yet been appropriated by parliament, and in addition they are getting the right to have this large amount of stores on hand. I think there should be a check placed on them. I do not believe they will be badly hurt if the figure is placed at $4 million. I hope the minister will agree. After all, there are only one or two other cases in our whole governmental structure in which departments can spend money before it is appropriated. The minister gave the printing bureau as an illustration, but I do not believe they have the right to draw in advance up to the amount of $1 million. He also gave the example of the Indian affairs branch of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. Apparently they have the right to draw moneys in advance before appropriation.
Here we have a total turnover of only $8 million in the whole year. With the figure set at $4 million I think the minister's officials will have ample power to carry on. It will be an incentive to them not to draw ahead unless they have to do so, and it will also be an incentive to keep down the amount of stores on hand. If he finds in two or three years that they need a larger figure, then I think it is a very good thing for him to have to come back to parliament and explain why, because in effect parliament is being by-passed by legislation of this kind.
I hope the minister will agree to put the figure at $4 million. If he will do so I do not think there will be any more argument.


The Chairman:: Is the hon. member withdrawing his amendment?


Howard Charles Green: My amendment is standing at the moment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the minister for the further, and dare I say better, explanation he gave this morning than was given on the 5th of May. I also want to say that I appreciate his readiness to meet some of the arguments that have been advanced from this side of the house by the amendment which he has indicated he will be prepared to move if the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra will withdraw his amendment to.the first clause of the bill. It is difficult for us to judge whether $4,000,000 or $4,500,000 should be the figure. I think it is significant, however, that in view of the debate which took place, and the representations made from this side of the house, the minister has seen fit to split the difference and be satisfied with $4,500,000. But the more significant part of the proposed amendment, if I understand it, is that which makes it clear that the $4,500,000

would have to include both inventory on hand and cash advances made available. If it is clear that when the minister has on hand $3 million in inventory he can get only another million and a half by way of cash advance-


Lionel Chevrier: That is clearly understood in the amendment I intend to propose.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Very well; if that is clear, even with the qualification the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra now makes, I feel more satisfied. The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra points out that if inventory were reduced from $3 million to $2 million, then the minister could get $2,500,000 cash. But, in connection with the whole matter, can any stores in the inventory we are talking about actually be used without a charge being made against a vote provided in the estimates?


Lionel Chevrier: No.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It seems to me that is what we were trying to get a month ago.


Lionel Chevrier: That is right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is clear, then, that if there are estimates in the votes for $8 million worth of stores for the year 1950-51 it is not possible for more than $8 million worth of stores to be used?


Lionel Chevrier: That is right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: During 1950-51?


Lionel Chevrier: That is right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In other words the inventory is really something that still belongs to the Department of Finance.


Lionel Chevrier: That is right; I thought I indicated that earlier in my statement.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think the minister indicated it today, but he did not indicate it that way on May 5. I am trying to get it sorted out, and in doing so I hope I am not being unhelpful.


Lionel Chevrier: Not at all.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If that is clear, then it seems to me there is more justification for doing things this way than there seemed to be on May 5. But I want to be absolutely clear that not a gallon of paint or anything else can be taken from inventory provided under this measure, and used, without its being charged against a vote by parliament in that current year.


Lionel Chevrier: No question about it at all. However, if a purchase is made, it must be made under the appropriations set out in the various items for the department.
Department of Transport Stores Whether it be called a direct purchase, outside of stores, or whether it be called an issue from stores, it has to come from the various votes for canals, air services and the like. But, because of the time lag which is unavoidable in respect of some of these purchases, advances are made to the minister with which to buy them out of this $1,500,000 revolving fund, and they are repaid to the Minister of Finance under the appropriation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister has referred to the revolving fund being $1,500,000 because at the present time the inventory is $3 million?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That might change without any change in the act being necessary.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister has referred to purchases of stores either from stores inventory or direct from merchandising people. Can he indicate any break-down so far as the practice of his department is concerned? During the last year for which information is available how much by way of stores has been brought down from stores inventory, and how much has been bought direct from wholesalers or retailers?


Lionel Chevrier: There were purchases
direct, outside of stores inventory, to the value of $4,600,000 in the last year. There were issued from stores $8 million during the last year.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is $12,600,000 altogether?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just a moment; what was the total amount provided in the estimates for last year? Is that the year the minister is talking about?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What was the total amount provided in the estimates of last year for the purchase of stores, roughly?


Lionel Chevrier: Approximately $12 million.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That amount was provided by votes passed by parliament.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And the total amount of stores actually used last year was what?


Lionel Chevrier: It was $8 million, the
amount I gave a moment ago as being commodities issued out of stores. That is the amount as compared with the $4,600,000 for direct purchases.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But the commodities issued out of stores were also used, were they not?

Department of Transport Stores


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then you used $12 million worth of stores last year?


Lionel Chevrier: No. There one must differentiate between direct purchases and stores actually on hand. We used $8 million worth of stores and purchased other materials outside of stores. For instance, we do not stock coal, and things of that kind.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Those things which came direct.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, that is a better word. Those were purchased outside, and did not form part of stores.


Edmund Davie Fulton: They never went through the Department of Finance at all?


Lionel Chevrier: That is right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: When the minister gave me the figure of $12 million provided in the estimates of last year for stores, that figure included both stores and purchases in the sense of purchasing coal.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Has it been found possible by means of this act to exceed in any year, such as last year, the total amount of money provided in the estimates so far as stores and purchases are concerned?


Lionel Chevrier: No.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You have not found it possible to do that?


Lionel Chevrier: No.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And you do not think you will find it possible to do that in the future?


Lionel Chevrier: I am sure we will not.


Gordon Francis Higgins: I am trying to understand the Newfoundland item. I understand the figure is now $1,200,000; is that correct?


Lionel Chevrier: The figure originally indicated was $1,200,000.


Gordon Francis Higgins: But the first figure was $1,180,000, was it not?


Lionel Chevrier: For the .purposes of this discussion, that is roughly $1,200,000.


Gordon Francis Higgins: And this $1,158,000 has not yet been charged. That is actually what it came to.


Lionel Chevrier: That is right.


Gordon Francis Higgins: That is what you actually paid out.


Lionel Chevrier: The Department of Finance did. We did not pay it out, because it has not been transferred to us.


Gordon Francis Higgins: That is what has been paid out.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


Gordon Francis Higgins: The minister also said, as indicated in Hansard at page 2217, of May 5, that there was a sum of $300,000 to cover the value of outstanding accounts receivable for issues from Newfoundland stores pending recovery from votes. What was that for?


Lionel Chevrier: That was the sum required to cover outstanding accounts receivable for issues from Newfoundland stores, pending recovery from votes. It was an item which indicated a break-down of the $2 million which was required over and above the inventory of $3 million. I was trying to explain how the $5 million was made up at the time.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Does the minister mean that the $300,000 included the two items he has just given me?


Lionel Chevrier: I gave the amounts. I am not too clear on them myself.


Gordon Francis Higgins: You mean the $2 million, over and above the $3 million, included the $300,000 you are now talking about? What stores are you planning to carry in Newfoundland yearly?


Lionel Chevrier: Roughly a million dollars.


Gordon Francis Higgins: What would they be actually? How much at Gander?


Lionel Chevrier: I shall give the three items that are most important, and they are almost stationary. In themselves they make up practically the full amount. For plant, shop machinery and transmission equipment, parts and accessories, $293,738; and that must remain.


Gordon Francis Higgins: That is not a yearly amount; that is fixed.


Lionel Chevrier: We are talking about stores.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Is plant considered stores?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, plant in the sense of machinery for aircraft repairs. Then there is fuel, gas, petroleum products and oil, which must remain almost fixed, $406,946, for N e wf oundland.


Gordon Francis Higgins: What would that be for? What would you be supplying?


Lionel Chevrier: Aircraft.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Just Trans-Canada?


Lionel Chevrier: Not necessarily. There are purchases made from our stores at Gander by various air lines. They buy their gasoline.


Gordon Francis Higgins: They do not buy it from the Department of Transport?


Lionel Chevrier: Some of them do.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Not to any great extent?


Lionel Chevrier: There are other aeroplanes in the area.


Gordon Francis Higgins: There are not very many private aeroplanes.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, there are, but I am not going to discuss that. I am saying that is so, and that is the information I have. I do not think it is inaccurate. Then, for chemicals-no, this covers the restaurant at Gander and the provisions that must be kept on hand, $109,308. There are other items that are all small, ranging from $1,000 to $50 and $60. The items I have mentioned total about $800,000.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Did the minister say
"chemicals"?


Lionel Chevrier: That was an error. Chemicals amount to $8,944. I was looking at the wrong figure beside the description of the amount. It is provisions that amounts to $109,308.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Is it not planned to rent out the restaurant concession at Gander?i Then you will not have to carry that $109,000. I understood there is a tentative proposal to rent the restaurant concession; at least that is what I heard at Gander.


Lionel Chevrier: No.


Gordon Francis Higgins: How much of that $293,000 would be plant?


Lionel Chevrier: I have not a further breakdown of the amount.


Gordon Francis Higgins: The gas and oil seems very high, but you have the information, I suppose.


Mr. Stick:: Probably the plant takes in the railway machine shop and the drydock, does it?


Gordon Francis Higgins: It is for Gander only.


Leonard T. Stick: What about fuel oil; does that apply to the railway?


Lionel Chevrier: No, it is for air services only.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I should like to ask a question of the minister, but first of all I think we should thank the minister for the way he associated us with himself at the opening of his remarks this morning as being in a state of mental confusion. I think we should be grateful for being associated with the minister, even if it is only in a state of mental confusion.
Department of Transport Stores
I want to say a word in support of the suggestion made by the member for Van-couver-Quadra, but before I do that, I understand that the department manufactures for itself certain materials that it uses-buoys and things of that kind; or have I been misinformed?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, there are certain marine agencies which make their own equipment.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: How are the
prices for them fixed? Are they just turned in at cost?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, they are itemized at cost.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I want to say a word in support of the suggestion made by the member for Vancouver-Quadra. I do think it is clear that we are not talking about an expenditure; we are talking about what has been accurately referred to as working capital. We are talking about sensible business arrangements to facilitate the department. The only difference between us at the moment is the question of the amount. I believe the minister's amendment to clause 1 will make it clearer.
As to the amount, I want to go back for a moment to the debate in 1937, because it is perfectly clear from the words used at that time by the then minister of transport (Mr. Howe)-one must get wisdom wherever it can be found, even in unexpected quarters-that what was mainly in the minister's mind, in the mind of the then leader of the opposition, and in the mind of the then minister of finance, was that they were going to get these stores down. Speaking of the inventory, the then minister of transport said he thought it was far too large. He said, at page 2488 of Hansard for April 2, 1937:
It will be my aim to see that at the end of the year there are no surplus stocks.
He said he did not know whether that would be possible, but that was the aim.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I suggest very strongly to the minister that there is a danger if we make this over-all amount too large, that that aim would be largely missed. I am not going to go into a lot of figures, but I am going to put these figures to him. They sum up the situation as I see it, and, if he agrees with me, perhaps he would be induced to accept the suggestion made by the member for Vancouver-Quadra to reduce the over-all amount to $4 million.
Let me put it to him this way. During the last year, in effect, the amount of stores plus the present revolving fund was roughly $2,600,000, excluding Newfoundland. The significant thing to me, and it has been made

Department of Transport Stores very clear, is that that amount of working capital enabled the department to get by with reasonable comfort. Actually they did exceed their authority by some $72,000, but subject to that they got along all right. Newfoundland came in, and that certainly warranted some addition to the amount. I suggest, having regard to the fact the department got along last year with only $72,000 extra, that the figure suggested by the member for Van-couver-Quadra is $1,400,000 in excess of the $2,600,000, apart from the additions in Newfoundland, and should be adequate. .
Incidentally I quite agree with what has been said, that one should look very carefully at the gross figure for Newfoundland if it is going to be anything like half of the total for the whole of Canada. I put it to the minister that it is in keeping with the spirit of those who brought this measure into the house, on both sides; that this sum of $4 million is in accordance with what was intended, which was to put pressure on the officials to keep the amounts down. If, in fact, $4 million does not give them the elbow room which I think it will, then a year from now, on proper representations, it could be changed.


Lionel Chevrier: I am very much impressed by the points made by the member for Greenwood and the member for Vancouver-Quadra. After the explanations that have been given today, I do not think there is any other impression left in this committee but that we want to operate with what we require, and no more. I had been under the impression that with $1,500,000, we would be somewhat tight. It may be possible to carry on on that basis. We can try. I am willing to accept the suggestion, and I am willing to ask my officers to try, in order to meet the wishes of the committee. I stated that there was some confusion in the minds of the members of the house, and there was a lot of confusion in my mind, as to how this revolving fund operated. For the reasons which I gave earlier, I am willing to ask the officers to try to get along with $4 million, inclusive of the $3 million stores.
I have discussed it with the comptroller of the treasury, who is here before me, and he is willing to make an attempt at it, although he thinks it is going to be difficult. In fairness to the committee I should say that if I find it impossible to accomplish this, I shall have to come back next year and ask for another million, or $500,000, as the case may be. If the committee will accept, then I will move accordingly, if my hon. friend (Mr. Green) will withdraw his motion.


Howard Charles Green: I think the minister has been reasonable indeed in his suggestion about


this amendment, and I would ask for leave to withdraw the amendment I moved on the previous occasion.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Has the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra leave to withdraw his amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Green) withdrawn.


Lionel Chevrier: Then I would ask one of my
colleagues to move:
That section 1 of the bill, clause 5, be amended to read as follows:
The amount of advances to the Minister of Transport shall at no time exceed $4 million, including the value of stores from time to time on hand.
I would ask my colleague, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, to move accordingly.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I so move, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
On section 3-Accounting transactions to be at cost.-Deletion from inventory of obsolete stores.
Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the minister to explain the new section 8 that is provided for by this clause?


Lionel Chevrier: Does clause 3 carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Clause 3 of the bill contains both sections 7 and 8.


Lionel Chevrier: I am sorry. Section 8 reads:
The Minister of Transport, with the approval of the treasury board, may direct the deletion from stores inventory of obsolete or unserviceable stores . . .
The present position is that obsolete or unserviceable stores cannot be disposed of to the satisfaction either of the Department of Transport or of the Department of Finance. It will be done now by including an appropriation in the estimates.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Under this section, when the minister directs the deletion of unserviceable stores, does that mean selling them or destroying them?


Lionel Chevrier: It might be done in two ways -by declaring them surplus, and by having them sold by crown assets or destroying them.


Stanley Howard Knowles: When the value of stores so deleted is to be credited to the stores account, does that mean the stores account provided for in this bill, the $4 million?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: All right. The section goes on to say:
. . . and charged to appropriations that may be made by parliament for this purpose from time to time.

Does that mean the appropriations that are now in the vote for stores and purchases, or does it mean special appropriations to be put in?


Lionel Chevrier: No, it does not. It means
a separate appropriation which will be indicated in the estimates of the Department of Transport as an item "sold to crown assets" or as an item "destroyed".


Stanley Howard Knowles: In other words, if there is a loss through the deletion of obsolete or unserviceable stores, in the last analysis it will* be paid for by a special vote?


Lionel Chevrier: That is right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Can the minister answer one other question? I note that reference is made to "stores lost or destroyed". Has the value of stores lost been of any magnitude?


Lionel Chevrier: I am not able to indicate
what amount of stores has been destroyed or disposed of. For instance, in the fire which took place at the marine agency in Quebec some weeks ago, a substantial quantity of stores was destroyed. But to what extent or what the amount is, I am not able to say.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My question relates particularly to the use of the word "lost". When reference is made to stores lost, does it mean lost by fire, or just by inexplicable disappearance?


Lionel Chevrier: It can be lost in more than
one manner. It can be lost by fire. It can be lost by breakage. There are articles that break from time to time, such as bulbs. In the marine end concerning marine services and lighthouse services, there are a number of things that are breakable. Then from time to time there is the commission of theft, and articles disappear in that manner.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


Hon. Brooke Claxton (Minister of National Defence) moved: that the house go into committee to consider Bill No. 221, to provide for the payment and distribution of prize money.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Dion in the chair.
Sections 1 to 4 inclusive agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Joseph-Alfred Dion: Shall the bill carry?
Canada Prize Act


Edmund Davie Fulton: On division.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Shall I report the bill?


Edmund Davie Fulton: On division.
Bill reported.


Brooke Claxton: the third reading of the bill.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?	.


Edmund Davie Fulton: On division.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the third time and passed.



ELECTRICITY INSPECTION ACT


Clarence Decatur Howe: the second reading of Bill No. 263, to amend the Electricity Inspection Act, 1928.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Will the minister explain the import and purpose of this bill?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The purpose of the bill to amend the Electricity Inspection Act is threefold. First, it incorporates in the act certain changes which have been effected by the Public Service Rearrangement and Transfer of Duties Act. Second, it seeks power for the governor in council to alter the statutory period for verification of meters.
Section 10 of the Electricity Inspection Act and section 9 of the Gas Inspection Act require meters to be presented by the owners for reverification within six years from the last verification. The verification of a meter entails its being taken out of service to a place having special technical apparatus and equipment, and meanwhile a replacing meter must be installed in the consumer's premises. There are hundreds of thousands of meters to thus verify. During the war, the restrictions and scarcities were such that this peacetime process of verification was impossible. Consequently the wartime meter inspection order, being order in council P.C. 1450 of February 23, 1943, was made under the War Measures Act, which stated that those provisions of the two acts were not to apply to certain electricity and gas meters. It was revoked on April 1, 1947.
The result was that the statutory period for verification was interrupted for over four years, so that when the order in council was revoked there was a huge backlog of unverified meters. Not only did this present a very serious physical problem to the public utilities by reason of material and labour shortages, and to the inspection service, but it also presented a legal problem as to what was

Electricity Inspection Act the effect of the wartime order on the statutory time limits:	for example, was the
running of the statutory time merely suspended while the order was in force, or was the effect that the statutory period was to recommence on revocation of the order?
It appears that some difficulties still exist and that many meters due under the time schedule for verification in 1949 were not verified, and some due for verification in 1950 may not be verified in 1950. This bill will provide clear authority for extensions by the governor in council in necessary cases and for enforcement of the act where further extensions appear to be unwarranted.
In addition to the need for extending the six-year inspection period by reason of the wartime meter inspection order, the Ontario Hydro Electric Power Commission is undertaking the conversion of all 25-cyde power to 60-cycle power in southern Ontario. This program, it is expected, will cover the next ten to fifteen years. The problem facing the department is the six-year seal period of meters in so far as it affects meters of any contractor who may be scheduled for conversion immediately after the six-year period is reached. For example, meters sealed in 1944 are due to be resealed in 1950, and it is possible some of these will be included in the conversion schedule for 1951. In this event, under the existing legislation, the contractor would be required to present these meters in 1950 and again in 1951 after conversion, or present new meters if such are installed. There are some 400,000 meters affected by conversion. While it is extremely unlikely that this number would be in the position mentioned, with a minimum inspection fee of 60 cents per meter plus cost of removal, repair, etc., large utilities could be faced with sizeable expenditures which, on the ground of good sense, should not be incurred.
In a good many cases the contractors involved have extended every co-operation to the department with respect to their overdue meters, and to require verification in the succeeding year would, it is felt, be an undue hardship.
It might also be pointed out that power is vested in the governor in council under the Weights and Measures Act, which is another inspection service administered by the department, to fix the periods in which inspections may be made.
Third, this bill provides for the elimination of adhesive stamps, which are fixed to certificates of inspection at the present time as evidence of payment of fees for the inspection. The Electricity Inspection Act was originally administered by the old department of inland revenue, and it was

apparently the practice in that department that any document evidencing payment of funds to the crown should be receipted by stamps. There was the further feature that this practice did provide some measure of control of funds received by inspectors from companies where inspection work was undertaken.
Present-day practices have eliminated the necessity of this type of control. When meters are inspected in any utility, lists of these are entered on a document known as a "field note", which gives details of the work done and the fees due. When the work is completed, a copy of the field note is left with the contractor; the original copy together with a receipt for contractor's copy and the amount of fees due is returned to the district office of electricity and gas in the area. A bill is then rendered against the utility for the fees indicated in the field notes. When payment is made to the district office, a certificate is sent to the utility with the necessary value of cancelled adhesive stamps thereon. Even in the case of the smallest contractors, where the fees may be paid upon completion of the inspection, the stamped certificate is not issued except by the district office upon receipt of the field notes and the fees collected.
Stamps are in themselves not negotiable for postal or excise purposes, and the printing for the stamps required by the three inspection services-gas, electricity and weights and measures-costs between $1,200 and $1,500 a year. lit is felt that by including an appropriately worded receipt in the certificate, the stamps can be eliminated.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Dion in the chair.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
On section 3-Re-verification of meters.
Edmund Davie Fulton: May I ask the minister a question arising out of the statement he made? Is there any program in effect for getting back to the six-year period of inspection, apart from the difficulty created by the Ontario Hydro Electric Power Commission conversion? Or is it the intention merely to let the normal six years expire and then insist on the six-year verification from then on? Is any effort being made to catch up on the disruption caused by the war and to insist on the six-year period from there on?


Clarence Decatur Howe: A very serious effort has been made to catch up. I am told that there will be very few meters not inspected within the six-year period at the end of 1950. There may be a few. But the difficulty is that the

meters that have not been inspected are in a doubtful legal position, and in case any argument should arise, there should be the formal exemption.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Will the same thing apply to Ontario? Will the new period or the start of a new period be fixed at the completion of conversion so that it will be every six years from there on?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes; if the conversion is to be completed within a year from the end of the inspection period, the purpose would be to extend the existing inspection period for a year so that the new meters would be inspected and the old meters removed, as they would require to be in that case.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 4 to 6 inclusive agreed to.
On section 7-Offence.
Gordon Francis Higgins: I presume it is the intention to bring this bill into effect in Newfoundland as well?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time-now?


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave.


Clarence Decatur Howe: the third reading of the biU.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.
At one o'clock the house took recess.
The house resumed at three o'clock.



GAS INSPECTION ACT


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved the second reading of Bill No. 264, to amend the Gas Inspection Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, by leave of the
6. 1950	3253
Electrical and Photometric Units house I should like to move the second reading of Bill No. 265, respecting the units of electrical and photometric measure.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Clarence Decatur Howe: This bill is a tidying up bill. Its purpose is to bring the Canadian law into line with the laws of Great Britain, France and the United States, defining the units of electrical and photometric measure and thus giving effect to the recommendations made by the international committee on weights and measures, on which Canada wifs represented.
Appropriate legislation has already been passed in the other countries mentioned. Electrical units are at present defined under the Electrical Units Act, R.S.C. 1927, chapter 56. Photometric units have not been defined previously under Canadian statutes. This bill is entirely technical in character, bringing our legislation into line with that of other countries.


George Alexander Drew: It is not intended to proceed with third reading today?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Not necessarily.


George Alexander Drew: While the bill may be entirely technical, that may be a reason why an opportunity should be given to ascertain whether it is as simple as it seems. I am not raising any question as to the explanation that has been given, but it is possible that a bill such as this may present problems that are not apparent. I think it should stand before it goes forward for third reading, in order that it may be ascertained whether the details are in fact acceptable.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I shall be glad to hold over third reading of the bill.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
Bill reported.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
528. Departmental administration, $2,175,279.
Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Perhaps I might reply now to the questions put last night by the hon. member for Regina City and referred to by other hon. members with regard to the class 12-D patients, as we call it, that is those paying patients coming into our D.V.A. hospitals. I was asked if I could give any indication of
3254	HOUSE OF
Supply-Veterans Affairs the results of our experience so far, and I replied that the period had been quite short.
I should like to say again what I stated the day the announcement was made.
We are taking the first year to work this out as best we can. We are under no illusions, because we realize that it is a difficult problem; consequently I do not want to pin the department down too closely at this time as to charges and other factors. We realize that an attempt must be made to solve the problem sooner or later, and we would prefer to do it quietly, while there are comparatively few beds available, rather than let it move to a point after four, five or six years when there might be quite a number.
Hon. members will understand that when the hospital construction program was entered upon, arrangements had to be made for the peak load, coming normally in midwinter, as well as the valley load in midsummer, which we are approaching now. That means if the peak load has been provided for there are quite long periods during a year, even in normal times, when there are a number of beds vacant. It is now our intention to take advantage of the interim gaps to experiment as to how our federal D.V.A. hospitals may best be used in order to play their part in the hospitalization program of the country. Coming down to cases, this will give an indication of what is moving forward in the very short period that we have been trying it out. There has been a steady increase in the number of patients in this category, which we call 12-D to distinguish it from others. The number in class 12-D in D.V.A. hospitals rose from fifteen on April 11 of this year to sixty-five on May 30. Approximately 175 patients have been treated and discharged under this classification during April and May. As an example, one district has treated and discharged thirty-four patients, the total cost being $3,109, all of which except $86.20, has been paid or guaranteed to the department. Other districts have either had a similar or better experience. I have certain data with regard to the districts of Toronto and Montreal.


Mr. Blair:: What is the rate per day charged in these hospitals for non-pensionable veterans?


Milton Fowler Gregg: For veterans coming within this class?


William Gourlay Blair: Yes.


Milton Fowler Gregg: If I may I will answer that later, because I do not want to give my hon. friend the wrong answer.


Mr. Gillis:: I should like the minister to explain something about the point raised by


the hon. member for Lanark. A non-pen-sioned veteran may have a service disability entitling him to treatment, but he is not pensioned for it. I have had several of these cases recently where the veteran has paid his own transportation to the hospital and has entered on the assumption that he was at least going to get free treatment. After being there for a month he received a bill from the department at the rate of $9 a day. In most cases the veteran could have received the same treatment at a local hospital in his own community and at a much lower rate. He entered the D.V.A. hospital on the assumption that he was to get free treatment.
I should like to know when the rate of $9 a day was fixed, and under what regulation. In the case of a veteran such as the one I have mentioned, one who enters the hospital, has no money and is not able to take work, is there any provision under which the hospital bill may be waived after investigation? I should like to know how and when the rate of $9 was arrived at.


Milton Fowler Gregg: The situation referred to by my hon. friend may have existed before in the case of a veteran pensionable for one disability who had to go to hospital for another, which, according to the doctors, is a post-war disability and one in respect to which he is not eligible for pension or treatment. Now, however, such a man would come under the new arrangement for his non-pensionable disability. In other words, if he held Blue Cross insurance, or if he was paying it out of his own pocket, it would come under the new 12-D rate, which is not as high as the $9 per day in vogue before.


Mr. Blackmore:: Mr. Chairman, last night just before eleven o'clock I pointed out that there was a serious matter I wished to bring to the attention of the committee under this item. I should like to do now what I said I was going to do.
The matter which I desire to bring to the attention of the committee is one pertaining to what was known as the McCann commission. Members who entered the house as a result of the last election will not be familiar with that remarkable commission. In case they desire to look into the matter they will find it interesting to turn to pages 6232 to 6238 of Hansard for June 30, 1948. There they will find the speech I delivered in which I pointed out there were some things concerning the McCann commission that apparently were completely out of order, things which ought to be looked after before we could consider the matter as finished business.
There was an eminent pensions advocate in western Canada by the name of Walter H.

Kirchner. I felt that there was never a more sincere, earnest, industrious and persistent advocate of the rights of pensioners in the Dominion of Canada. This man was injured in world war I, and devoted himself to the welfare of his fellow veterans practically from the time of his return to Canada. He was known as the secretary of the Canadian Combat Veterans Association.- Mr. Kirchner had been entrusted by a good many veterans with the care of their petitions for redress of certain grievances. He had been to Ottawa a great many times and had prepared extensive briefs in relation to the cases of the various men who had presented themselves to him.
On July 16, 1947, the hon. member for Acadia and the then member for Swift Current brought to the attention of the house two -bad cases on which Mr. Kirchner had been working, and as to which there appeared to be grave irregularities as a result of which veterans had been deprived of their just rights. Hon. members will find these cases briefly summarized at pages 5759-5765 and 5768-5769 of Hansard for 1947. Apparently two things were supposed to have gone wrong in the cases of these men. First of all their plea was that their service records had been tampered with, that falsifications had been written into them through which they were deprived of their just dues in respect of pensions. The second complaint was that men called psychiatrists had diagnosed their cases and declared them to be not neurasthenia or some other nervous injury which would naturally result from war service, but mental trouble Which would be a pre-enlistment disability. If a man's case was diagnosed as pre-enlistment that automatically deprived him of a pension. These men felt they had been so deprived by these two irregularities committed by officers of the Department of Veterans Affairs. As a result of what has been said at previous times, together with what was said on July 16, the then minister of veterans affairs, Hon. Ian Mackenzie, made what was taken to be an undertaking. This is what he said, as reported at page 5769 of Hansard for 1947:
As far as we are concerned, I would welcome a committee of three doctors from this house to go into the suggestions that have been submitted, and I would suggest the Minister of National Revenue (Mr, McCann), the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Blair) and the hon. member for Invemess-Richmond (Mr. McGarry). They could meet some time between now and the next session and call in whom they want and submit a first-class report.
That suggestion appealed to all members who were particularly interested in these cases and who had been convinced that Mr. Kirchner was sincere and well informed,
Supply-Veterans Affairs which I believe he was. As a result of that statement by the minister there was set up what was known as the McCann commission. To show that the McCann commission was a public inquiry operating generally under the Inquiries Act, I desire to read into the record the following, which consists of excerpts from appendix A to the report:
Report of a commission appointed under the provisions of part I of the Inquiries Act by order in council P.C. 4980 dated December 4,	1947, as
amended by order in council P.C. 75, dated January 8, 1948.
1.	The following members of parliament were appointed by order in council P.C. 4980 dated December 4, 1947, and order in council P.C. 75, dated January 8, 1948, as commissioners under part I of the Inquiries Act for the purposes hereinafter set forth:
The Hon. James J. McCann, M.P., chairman, Ottawa, Ont.; Dr. M. E. McGarry, M.P., Margaree Forks, N.S.; Dr. W. G. Blair, M.P., Perth, Ont.; J. O. Probe, Esq., M.P., Regina, Sask.
R. H. Winters, Esq., M.P., Lunenburg, N.S., in the absence of the Hon. James J. McCann, M.P.
F. L. Barrow, Esq., Ottawa, Ont., departmental secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, was secretary of the commission.
2.	The purpose of the commission was to investigate complaints made by Walter H. Kirchner, Esq., M.C., D.C.M., secretary, Canadian Combat Veterans Association, Inc., Vancouver, B.C., regarding pension and treatment services and, in particular, to inquire into and report to the Minister of Veterans Affairs on
(i)	the adequacy of the treatment provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs with respect to the cases concerning which Mr. Kirchner has made representations:
(ii)	the qualifications and competence of departmental doctors treating these cases; and
(iii)	the adequacy of pension consideration given to the cases concerning which Mr. Kirchner has made representations.
5. The commission was charged with considering the cases of sixty-two veterans with respect to whom Mr. Kirchner had made representations. Subsequently, in giving his evidence at Vancouver, Mr. Kirchner presented one additional case in which it was understood that he had become interested only very recently.
I read this to show hon. members that the commission was set up as a first-rate commission. It was no second-rate affair, no two-for-a-nickel commission which could do its job in a more or less haphazard way. On the contrary, it was one of the most important commissions that could be set up in the Dominion of Canada.
I should like to draw the attention of hon. members to this important fact, that whereas, as I have already pointed out, the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) and Mr. Bentley had represented Mr. Kirchner as the complainant about (1) the falsification of records and (2) the felony of psychiatrists in the department, in the statement I have read setting forth the purposes of the commission, these complaints were not even mentioned.

Supply-Veterans Affairs
This is item No. 1: the minister of veterans affairs, apparently in all sincerity, set up a committee of the house to investigate complaints made by two members of the house on July 16. Then when the commission was set up, and its purposes set forth, among those purposes there was not even any mention of the charges which the commission was set up to investigate. I think every hon. member will realize that this was a flagrant disregard of the privileges of members of the House of Commons on the part of someone, and certainly it should not be allowed to go into the archives of the past and be forgotten. It remains to this day to be explained how that discrepancy occurred between the purposes set out in the order in council and the purposes for which the commission supposedly had been set up.
It is about this remarkable commission that I wish to protest this afternoon. May I point out at once that no one of the veterans concerned is in my constituency or in my province. I had contact with Mr. Kirchner and was directly interested in these men, purely because they were Canadians and veterans. But as a member of parliament responsible for the welfare of veterans and Canadians as a whole, I feel it my duty to bring this matter to the attention of the committee, and see if it cannot be cleared up.
This commission began to do strange things right from the time it commenced activities -strange things so far as I can see. There may be something I have not had brought to my attention; if there is, I shall be happy to be corrected. On November 26, 1947, as indicated at page 6234 of Hansard, the commission assumed authority to recommend to the minister whether he should sponsor further inquiry or action. When has it been established that any group of persons appointed by parliament as a royal commission, or as the agent of parliament, should feel itself empowered to make a recommendation to the minister as to whether he should go further into the subject under their examination? The fact that they presumed to do such a thing constitutes a most astonishing irregularity. Yet these gentlemen were responsible for that very thing on November 26, 1947. This statement I quoted at page 6234 of Hansard for June 30, 1948:
It was agreed that the commission would examine the files of the cases in which Mr. Kirchner had made representations and the other evidence at hand and would recommend to the Minister of Veterans Affairs whether he should sponsor further inquiry, or action.
The commission had no authority whatsoever to do anything of that kind, so far as I can see. They were appointed to look into the cases of these veterans who, according to

the representations of Mr. Kirchner, had suffered injustice at the hands of the Department of Veterans Affairs of Canada. They should have gone about doing that, instead of undertaking to advise the minister.
Apparently most of the evidence which this commission considered was recorded upon phonograph records, and that evidence has never been transcribed. Let me ask hon. members this question: what would hon. members think of the Rowell-Sirois commission report, if all the briefs and evidence upon which they based their findings had been recorded on phonograph records and had never been transcribed and made available for the people of Canada to read? What would you think if the Turgeon grain commission had been dealt with in that way? What would you think if a parliamentary committee, as my hon. friend has suggested, spent public money and time taking evidence and having that evidence recorded on phonograph records, then neglected to transcribe the evidence so that the people could read it? A report by this McCann commission was made out supposedly on the basis of the evidence, but the people who read the report were unable to gain access to the evidence except by listening to phonograph records before they were destroyed. Surely, it was a most astonishing way to proceed, to have members go into the archives to listen to phonograph records. They would have to depend entirely upon what they could remember. Perhaps the commission was advised to take evidence in that manner, but I think this house and the country are entitled to know who gave the commission permission or advice to make records of the evidence and not transcribe them or put them into a regular report which would be available to the members of the house and the people of the country.
The next important thing concerning this commission is that the veterans' witnesses were sworn, while the witnesses who appeared to give testimony against the veterans were not sworn. All hon. members have to do is to contemplate the seriousness of the injustice indicated there. Imagine that all those who appeared in support of the veterans were sworn, and all those who appeared to give testimony against the veterans were not sworn. They were free to say anything they chose to say. Did you ever hear of a public inquiry being conducted in such a slipshod and inequitable manner as that? Our present Minister of Veterans Affairs is in no way responsible for this. It was left on his doorstep so far as I can make out. I do not think he was responsible for the set-up
JUNE e, 1950
of the commission, the direction to the commission, or anything pertaining to the commission. However, we have the words of the minister concerning this matter of swearing the witnesses. On June 14, 1948, the member for Peace River requested a copy of the evidence and proceedings of the McCann commission, and in a statement on page 5151 of Hansard of that day, the minister said:
The witnesses were not sworn, and as a result they gave evidence over and above that which would have been required had they been informed that they were proceeding on a formal basis under oath. Some of the discussions at Vancouver were recorded on sound recording discs in order to assist the commissioner in writing his report on that phase of the hearing.
The minister does not specify that the witnesses for the men were sworn, while the witnesses against the men were not sworn. My information, however, is that that is what took place.
An important item concerning this commission is the fact that it consisted mainly of doctors, and no commission counsel was retained. They were free to obtain the best counsel available in the Dominion of Canada. They were free to call any person before them to supply evidence on any aspect of the problem under consideration, had they desired to do so. There is no excuse whatever for the commission omitting to retain counsel of the greatest ability. I think what I have said so far is sufficient to indicate that the most remarkable set of circumstances pertains to this commission. I am not saying for one moment that the commission did not act in good faith. There must have been some sort of misunderstanding somewhere, and I believe it is our task to find out how it arose. As a result of the misunderstanding, an apparent injustice was done.
It is interesting to note that from the very beginning of the investigation there was a campaign of what, from the standpoint of Mr. Kirchner and the sixty-two men, was misrepresentation. The misrepresentation would appear to have been designed to discredit Mr. Kirchner, to discredit the men, and discredit their claims, so that Mr. Kirchner would no longer be respected when he brought a case to the attention of the government, and the men's cases would not be heard with respect thereafter.
Now, this is the way the campaign of misrepresentation was conducted. At the outset it was advertised that the commission was going to investigate the kind of services that were being rendered in veterans hospitals, such as the Shaughnessy hospital in Vancouver, and the sort of medical services that were available to the men. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Kirchner had never once brought up any question concerning those two points. From
Supply-Veterans Affairs the beginning he maintained that Shaughnessy hospital was of the highest quality, and the medical services available under the Department of Veterans Affairs were of exceedingly high efficiency. For the commission to set out to investigate those two subjects, and begin a campaign to publicize those as the things they were going to investigate, was certainly playing unfair in respect to Mr. Kirchner and the men who were in his charge.
The next interesting thing is that this commission omitted to examine all of the cases. Only a few of the sixty-two cases were brought before the commission, and apparently they were selected. For any commission that was appointed with full powers under the public Inquiries Act to examine into a vexatious problem that had been irritating the country for years to neglect to examine all the cases amounts to the commission being derelict in its duties. According to my information, and I had it directly from Mr. Kirchner, the men who were subpoenaed to appear before the commission were required to appear personally, without the assistance of their pensions advocate. What would any ordinary man, or any ordinary member of this house, feel if he were subpoenaed to appear in a court in which his case was being tried, and his lawyer was not called in to present his case? It is exactly that sort of thing that was done in respect to the men who were called before this commission. The men were put on oath so they were afraid to make any remarks they had not come prepared to verify. They would be speaking from memory altogether, and the result would be that their testimony would be of a most unsatisfactory kind from their standpoint.
I cannot see how a commission, appointed under the conditions under which this one was appointed, having regard to the minister's remarks on July 16, 1947, could have proceeded in a more unsatisfactory way. Mr Chairman, I do not propose to say any more about this remarkable commission at the present time, but I can tell the minister that before we are finished with his estimates this year I think this house expects him to explain the irregularities in this situation. He should explain to us why a commission that was set up to examine two charges; namely falsification of records of men and felony on the part of psychiatrists of the department, should have devoted its time to a consideration of two completely different charges that were never laid in parliament, namely, the quality of the hospital service rendered at Shaughnessy and the quality of the departmental doctors who were available

Supply-Veterans Affairs for service to the men. From what I read in appendix A, I must say that the commission was entirely within its rights when it did devote its attention to the staff of the Shaughnessy hospital and the doctors employed by the Department of Veterans Affairs, because those were the purposes which were set forth in the appendix. What needs to be explained is why in the world the appendix or the order in council had failed to set forth the real purposes for which the minister of veterans affairs had apparently given his word there would be an investigation.
Then, of course, the next thing the commission has to do is to explain why they did several other things that I have mentioned, and I expect the minister to give the committee and the country answers to these questions. Why was it that this commission saw fit to take the most important evidence on phonograph records that were never transcribed and rendered available to the general public? Why was it that the commission, having before them the job of investigating 62 cases, saw fit to call only four or five cases? Why was it that the commission saw fit to swear some of the witnesses and to leave a number of the witnesses unsworn; and, if my information is Correct, to swear the very men who should not have been sworn and not to swear the men who should have been sworn? Then the next thing that the minister ought to explain is why the commission submitted to him and to the country a sketchy report in which we have their opinion instead of the evidence upon which they based their opinion.
Then I should like to ask the minister if he will tell us another thing, after he has had time enough to go into this matter-I am not expecting his answer today because he could not have known that a thing like this would be brought up, and consequently he is at a great disadvantage in attempting to answer what I have said-I should like the minister to tell us what he thinks can be done to guarantee justice to these 62 men who were evidently deprived of justice if the evidence of Mr. Kirchner submitted on their behalf is true; because this commission, either because of the terms of reference prescribing the duties set forth for the commission or because of the way the commission discharged its responsibility, neglected to look after that matter. There are 62 or 63 men there. I have the personal files of a number of these men, in my possession, and Mr. Chairman, they constitute material that is a serious reflection on the Department of Veterans Affairs of those days. I shall be glad to bring down to the committee some of the evidence in support of some of these

cases. I think the minister will not be able to square the department until he is able to take several of these cases at least and explain away the irregularities which are attributed to the Department of Veterans Affairs by the evidence of these men. I should like to know what he proposes to do now with respect to these 62 or 63 men so as to guarantee or to give them some sort of guarantee that they are going to receive justice.


Mr. Lesage:: That is about forty minutes.


John Horne Blackmore: That is all right. If we spent five times forty minutes to clear up an abomination like this, we would be doing very well. This constitutes an outrage of the first magnitude, so far as I can see.
Then I think the minister ought to explain, as I have already indicated, in considerable detail, just exactly how it came about, if it is on record, that after the late Hon. Ian Mackenzie promised the house by implication on July 16, 1947 that a committee would be set up to examine into the charges which were laid by the hon. member for Acadia and the hon. member for Swift Current, he failed completely to keep the promise under the terms under which the commission was set up. This is the first that I have had to say concerning this matter, but it will not be the last, Mr. Chairman, in this session.


William Gourlay Blair: I am obliged to leave shortly in order to attend an important committee. As a member of the opposition, it is not my purpose to defend the government at any time, but I believe in telling the truth; and I think that those things which are good should receive attention. When there is something to criticize, I think it should be criticized.
I have before me the terms of reference of this committee and they are as follows. They were to report to the Minister of Veterans Affairs on:
(1) the adequacy of the treatment provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs with respect to the cases concerning which Mr. Kirchner has made representations;
(ii)	the qualifications and competence of departmental doctors treating these cases; and
(iii)	the adequacy of pension consideration given to the cases concerning which Mr. Kirchner has made representations.
In so far as Mr. Kirchner is concerned, that is absolutely none of my business. He was a distinguished soldier, twice decorated for gallantry. But I am going to say this. Every person is not a psychiatrist; every person is not a surgeon, nor an orthopaedic man nor a man trained in the subject of internal medicine. With regard to the records being kept, I think that the hon. member who has just spoken would not want his history spread before the public on paper as the report of a

royal commission especially if the case were confidential. When you are dealing with veterans, I do not think there is one hon. member in this committee who would want the veteran's personal history spread before the public to make reading.
Serious charges were made against the hospital at Vancouver. If the hon. member wants to read some of those charges, I have the file in front of me. I am not going to place them before the committee.


John Horne Blackmore: Would the hon. member
tell us who laid the charges?


William Gourlay Blair: Yes; and I have them signed.


John Horne Blackmore: Was it Mr. Kirchner?


William Gourlay Blair: Yes.


John Horne Blackmore: When did he lay the
charges?


William Gourlay Blair: Would you like to hear them?


John Horne Blackmore: I want to know when he
laid them.


William Gourlay Blair: On May 26, 1947. It is signed
in print and also initialled by Mr. Kirchner. Those charges referred to things in Shaugh-nessy hospital which would not be tolerated at any time by the Canadian public, let alone the veterans. If you wanted it, Mr. Chairman, I could read into the record here certain statements that have been made, but I do not feel like doing that. Suffice it to say that serious charges were made against this hospital and against the surgeons who were operating and working in it. Dr. McGarry, now deceased, and I investigated the surgery in that hospital. We were up there at eight o'clock in the morning when the operating room first started to work. I must say this so far as the hospital was concerned. I reported to the veterans affairs committee when I came back. Dr. McGarry was not feeling well. I found it necessary to report before the veterans affairs committee that the hospital surgeons were most competent. I saw some of the finest work being done out there that I have ever seen in my life. There were statements made about the disabilities caused to men through an operation on the spinal discs. We found that the records of that hospital were far above the average. I should not say "far above." Let me withdraw that. We found that the records were equal to and slightly better than those of some of the best hospitals in this country. You have to be fair about these things.
We found that hospital most efficient. Do not let it be said that I am covering up doctors because I am a doctor. I covered nobody when it came to the plight of the veterans or the disability of any man. But 55946-206
Supply-Veterans Affairs these were most competent doctors. I see now that one of the surgeons has been appointed to a new chair of surgery in British Columbia's new medical school. When I saw that I remarked to myself that they had obtained a good man.
So far as the other branches of the hospital were concerned, we found equal efficiency; and so far as the whole report of the committee is concerned let me again draw your attention to this. If the committee did not write down on paper the result of the interview with every man-and when the hon. member says that there were only four or five cases investigated I want to tell him there was a thorough investigation-


John Horne Blackmore: How many cases?


William Gourlay Blair: We saw forty or fifty; at least I saw them personally out there, looked at them and examined them. It is quite all right to clear myself in this matter, and I am not defending the government because I would criticize them if I found something wrong. I criticized it before the veterans committee with the result that a clause was put in the veterans act which made it impossible or nearly impossible for some of these things to happen again.
As regards what we found in 10 per cent of the cases., I did criticize the government. I am calling a spade a spade. If a thing is true, if a thing is good, say so; if it is not, say so. We found in 10 per cent of the cases that we investigated out there that the government, or through its agency the Canadian pension commission, was not giving the benefit of the doubt to veterans. At that time in the veterans committee we brought in some enabling legislation which makes it imperative that the Canadian pension commission ' give the veterans the benefit of the doubt.
At first I did not feel like defending this thing because I was satisfied in. my own mind that this commission had done a good job. Everybody wants to be a doctor or a psychiatrist. I believe in keeping the confidence of any .patient that I examine. I could make statements in this House of Commons with which every hon. member would be in complete agreement, including the hon. member who has made these serious charges. It is sufficient to say, sir, that this committee was absolutely satisfied with the good hospital and the good staff, and that these serious statements which have been made regarding the mutilation of veterans had no foundation whatever. The hospital was most efficient. It had a good staff. I am perfectly sure that I am right in saying that it had as good a staff as could be obtained in any section of the country, and that the citizens of British

Supply-Veterans Affairs Columbia and Vancouver, particularly, might well be proud of the hospital and of the staff as it was at the time of the inspection.
I am not going to argue this question. I think it is more important to go to the committee on old age security at four o'clock than to stay here arguing this case; but I again call your attention to the fact that I would not want any relative of mine, who is a veteran in any hospital-I would not want his case to be paraded before the country whether he has to suffer from some form of psychosis; nor would I want his physical disability to be paraded before the whole country. In this I think laymen will be forced to recognize-and I think they will approve of it-that doctors have some degree of honour. I am just as much interested in the veterans as is any member of this house because-and I say this without any degree of, let us say, blowing-my family has been intimately connected with both wars. My son was a patient in the veterans hospital for two years after he came back. I am proud of the surgery, of the work and treatment that were given him. It was of the very best. I have no criticism to make. When I have a criticism to make of the Department of Veterans Affairs I will let them have it from the shoulder, but I am not going to be a party to any criticism involving myself as a medical member of that committee.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Chairman, it is quite obvious now that while everything the doctor says is completely reliable he has once more completely sidestepped the issue. Let me mention once more the fact that the charges were falsification of documents.


William Gourlay Blair: It was all looked into.


John Horne Blackmore: Why was no report given on that? You do not need to parade a man's personal and private affairs before anybody in order to prove whether or not his documents were falsified.


William Gourlay Blair: No.


John Horne Blackmore: There is no reference whatsoever to the question of felonious behaviour by psychiatrists in falsely diagnosing the condition of nerves of a young man, attributing his condition of nerves to a pre-enlistment condition, by calling it mental, whereas it should be attributed probably to something that occurred in service. You do not have to show any unsightly facts about a man's history in order to probe into these two problems, and these are the two problems which were specifically mentioned before the minister of veterans affairs, Mr. Mackenzie, on July 16, 1947. The doctor, however, has sidestepped the whole thing.

If Walter Kirchner made the charges against the Shaughnessy hospital and the doctors of the Department of Veterans Affairs I have never heard him do it, and I have heard pretty nearly everything that Walter Kirchner had to say for years because I worked with him. Anyway, these are not the things that Mr. Mackenzie said would be looked into. What I want to know is why in the world this commission was not set up to look into those things that Mr. Quelch and Mr. Bentley dealt with in the house on July 16? Why was it not set up to look into those things and why did it not do it?
The next important thing is this: I agree with the doctor that in the life of probably a good many soldiers there are many many things we would not have exposed to view; yet because of our reticence in this particular thing we leave the way open for the grossest kind of abuse of privileges on the part of nefarious men who as officials will deliberately falsify the records of a soldier in order to deprive him of his pension. There is no doubt in the world that that sort of thing has been done. There is no doubt in the world, as far as my information goes, that psychiatrists have been guilty of diagnosing a case pre-enlistment when it should never have been pre-enlistment. What I want to know is whether these two abuses were found in the records of these sixty-itwo men.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The doctor dealt with that.


John Horne Blackmore: The doctor did not say a thing about that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, he said that was
examined.


John Horne Blackmore: The doctor said not a word about that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, he did.


John Horne Blackmore: The report does not detail anything in that respect.


Paul Joseph James Martin: He said that was looked into.


John Horne Blackmore: Let us get the record completely straight. The doctor did not say a word about the psychiatrists. No, what he said-


Mr. Mitchell:: What is a psychiatrist?


John Horne Blackmore: I wish we all knew.


An hon. Member:: You should know.


John Horne Blackmore: I do not intend to get sidetracked now, not for a minute. If the minister does not know what a psychiatrist is, there is a dictionary in the library and he may go and look at it.


Humphrey Mitchell: I will give my definition of a psychiatrist. It is just an excuse for sin.


John Horne Blackmore: The minister could not have made a finer contribution to my case than he made in that remark. The conclusion I have arrived at is that psychiatrists have come to be a synonym for sinners in the Department of Veterans Affairs. I say that what the doctor has said utterly sidestepped any idea of the truth. I am not advocating that facts pertaining to the lives of these soldiers should be exposed, but I do contend that, if soldiers' service records have been tampered with or falsified, that can be proved without revealing any unsightly facts in their lives. If a psychiatrist has diagnosed a soldier's case pre-enlistment when that should never have been done, you can expose that without exposing any unsightly thing in the soldier's life. That is all I am asking for. I do think that this committee and the country and the sixty-two men involved are entitled to have these matters cleared up.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Mr. Chairman, I do not propose to follow the hon. member for Lethbridge, but he asked a number of questions as appear in Hansard of June 30, 1948, which he says I have not covered.


John Horne Blackmore: I did not say a word about those questions. The minister must be wandering in his mind.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I understood that in the early part of his remarks the hon. member quoted Hansard of June 30, 1948, that is his own speech, when he asked certain questions which he wanted the minister to reply to.


John Horne Blackmore: I did not say a word about those questions.


Milton Fowler Gregg: The reasons why I have not answered them to date were given more fully and better by the hon. member for Lanark than I could possibly do. Across Canada there are something like 10,000 men and women who have been seriously broken or damaged in either world war I or world war II, some of them mentally, some of them physically, and some of them suffering a combination of both. Under no circumstances will I be a party to publishing in the records of this house intimate departmental details on the mental and physical condition of individual veterans, giving their regimental numbers and names, as was done in the Hansard I have referred to.
I realize that hon. members must bring up individual cases from time to time, in a hypothetical way, in order to prove their argument to establish a principle. We welcome that. But as the hon. member for Lanark so well said, there are none of us who would want the record of our son, our
Supply-Veterans Affairs daughter, our brother or our sister spread on the pages of Hansard. In the next breath I want to say that ever since I came to the department I have continuously offered to the hon. member for Lethbridge complete access to the records for his personal and confidential information. He has been free to discuss with the medical men of the department any point he might care to when investigating these cases.
The hon. member asks me what I am going to do about the sixty-two cases about which that gallant gentleman, Walter Kirchner, has complained in British Columbia. I will tell him what I did about a few of them. When I was in British Columbia I went to see them. I came into a certain hotel in the Okanagan valley on a June night at about one o'clock and I found in the lobby of the hotel one of these men to whom the hon. member for Lethbridge referred two years ago. We sat down and talked about his past. What I am doing, what my department is doing, what the medical men and the administrative people are doing is to make sure that the utmost care and attention is given to these sixty-two patients of the department as well as the other 10,000 seriously hurt whom we have to care for.
In regard to these particular cases I am sure it is unnecessary to remind my hon. friend that the mere fact of their circumstances having been noised abroad in this house is a deterrent to their recovery. I do not mind his criticism regarding the McCann commission, and I am sure if the Minister of National Revenue were here he would not mind it any more than the hon. member for Lanark did a little while ago, except that he would want to express his point of view just as forcibly as did his professional colleague. When cases are brought to the attention of the house, as the hon. member for Lethbridge has done-I am grateful to him for not doing it by naming the individuals today-the individuals concerned are placed under an unnecessary strain in their rehabilitation and recovery.
I do not propose to go back into the history before my tenure of office in an attempt to do the things which the hon. member for Lethbridge has suggested I should do. I believe that there are a group of members on all sides of the house from British Columbia who are quite able to express any complaints on the part of their constituents. I have not had from any one of the nine or ten ex-servicemen who make up the British Columbia membership in this house any complaint or suggestion that the charges of persecution and other things made by the hon. member for Lethbridge had any basis

Supply-Veterans Affairs in fact. Not one suggestion had been made during the two years I have been Minister of Veterans Affairs. In view of that fact, and because I have looked very carefully into these things in the department, I do not propose to go into the background of what is known as the McCann commission.


John Horne Blackmore: Which means that the minister does not propose to tell the committee how it came about that when specific charges of falsification of records and misdeeds of psychiatrists were made on July 16, 1947, the commission was set up with terms of reference specifically omitting both of those charges?


Milton Fowler Gregg: It was not a commission in the formal sense. If 1 read the story of my distinguished predecessor correctly, that commission which represented both sides of the house was set up with a sincere desire to have charges that were presented at that time looked into fully and carefully and informally. I do not think there was ever intention of calling counsel and making it in substance a commission. I am completely satisfied that if there had been any basis for the charge that records had been falsified, or in the other matter referred to by the hon. member for Lethbridge, the gentlemen who went west on that commission would have taken them into consideration in their report.


John Horne Blackmore: The minister's statements are entirely out of contact with the facts. The commission was set up under part I of the Inquiries Act, and to call the proceedings of such a commission set up under such circumstances informal is nothing but sheer nonsense. If it was never intended that this should be a formal commission investigating in a first-class manner, why was all the trouble taken to set it up under part I of the Inquiries Act?


Mr. Goode:: The minister has mentioned that the British Columbia members have made no representations in this matter, and he is correct. As a new member of the house, I had representations made to me some time ago about these cases. I have learned in the short time I have been here that I am on safe ground to refer such cases to certain veterans organizations. If these organizations support them then I take them to the department. I can say now that when I took two of these cases to a certain veterans organization the organization did not support them, and therefore I have not brought them to the attention of the minister.


Mr. Mutch:: Before the item is carried may I say a word. It falls to my lot to say a few words about one who, for some thirty years,

has been a "good companion" to all who have sought in this chamber and elsewhere to serve in civil life those who served all of us in Canada's wars. It is both a privilege and an honour to pay tribute to one who so richly deserves it. It is a pleasure deeply tinged with regret that the time has come when such tribute can be appropriately made. Perhaps no one in the house has been blessed with a wider opportunity to work and enjoy a measure of intimacy with Dr. Woods than it has been my good fortune to enjoy.
There are others more qualified than I to speak of the genius which he brought to bear upon the problem of organization in the Department of Veterans Affairs. There are many in the chamber who will have had personal experience of his patience and unfailing tact as he sat with us in various committees. There are many indeed who have experienced his help in attempting to obtain benefits for veterans who had appealed to them.
I should like to pay my tribute to the man himself. For more than three decades he has made a career of seeking the ultimate good of Canadian veterans. This has been his life work, he has made their problem his problem, and from their ranks he has drawn many of his personal friends. In Dr. Woods' relations with his associates he has been a loyal colleague and a considerate chief. Under his example his associates have been inspired to regard their jobs as an opportunity for and indeed a call to service.
Walter Woods, as he is known to thousands, served in the ranks in world war I. It is characteristic of the man that even then he was enlisted in a cause rather than embarked upon a career. As a senior civil servant Walter Woods has lived up to the best traditions of the service. He has never forgotten that to a man in trouble his problem is, for the moment, the most important thing in his life. He has not forgotten that members of parliament, however limited in their personal capacities, appear in this house and in departmental offices clothed with the dignity which public election has conferred upon them. Because of this quality Walter Woods has been able, yielding nothing from the dignity of his own office, to be friendly, courteous and co-operative, and never compromising the position of those who sought his help.
It has been said, and I think rightly, that Canada came out of world war II better organized than any other allied country to meet the immediate post-war problems of the veteran. That this was true was and still remains a wonderful tribute to the late Right Hon. Ian Mackenzie and the government

which encouraged him. Mr. Mackenzie was always quick and generous in his tribute to the man who was not only the chosen instrument in the initiation of administration but also a wise and valued counsellor on matters of policy.
I might go on endlessly, Mr. Chairman, illustrating the qualities and character of Walter Woods, this great public servant. I will not, for his story is written in the hearts of men. This session will be his last in his post as deputy minister of veterans affairs. It is for that reason that I have desired to pay him some tribute while he is here among us. It will be the wish of all of us that as he goes to take his leisure he will preserve permanently for us and for posterity something of the store of wisdom he has acquired. For inspiration, for encouragement, for high example of selfless devotion in a great cause, for good advice and for some discipline, I desire to tender my personal thanks publicly.


Mr. Mclvor:: In the last few years I have had a good deal to do with the pensions board and the Department of Veterans Affairs. I must say that I never wrote a letter or made a request to which I did not get a prompt reply and reasonable answer from Walter Woods. I should like to give the example of one man who was receiving $9 a month as a pension consequent upon Ms service in the first world war. He jollied me along and said, "I hope you will look after the veterans better this time than you did last time". I said, "What is the matter with you?" I got his army number, and his pension was raised to $60, then to $80 and now he is getting $100 a month, because it was a case where the doctors perhaps did not agree. I should like to say that I think the family doctor should be given far more consideration that he is. These doctors know the pensioners. I had one case where a man died with shrapnel in his liver. The other doctors disagreed and thought he was foolish. The post mortem showed, however, that the shrapnel was there. I hope to have this man's widow taken care of. I should like to pay my tribute to the minister and to his predecessor. I heard the late Right Hon. Ian Mackenzie stand up in the house and say that if there was any man who knew of a pensions advocate who was not giving the pensioner the benefit of the doubt he wanted to know about it. That attitude was a splendid influence and help. The present minister is doing a great job, and we should back him up. I should like to pay my tribute to the chairman of the pension board and to the others who have given us such outstanding service. I could give a long list of cases where men have benefited.
Supply-Veterans Affairs


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, knowing Mr. Walter Woods very well I feel quite confident that these are very embarrassing moments for him. I hesitate to add to his embarrassment. Down through the years it has been the privilege of those of us who have served on veterans affairs committees to learn of the wonderful work done by Walter Woods. I think Canada is fortunate in having a civil service that cannot be excelled in any other country of the world. In that service I do not believe there has been a finer civil servant than Walter Woods. He has been a great friend of the veteran, and I think a great friend of the Canadian people. The way in which he has approached the problems of veterans has shown him to be one of the biggest men of our generation. I am very happy to be able to pay this slight tribute to him today. It is too bad for Canada that the time has come when he has to retire. I am sure that all of us hope he will live for many years to enjoy the retirement he has earned so well.


Mr. Herridge:: On behalf of this group, and particularly the members of this group who are veterans and who have had a long association with Dr. Woods, I want to express our support of the statements of the previous speakers and our admiration for the long period of service Dr. Woods has rendered to Canadian veterans and their dependents. I am sure Dr. Woods will be long remembered by thousands of veterans and their dependents in Canada because of the things he has done for them. Whether it was as deputy minister of veterans affairs, whether he was attending a committee to give evidence, whether he was answering questions, or whether one met him on the street or at a veterans' convention, it was obvious that his first consideration was to do the best he could for the man who served his country.
In concluding my brief remarks I believe I would be expressing the sentiments of the great majority of members of the House of Commons if I were to say, in the words of that grand old poet, Moore:
When Time, who steals our years away.
Shall steal our pleasures too,
The memory of the past will stay,
And half our joys renew.


Mr. Quelch:: Hon. members of this group would like to associate themselves, too, with the kind remarks made concerning Dr. Woods, and the very fine work he has done on behalf of the veterans of Canada. In all my contacts with him in the last fourteen years I have always found him most anxious to do everything within his power in the interests of the veteran. This was specially true during those years when he was chairman of the war veterans allowance board, and when he earned

Supply-Veterans Affairs the reputation of having an understanding and sympathetic heart in respect of all veterans problems. So we extend to him our best wishes for an interesting and enjoyable life in retirement.


John Horne Blackmore: Just before we leave this matter, I should like to put on record-


Milton Fowler Gregg: Before the hon. member continues, would he permit me to express my appreciation of this very happy interlude. There is one satisfying feature, and it is that these kindly words will be preserved and will appear on Hansard. One can almost regret that it is not possible for the deputy minister to respond directly to the high tributes which have been paid to him this afternoon by hon. members from all corners of the house. I should think that such a series of generous and well earned eulogies constitutes an almost unique occasion in this chamber. However, it is completely in order that this should have been done, because every phase of the work coming under the Department of Veterans Affairs has been immeasurably enriched by the patient guidance and clear vision of the distinguished recipient of the kind words expressed this afternoon.
As the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra has said, Canadians owe a great deal to Walter Woods-and when I say "Canadians" I refer to both veterans and non-veterans. Both generations of veterans have an intimate knowledge of his work, and I am sure no words of mine could add to the expressions of appreciation received from one end of this country to the other.
When the veterans returned after the last war, and even before that time when the veterans' charter was under consideration, Walter Woods acted as a focus behind all those activities. He was most active in the evolution of that veterans' charter. To its preparation he gave much of his experience, and to a high degree its success was due to his realistic and friendly outlook on life.
At the time of demobilization there came into being throughout the whole of Canada a marked receptive atmosphere which played a paramount part in the whole job of rehabilitation. That receptive, friendly and welcoming atmosphere has continued from 1945 to the present. Many factors entered into it, one of the most important of which was the setting up of citizens rehabilitation committees in our cities. The establishment of those committees did not just happen; they were evoked by the enthusiasm and hard work of the deputy minister.
And so this afternoon I should like to add my simple tribute to those which have already been made to a friend and a great public servant.


John Horne Blackmore: Far be it from me to strike a discordant note concerning the work of a great man in the veterans' service. I believe he is entitled to those expressions, and I rejoice in the fact that these things have been said. I concur in what was said by the hon. member for Acadia, who spoke for every member of this group.
But, Mr. Chairman, let us bear this in mind, that when an inspector goes out to assess the strength of a chain he does not inspect the strongest link; he seeks out the weakest. It is my business, as a sort of inspector, representing my constituency, to seek out the weak links in what we are doing. Thus it is that we shall pave the way for that evolution to which the minister referred, so that by and by we shall have a set-up in Canada in which we may have complete confidence.
I wish to place only two things on Hansard, so that hon. members may know that there has been a good deal of smoke screening resorted to this afternoon by those various members who have tried to brush off what I have said. People will understand that behind these smoke screens there are some grim realities. First of all the minister endeavoured to establish the idea that the commission was not appointed to act as a formal commission. So that the facts may stand right out, and so that we may know just how serious that commission was, and how much this country has a right to expect from it, I should like to quote briefly. First of all, the commission was appointed under the provisions of part I of the Inquiries Act by order in council P.C. 4980 of December 4, 1947, as amended by order in council P.C. 75 of January 8, 1948.
Commissions appointed under that paragraph are not secondary commissions. They stand in a class with the best commissions ever appointed by the House of Commons, and the house has a right to exact just as complete a service and just as clear a report from them as from any commission ever set up in Canada. May I now read the powers the commission had, and in doing so I shall turn first to the Inquiries Act, chapter 99 of the revised statutes of Canada, an act respecting public and departmental inquiries. Part I reads as follows:
1.	This act may be cited as the Inquiries Act.
2.	The governor in council may, whenever he deems it expedient, cause inquiry to be made into and concerning any matter connected with the good government of Canada or the conduct of any part of the public business thereof.
3.	In case such inquiry is not regulated by any special law, the governor in council may, by a commission in the case, appoint persons as commissioners by whom the inquiry shall be conducted.
4.	The commissioners shall have the power of summoning before them any witnesses, and of requiring them to give evidence on oath, or on solemn affirmation if they are persons entitled to

affirm in civil matters, and orally or in writing, and to produce such documents and things as the commissioners deem requisite to the full investigation of the matters into which they are appointed to examine.
5.	The commissioners shall have the same power to enforce the attendance of witnesses and to compel them to give evidence as is vested in any court of record in civil cases.
All I am asking is that this House of Commons and the minister shall demand of the commission under consideration, the McCann commission, the performance they have a right to expect under the provisions I have just read. That is all. I suggest they have not begun to discharge their responsibilities under those provisions.
Then the next little bit of smoke screening that has been done has been to raise the crocodile tears about having the private records of the soldiers thrown open to public gaze so that everyone could read them, but that is not what I proposed. Oh, the hon. member need not try to laugh it off.


Mr. Lennard:: I am not trying to laugh off the hon. member or anyone, but I know a rose when I see one.


John Horne Blackmore: The hon. member cannot know a rose unless he looks at it. Here is the sort of question to which the commission would have found the answer. These are questions that were asked by the member for Acadia, as found on page 5764 of Hansard for July 16, 1947:
Did Dr. William Baillie, departmental psychiatric consultant, who has never seen John Thom personally, submit as "evidence" to the Canadian pension commission his-opinion based solely on a statement alleged by Dr. B. F. Keillor to have been made to him by John Thom?
Did John Thom submit evidence to the Canadian pension commission denying the statements attributed to him by Dr. B. F. Keillor and submitting documentary evidence in proof they should have been expunged from the records as falsities?
Did the Canadian pension commission accept Dr. William Baillie's opinion, based on Dr. B. F. Keillor's challenged statement, to outlaw John Thom's pension claim as a total war disability?
I do not think there is any member in this house who would hesitate to have the facts of his personal life, or that of his son, or his brother, or his grandson, or anyone else, revealed to the extent of answering questions like that. Those questions could have been answered sufficiently to justify or to condemn this action. Those are the questions this commission was supposed to answer, and I submit the greatest detail could have been given concerning the evidence bearing on all such questions as those. Those questions should have been investigated, evidence should have been adduced and included in the report.


Howard Charles Green: There are two questions I should like to place before the minister in
Supply-Veterans Affairs connection with this item. The first one is this. During the present session frequent requests have been made of the minister that a committee foe set up to deal with veterans affairs. As you know, Mr. Chairman, we have been unsuccessful in those requests. I regret that there has been no such committee during this session. It is now too late for a special committee to function, but I should like to urge upon the minister that he have such a special committee set up during the 1951 session. In fact, I would prefer to have the rules amended to provide for a standing committee on veterans affairs. If the minister does not see fit to make a recommendation for a standing committee, he should at least have a special committee of ithe house set up to deal with these important questions. There are important problems coining up all the time, and sooner or later a committee of the house will have to be set up to deal with them. The longer the establishment of such a committee is delayed, the more difficult the problems become.
For example, there is the question which has come up within the last twenty-four hours concerning hospitalization. There are different views on that question which is worrying the veterans across the country. Much has been done in that respect, but there is dissatisfaction with regard to some of the provisions. This dissatisfaction could probably be ironed out if a committee were given an opportunity of considering the question. Another problem concerns the treatment meted out to the men of the merchant navy. As the minister knows, I have raised that matter on various occasions, and I do not intend to do so again today. The position of these men should be exam* ined carefully by a committee of the vet* erans of this house.
There are other problems connected with the war veterans allowance and the pension act. For example there is the position of the children of those veterans who gave their lives for this country. Today those children are likely to be handicapped because their fathers were lost when serving Canada. I have always hoped that some arrangement could be made so that these young folks could start off in life on just the same basis as the children of those of us who were fortunate enough to come back from one or both of the great wars.
Those are just four of the problems which I believe could well be considered by a committee of the house. If the minister would intimate now that he intends to ask for the establishment of such a committee next year, the result would be that the Canadian Legion, the Army, Navy and Air Force Veterans, the

Supply-Veterans Affairs Amps, the Canadian Pensioners Association, the Canadian Corps Association, and other veterans bodies could be considering the various problems and preparing briefs on them. I am sure that when their representatives appeared before such a committee they would present briefs that would be extremely helpful. They have always done so in the past, and would do so again. My question is whether or not the minister would be willing to recommend the setting up of a committee on veterans affairs at the next session.
My next question has to do with the medals issued for service in the recent war. There has been discussion in the house from time to time about those medals being issued without the names inscribed thereon. I suppose it would be too late now to do anything about the medals for the men who returned, but I believe the minister should give consideration to calling in the medals which were sent out to the next of kin and having the names inscribed on them. Some months ago when in Vancouver I was interviewed by a father who had lost his son. He was deeply concerned about this whole question. In fact, he felt so deeply he wrote a letter to the minister. I have a copy of it, and I should like to read a paragraph or two which I believe sum up the situation just about as well as it could be done. He writes:
If these medals had borne my son's name, I would have been glad to receive them and proud to place them in the family archives. It happened that my son died well. But they do not bear his name. They are just four medals picked from four stockpiles, packed, not too tidily, into four little boxes and sent with instructions on how they should be worn.
Worn by whom?
He goes on to say he is returning the medals, and then we find this paragraph:
I suggest the government could, even now, cleanse from the national record the more hurtful feature of its disgraceful parsimony, by recalling at least all medals sent to next of kin and having them inscribed with the names of the men who earned them.
There is nothing more that one can add to that request. I do hope the minister will be able to give us some assurance that there is a possibility these medals will be called back for the names to be inscribed thereon. Those are the two questions upon which I should like to have a statement from the minister, Mr. Chairman.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Before the minister replies,
I should like to support the remarks of the member for Vancouver-Quadra concerning the calling of a veterans affairs committee for 1951, to consider veterans legislation. This proposal was made by the Canadian Legion some months ago, and they are very emphatic about it. Now that close to three years have


elapsed since the committee last sat, they believe that the government and the country have had some experience with the important legislation which was drafted or adopted at that time. The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra mentioned hospitalization. In British Columbia, while we are well pleased with the services of the administrator and the officials of the department in British Columbia, I think there are certain aspects of hospitalization which should be brought to the attention of the committee and discussed. The same thing may be said with regard to the merchant navy which the hon. member speaking previously has mentioned. That is a situation that wants clarifying. A good many people in this country believe that something more must be done for the merchant navy veterans if justice is to be done. Then there is the question of the Veterans Land Act. The Veterans Land Act administration has, I should say, been effective and on the whole successful; but there are certain local situations which arise, certain details of administration and certain weaknesses in the legislation that should be discovered and considered by a committee.
Then again, there is the administration of the various benevolent funds for veterans. I think it would be wise to have a report from the administrators of those funds to a veterans committee in order to see if the legislation and the administration can be improved. I therefore urge the minister to give consideration to the proposals of the Canadian Legion-those are the proposals we are actually advocating this afternoon-that a special parliamentary committee on veterans affairs be called to discuss these important questions.


Gordon Francis Higgins: I have one question to ask the minister, and I will not delay him long. It is in connection with the supplementation of the imperial pensions. In order that the minister may be aware of the situation, I believe an answer was given last year which may be found at page 443 of Hansard. The question was asked by Mr. Church and the reply was given by the parliamentary assistant to the minister. The question was as follows:	|
1.	In view of the devaluation, will consideration be given by the government to providing imperial veterans residing in Canada some allowances for devaluation of the pound sterling?
2.	Will any action be taken?
The reply was:
Canadians who were domiciled in Canada prior to their service with the British forces have their British awards of pension supplemented by Canada to an amount equivalent to that paid to Canadian pensioners under similar circumstances. The recent devaluation of the pound sterling will consequently not affect such pensioners.

The other part of the question is the one I am more interested in.
The only proviso is that such supplementation may only be paid during residence in Canada. Other than the foregoing, no provision exists to pay moneys from public funds to imperial veterans who were non-pre-war residents and have income from some British source on the grounds that their income is affected by the change in rate of exchange.
The position is this in one particular instance. A distinguished member of the imperial forces, who began to reside in Newfoundland shortly after world war I and who has been a permanent resident there ever since, I believe has not had his pension supplemented. I was wondering what the answer is to such a case. There are more than one involved, but that is the only one I know of. I wonder if the minister can tell me something about the case.


Milton Fowler Gregg: To try to answer the hon. member for St. John's East first before I come to the other questions, may I say that the situation has not changed a great deal. The group in which he and many of us are particularly interested, owing to the effects of devaluation, are those men who served with the British forces, were not domiciled in Canada before service, were pensioners and came to Canada during past years. Two things of some assistance have happened. One of them is the fact that under our recent legislation small pensioners who came to Canada twenty years ago and have lived here since may be eligible to receive some help under this new legislation. The other one is that the head of the British ministry of pensions here in Ottawa, about the end of our last session of parliament, made a special trip to Britain to seek some assistance; and he obtained assistance to meet hardship. I will admit it was something of the nature of our own war veterans allowance assistance fund. We were called upon-and we are happy to do what we can, although we have no responsibility for doing so-to co-operate with the British ministry of pensions by helping to provide information.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Is there any difference in the type of pension, whether it is long service or disability?


Milton Fowler Gregg: What I am speaking of, of course, is disability pension only.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Long service is not affected at all?


Milton Fowler Gregg: As far as I know, there is no assistance in that regard.
I welcome the opportunity provided by several members to say a word with regard to a parliamentary committee. During the last six months I have had the pleasure of speaking to quite a number of veterans 55946-207
Supply-Veterans Affairs organizations throughout the country. As has been indicated here this afternoon, many of them have represented to me that they would like to have a parliamentary committee from time to time. It might be just as well if I at least had the virtue of consistency and gave to the house what I have said on those occasions.
I believe that there are times for a parliamentary committee on veterans affairs and that there are times for a period of freedom from a parliamentary committee. One of the times for a parliamentary committee is when the government is submitting to parliament important legislation introducing new principles which affect veterans and which require intensive study. A great example of that, of course, was in the years during the war and at the end of the war when orders in council were converted into statutes. But one of the times for freedom from a committee is when the department is absorbed in consolidating changes in legislation and in adapting its administrative technique to meet the new conditions; and I think this last year or two has been one of those periods.
Time and staff have been needed to keep abreast of the changes designed to meet the changing needs. I do not think any hon. member will accuse my department of being averse to bringing in amendments to legislation if we felt that they were needed. In addition to the quite impressive list of changes that were made as a result of the report of the 1948 parliamentary committee, last year quite voluntarily we brought in not world-shaking but still valuable amendments to the War Veterans Allowance Act. This present year we have brought in what I hope will prove to be valuable amendments to the War Veterans Allowance Act. The changes in pension rates, the 1948 changes in war veterans allowance rates and the various changes in the legislation have required some time to digest and to put into force. Government departments I suppose must move slowly and at least they should move carefully. If for no other reason they have to move slowly because they have to move in conformity with some nineteen or twenty other departments. I do not at all mind being pushed as Minister of Veterans Affairs, but I do not want to have the department pushed into making its officers available for study in a parliamentary committee of matters about which nothing can be done at that particular time, and I hasten to add those particular words. I did not want to be guilty of kidding the excellent troops, as might have been done this year, by setting up a committee thus encouraging veterans and other bodies to send representatives long
3268	HOUSE OF
Supply-Veterans Affairs distances, costing time and money, to make representations before a parliamentary committee which I knew the government was not able to put into effect this year. The one which I knew could be put into effect I brought forward, and it at least has passed this house.
The national organizations of veterans, everyone knows here, are in the closest touch with the veteran constituencies across Canada. I can say the same of the hon. members of this house. "There is not a member of this house, in whose constituency there are many hundreds of veterans, who is not in close touch with them. If it is individual cases of grievances, or unfairness or hardships, the quickest and most effective committee or people to deal with it are those in the district office. If no recourse can be obtained there I can assure hon. members that we in Ottawa are only too glad to go into these cases at once. In any event, in the past parliamentary committees have in the main dealt with principles and not with individual cases. When suggestions have been made for improvements in administration or in legislation, open discussion has taken place here and there has been an opportunity and there will continue to be an opportunity for the national veterans organizations to make representations before the minister at any time and before the cabinet at regular intervals. I consider it perhaps as valuable to maintain that direct route as it is slavishly to set up a parliamentary committee every session whether there is any particular job for it or not.
Having said that, may I say that when the government introduces legislation, or for any other reason there are improvements in veterans affairs, I shall be glad to discuss the matter of a committee with my colleagues. I have said these things because I have felt that at this particular session of parliament no parliamentary committee was necessary.
On the other point made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, my department became the custodians and shippers of the medals in midstream. Hindsight is often better than foresight. If one were put back into the situation that must have obtained at the end of the war when decisions were reached as to what should have been done, my opinion would be that I would have agreed with the steps that have been taken with regard to the medals for perhaps no better reason than this. As hon. members know, all the medals issued to Canadians received the authority emanating from the war office with the exception of one, the C.V.S.M. In former wars they were made in London and sent to Canada. This time-I suppose it may
[Mr. Grege l

have been owing to the vast number of men and women involved-at any rate in the United Kingdom, in the United States and in Canada decisions were reached that medals be issued without the names stamped on, not engraved, because our old medals were not engraved. They were stamped around the edges as with a punch and hammer; the names and regiment were put on. On that basis our mint went ahead this time and produced them. As it has turned out, there are approximately 3J million individual medals in the lot. Those who saw the magnitude of this job looming up-certain veterans were entitled1 to eight medals each-realized that it was going to be easier and quicker to pack them up, wrap them and send them than to have them stamped or engraved and then to sort out John Jones' several medals out of the pile of 3 million. It was admitted that it would take at least three years longer than it did to get out the medals if the stamps were made. I am going to confess immediately that I am not worrying so much about those who are living but I will not take any exception whatsoever to the remarks that have been made regarding those who have gone out to the next of kin. I quite heartily wish it had been possible to have got these and to have had the names appear on them. While I can see difficulties in reversing orders and having them come back, nevertheless my officials are studying the situation to see whether there is any possibility of sending something out that might be attached to them and that would be appropriate.
A question that has been asked not here but elsewhere is, why was it necessary for the veterans 'to go to the post office and get a postcard like an old field postcard and put on their name and number and address? The answer is, it is not always clear how much veterans, after their rehabilitation, moved around in Canada. Even in respect of those in receipt of pensions, we find it very difficult to keep tab on them from month to month; consequently it would have been simply hopeless to have sent the medals to the addresses registered on the date of discharge.
The suggestion was also made that the medals were not well parcelled. I will admit that the parcel was not perhaps a very solid one. The suggestion is sometimes made that a good deal of slapdash and carelessness was evidenced in shipping out the parcels. I disagree with that. The medals were carefully packed. It was brought to my attention that after the first war when the medals went out they did not know the order of precedence and one was up and one was down; the suggestion was made this time that a little booklet be put in giving that information; furthermore, that

something be inserted so that the veteran's wife or his best girl could sew them on evenly. A bar was put in depending on the number of medals a man had. These, with a message of appreciation from the Minister of National Defence, were put in the parcel and sent to the veteran. But on the point made, I can assure the hon. member that, whether we have any success or not, we will look into the matter with regard to the medals. that have gone to the next of kin.


Frank Exton Lennard: Will the minister refer at this time to the matter I brought up as to why the personnel of Dieppe were not awarded the Northwest Europe Star or decoration. I do not want to know, but I think it should be said at this time.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I would prefer to have the document I have here on that, but I think I can give it quite clearly. My hon. friend means the medal for western Europe.


Frank Exton Lennard: Yes.


Milton Fowler Gregg: That was the medal authorized by the war office to come into effect for those who landed and fought on the continent of Europe after V-E day, which was, as my hon. friend knows-


Edmund Davie Fulton: After D-day?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Yes, assault on Europe day. That was quite a long time after the Dieppe battle. I know that after a great deal of correspondence steps were taken by Canada and by my colleague the Minister of National Defence to that end. The request was made that these medals be made available for Dieppe; but after long conferences it was decided that if exceptions were made for one group which landed, exceptions would have to be made for the various members of smaller commando raids and other attacks on Europe prior to the main landing.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Shall the item carry?


Mr. Harkness:: Is the minister now in a position to answer the question I asked last night? How many of those people who are listed as temporary employees are likely to become permanent employees before the year is out? Is there any estimate of that? The minister said he would take that as notice and answer later.


Milton Fowler Gregg: There are a number of factors involved, not the least of which is the civil service commission. My officials state that they would not like to estimate that there would be more than 3,800 in the whole organization during the coming year.


Douglas Scott Harkness: You do not mean 3,800 more, but 3,800 altogether?
Supply-Veterans Affairs


Milton Fowler Gregg: We have 2,331 now and we hope to bring that up to 3,800.


Frank Exton Lennard: Can the minister state how many are only temporary that have not passed examinations, who are now in certain grades who apparently are not qualified?


Milton Fowler Gregg: I am afraid I have not any information in that form.


Mr. Hellyer:: Will the minister give further consideration to the request of the Canadian corps of firefighters? I understand that they have two modest demands, first, eligibility to receive the Canadian Volunteer Service medal and then to be given preference in employment in the civil service. As the minister is aware, these men enlisted for service anywhere without reservation and were subject to great danger. In the British zone, at least, they were required to stay out at times when the armed forces were ordered underground, and they were not too highly compensated for their services. I admit that they have been given most of the benefits that have accrued to the armed forces, but as they did such great service in that area, as they helped with the loading of barges for the attack on Europe, as a commitment was made, at least by inference, by Major General LaFleche that they would be granted equal rights with the armed forces, I wonder if it would not be possible for the minister to give further consideration to their requests?


Milton Fowler Gregg: The two requests, civil service benefits and the C.V.S. medal, are both outside my department. Fundamentally the men referred to were not attested and consequently are not technically veterans and therefore do not come under the Department of Veterans Affairs. By virtue of the fact that similar benefits have accrued to them we have been interested in them.
Perhaps my hon. friend and the committee would be interested in knowing that the firefighter received a gratuity of $15 for every thirty days of service overseas; he was made eligible for vocational training; if in receipt of pension, which I shall come to, he was eligible for benefits under the Veterans Land Act; if he was hurt by enemy action he was eligible for pension; he was eligible for veterans insurance; he came under the provisions of the Reinstatement in Civil Employment Act, which I will admit at once was not used very much, and he received benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The auxiliary supervisors
were eligible for the Canadian Volunteer Service medal and I was wondering if the same privilege could not be given to the firefighters?
3270	HOUSE OF
Supply-Veterans Affairs


Milton Fowler Gregg: I do not see how it could be
done because the basis of eligibility for the Canadian Volunteer Service medal was volunteering for service in His Majesty's forces.


Frank Exton Lennard: That brings up a matter
which perhaps I should not bring up, that these promises were made. We will let it go at that, but I think it should be on the record again that they were promised these benefits by a certain representative of the government. That is an established fact.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
530. Veterans welfare services, $3,494,538.
Douglas Scott Harkness: I understand that steps
have been taken by the department to secure employment for older veterans. Could the minister tell us what is being done along that line at the present time and what success has been achieved?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Quite apart from our work in
that connection, there is an attempt to cooperate with the national employment service in helping to find work for older veterans. These are mainly veterans of world war I whose average age is now 61 years. There is the utmost desire on the part of these older veterans to continue just as long as they possibly can. Unfortunately there are a number of veterans, not many-about one per cent- who have never become re-established during the thirty years after the war and yet have been able to keep their faith, their hope and their cheerful outlook on life.
The way we have gone about it is the establishment within this division of a small group, having smaller counterparts in the districts, which has been carrying on a good deal of discussion with employers in connection with this matter. I had the privilege myself of talking on this subject to the Canadian Manufacturers Association the other day in Toronto, and also at a number of other places. Valuable work is going on from day to day in seeking employment and breaking down the resistance of employers to putting these older men to work. They can give just as valuable service today as they could have given 20 or 25 years ago. I think that fact is becoming realized more and more.
During the three years that we have been concentrating on this matter the national employment service, with the help of ourselves and other agencies, have turned up 160,000 jobs into which these older veterans have been fitted. I hasten to state that those are not 160,000 permanent jobs as some of them would represent one, two or three jobs for the same man. We feel that this work is valuable, primarily for the good effect upon the veteran and, secondarily, for the saving it represents


to the country. If many of these men did not obtain employment in this way they would become applicants for war veterans allowances. [DOT]
In connection with the older veterans I should like to say a special word about the corps of commissionaires, and also to pay tribute to the public spirited men across Canada who are giving their time and effort free as members of the board of governors to make the corps the success it is. There are something like 5,000 older veterans registered in the corps. I saw 300 of them on parade the other day. At the right of the line were the old chaps of the South African war with their medals up, and the average age of the remainder would be at least sixty-one. The corps provides a place of service for men who have maintained their integrity, discipline and trustworthiness but who have no special skill and perhaps are not too strong physically. In the main their posts of supervision do not require manual work. It is valuable for its effect upon the men. It is useful for the employer because he does not have to worry about what employing older men will do to his pension or group insurance scheme. The corps takes care of all the normal security measures that would otherwise fall upon the employer. I thank my hon. friend for the opportunity of saying a word about older men entering into employment.


Douglas Scott Harkness: As I understand it, the department maintains no placement officer in order to put older veterans in jobs. Is that not the situation?


Milton Fowler Gregg: We do not turn down any opportunity to place them directly but normally we work through the excellent facilities provided by my colleague, the Minister of Labour. He has a special veterans officer who is the liaison man between the employment service and our own local offices. Consequently better results are obtained in that way than if we attempted to build up any kind of separate organization of our own.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I was wondering what special efforts are made by the placement people in the Department of Labour in order to get the older men into jobs. I have hired a few men myself during the last two or three years. I have never seen any indication that any effort was made to place veterans rather than others. As a matter of fact there are certain indications at times that perhaps the reverse is the fact. What I am really trying to get at is what particular, definite and specific steps are taken to try to get these people into employment? It seems to me that efforts along that line are not as definite as they might be, that considerably more

effort might be made and a better organization provided in order to accomplish the purpose. That may not be the case but that is the way it has appeared to me through casually hiring men from time to time.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Before the minister answers, I was about to rise to speak on the question of welfare officers coming under the jurisdiction of the Department of Labour. In my constituency there happens to be one such officer attached to the employment office in Trail and another at Nelson. They have done most effective and: excellent work in looking for jobs for aged veterans. That has been the major employment of these two officers in the last fifteen months. While the Minister of Labour does not believe in psychology, I should like to say to him that his welfare officers' understanding of psychology has meant jobs. Therefore I think there is something to be said for psychology. The point I wish to make is that I am under the impression that the Department of Labour is not as enamoured of the value of these welfare officers as the Department of Veterans Affairs, or as a good many members who are interested in veterans. I understand in some cases they have been dropped, and that at the present time there is pressure to dispose of them. I urge the Minister of Veterans Affairs to use his influence for the retention of these men where they are needed and where they are doing a job. I know in my own constituency they are doing an unquestionably good job.


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend said something about psychology. I was one of nine children, and I thought my mother was a pretty fair psychologist. She was not the kind of psychologist that my hon. friend is talking about, but she raised the family and did not do a bad job. In the light of these new-fangled ideas, those who went before us did not do a bad job and they left a pretty decent heritage to the people of Canada based on simple things.
Referring to what my hon. friend said about the organization of the employment service, I think it has worked reasonably well. I have not the figures before me now *but I would be glad to provide them when the estimates of my department are under consideration. We have laid special emphasis on the placement of returned soldiers and handicapped people. Comparing the results with the experiments in other places, I think we may well be proud of the people employed in the employment service of Canada.
It is a very difficult thing, but those of us who were in the first great war have some knowledge of the confusion that existed after
Supply-Veterans Affairs the war. We are not taking all the credit for what has been done. We had the experience of the first great war and we acted on it in a big and broad way. When you consider that we moved over a million people from the fighting forces into gainful employment in less than six months, that is some indication of the efficiency of the organization. There is nothing perfect in this life. Anybody can play the horses after the race is run. I think with the co-operation of all sections of society in Canada we have done a reasonable job. Mind you, I also take the view, if I may say so, that I do not believe in a planned economy. The only place you can plan is in a penitentiary where everyone does as he is told, goes to bed and gets up on orders and wears the same clothes.
We possibly had more control over the movement of human beings during the war than at any time in the history of North America. I was convinced in my own mind that Canadians made good airmen, soldiers and sailors, but that they were free men and wanted to get back to private endeavour. If I wanted to do a thing in those days I used to make a speech that everybody understood. I said "Selective service is down the drain." There is no equivocation in a statement of that description. I think we can be thankful that the Canadian people took that advice. In peacetime if you have a decade of the state moving people around it is the easiest thing in the world to slip into the method of government direction that we see in other countries. If you do that in the formative stages of life I think any nation will live to regret it. I think the Canadian people used good common sense in the movement of our people out of the fighting forces into productive employment in industry, agriculture and commerce in its broadest sense.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I should like to ask the Minister of Labour a question. Does he believe in assisting the employment of veterans by continuing so far as possible the use of veterans placement officers in his department?


Humphrey Mitchell: Absolutely. I want to say that without any equivocation whatsoever.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I should like to ask the minister what amount was spent last year under the equivalent item for travelling expenses, staff, for which he is asking $164,000 this year.


Milton Fowler Gregg: The item of $164,000 for 1950-51
provides for the cost of travelling for the veterans welfare branch staff at head office and in the districts. Costs incurred for investigation, and reports in connection with applications for the benefits in connection with

Supply-Veterans Affairs war veterans allowances, and so on, represent a large proportion of the money required. The amount considered necessary for 1950-51 approximates that expended in 1949-50 owing to the fact that the level of travelling activity remains pretty steady.


Edmund Davie Fulton: How much was spent last year actually?


Milton Fowler Gregg: It was $108,500.


Edmund Davie Fulton: And the minister is asking for $164,000 this year. Why is there that discrepancy?


Milton Fowler Gregg: If the hon. member will cast his eye over the details in connection with war veterans allowances, particularly travelling and miscellaneous, he will note a very . drastic reduction in many of those items, including that of travelling expenses. The reason for that is that during the year, for obvious reasons, we have transferred to welfare services many of the duties which formerly came under the war veterans allowance. So that there is this year some $54,000 travelling expense money going into the veterans welfare service that will not appear in the war veterans allowance grant.


Tom Goode: I notice that the travelling expenses of applicants and recipients amount to $3,000 which was not covered by any amount in 1949-50. Can the minister explain that?


Milton Fowler Gregg: In the other expenditures, such as hospitals and pensions, it will be noted that there is a large sum for veterans coming in to hospitals, including expenses and meals while they are there receiving examinations. Under the welfare division this year, even though there are not very many where the department needs to pay the expenses of veterans, there are some under this classification. So for the first time we have set up this amount, so as to keep those travelling expenses separate from the expenses of our own staff.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I notice there is a considerable increase in the amount for professional and special services. What is the reason for the increase, and would the minister explain the services covered by this item?


Milton Fowler Gregg: This constitutes medical examination, legal fees, social services and outside investigations. Again they reflect a transfer.


Edmund Davie Fulton: From war veterans allowance?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Yes.


Douglas Scott Harkness: There is an amount of $15,000 for advertising and publicity. Last year it was $25,000. How much of the $25,000


was spent last year, and what has been the necessity for advertising and publicity in this branch of the department?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Under this vote we spent only $3,500 last year. We asked for too much. This year the estimate has been set at $15,000 for advertising and publicity expenditures related to the question mentioned by the hon. member a while ago. We do plan a modest advertising campaign on behalf of older veterans. Then there is the necessity for carrying out some advertising in connection with disabled veterans, or any other phase of the veterans welfare work. It also provides for general advertising when changes in regulations affecting rehabilitation benefits are made. Therefore we set the figure at $15,000 this year.


Douglas Scott Harkness: What form would this advertising or publicity take?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Largely in veterans publications.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Would that be by way of
advertisement?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Yes, display advertising in veterans publications, and occasionally in other appropriate journals.


Clarence Gillis: Is the program of vocational training still being carried on under the veterans welfare service?


Milton Fowler Gregg: That matter could be discussed under item 555, I suggest.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
531. Treatment services, $34,389,177.
Howard Charles Green: 
Milton Fowler Gregg: I take it that the hon. member refers to the wives of veterans. I understand recipients of veterans allowances are exempted. The veterans themselves are exempt from payment to the provincial hospital plan.


Howard Charles Green: No, not unless it has been done this year.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I know to my certain knowledge that there has been discussion between my department and the provincial government towards that end. With regard to widows generally, I do not need to repeat of course, because my hon. friend knows it better than I do, that these benefits accruing to the veterans provide subsidiary benefits to wives and widows, but only through the veteran. They were not to apply to the widows he mentioned, or in fact to the widows of those who were killed in action or the widows of pensioners.
On the point made by the hon. member about our hospitals being less busy than they were, and the 12-D patients being accepted, the hospitals are equipped to accept men veterans in the main, but also women veterans to a limited number. Physically speaking therefore, apart from other considerations, it would be difficult to adapt our hospitals at this time for that purpose.


Frank Exton Lennard: Several years ago the Department of Veterans Affairs issued orders which enabled optometrists to be, employed on hospital staffs. The intimation went out at that time that one or more would be allotted to these staffs permanently. About a year ago I put a question on the order paper asking how many optometrists had been employed by the Department of Veterans Affairs since January, 1948. The answer said that there were 277 on a fee for services basis. I am quite aware of the reason why no optometrists were permanently appointed to the hospital staff. I feel it is due to professional jealousy. The ophthalmologists have full control of the situation and are jealous of their position. They have prevented the department, if the department ever did wish to make an appointment, from fulfilling its promise to the Canadian
Supply-Veterans Affairs Society of Optometrists. Several years ago a promise was made that the optometrists would receive consideration, but that was never done.
From my own experience there is no better man to care for the eyes than a man who specializes in that work. From my own experience, and my experience with service clubs in that connection, I can say that better results have been obtained by having children treated by optometrists than through other branches of the professional service. I feel rather strongly about that because I know the reason, and I believe the minister has some idea about it. I believe it is something that should be corrected.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Mr. Chairman, before my estimates are through I shall be glad to bring in a statement on this subject, and I hope it will not be tinged by professional jealousy. With regard to the answer to the question last year, I would point out that we have adopted a policy relating to professional men generally, doctors and so on, that there are not many full-time doctors employed in our hospitals. The main principle behind it is the desire that these well-trained professional men should be kept in touch with what is going on in the outside world, and in the profession generally, and thus bring to the hospital the best that can be obtained. It may be that, owing to that policy with regard to men in medicine, these professional men have only been employed part-time. I shall bring in a proper statement later.


Frank Exton Lennard: It may be well for the minister, when he makes that statement, to ascertain whether there are any full-time ophthalmologists employed by the department.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I ask the minister where we find that position of director of treatment services? I notice it is not in the detail here, and I cannot find it under departmental administration.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I am told the reason is that the director is a term appointment, and consequently is blanketed in the non-permanent list.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What was spent last year for materials and supplies, for which the minister is asking about $6,500,000 this year?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Last year we spent $6,384,000.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, this is a branch of the department in which the number of temporary employees compared with the permanents is particularly high. There are 9,328 temporary employees, and 985 permanent employees. In other words, there is a proportion of about 10 to one. Can the minister tell us in general terms what sort of job those 9,000 people do that they are all

Supply-Veterans Affairs temporary after this length of time? Why is there such a large number of them in that category?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Apart from a comparatively small group who work in the office, the remainder comprise those who serve in the thirty odd hospitals across the country, doctors and nurses under term employment. Only a few are permanent civil servants; the great number of them are temporary employees, orderlies, drivers, kitchen help and so on.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Do I understand that these people are going to remain temporary employees, or the great majority of them, most otf your doctors, nurses, kitchen orderlies, cooks, drivers and so forth?


Milton Fowler Gregg: As I said a short time ago the doctors are, in the main, on a part-time basis. The nursing sisters are what we call term appointments. They are appointed for a period of time which may be renewed. I think it is fair to state that a large proportion of the non-professional assistance in a hospital will remain temporary, but I think some positions may become permanent.


Douglas Scott Harkness: What is the reason for that? If a person is there as a cook, and there are cooks on the permanent list, what is the idea behind keeping these people on a temporary basis?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Mr. Chairman, the whole hospital organization, as my hon. friend well knows, because it applies to what he said last night about construction, is only about four years old. Most of the construction and development programs for hospitals started after the war. I think the reason why so many are temporary, that is the serving staff, the cooks and so on, is that the superintendent has not yet made up his mind whether he would like to have the person as a permanent employee. He would like to try some out a little bit longer.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The general effect of the estimates being in this form, and all of these people not being permanent, is that 90 per cent of the people employed all come under one item. The other employees are listed. We find there are 49 hospital nurses grade 3; 87 cleaners and helpers; so many hospital cooks grades 5, 4, 3 and 2; but 90 per cent of the employees in this particular branch are found in one item, and one does not know what they are. You have no idea what the break-down is or anything else. It does not seem to me that it makes for the best provision for examining estimates when they are in that form.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Will the minister tell me what was spent in "travelling expenses, patients and escorts," last year.


Milton Fowler Gregg: $336,000.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What is the meaning of the
item, "loss of wages, patients and escorts?"


Milton Fowler Gregg: As far as the pensioner patient is concerned, if he were employed and called in for examination, he is recouped for the loss of wages on the day or days that he might be in.


Douglas Scott Harkness: This item of medical education research, $300,000, is, I know, a new item. What is the purpose of that? What sort of medical education is going to be carried on? What kind of research?


Milton Fowler Gregg: I wonder if my hon. friend
would permit me to bring in a statement on that matter later. I should be glad to do so.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Very well.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have one other question.
What is the amount that was spent last year for light and power?


Milton Fowler Gregg: The total for all our institutions was $284,000.


Douglas Scott Harkness: There is another item here, "Less:-Amount recoverable for treatment of patients not the responsibility of the departments, etc." I wonder if the minister would tell us how much was received. Last year it was estimated that $1,500,000 would be secured. I should like the minister to tell us just how much they actually received under that item, and what proportion of this money it is estimated will come from veterans who are able to pay and who are taken into veterans hospitals for treatment on a paying basis; also where the rest of it comes from.


Milton Fowler Gregg: The amount recovered last
year was $2,568,000 instead of $1,500,000.


Douglas Scott Harkness: A million more than you
estimated?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Yes. As was pointed out last
year on my estimates, most of this money comes from other government departments, mainly the Department of National Defence and the R.C.M.P. Very few, unless it is a case of emergency, in the past year have come from individual veterans. During this year of course there will be the revenue from the 12-D class.


Douglas Scott Harkness: What about this matter of
the amount? Is there any amount in there which it is estimated you are going to recover from veterans who are in hospitals on a paying basis?


Milton Fowler Gregg: No. The amount we have estimated here, $2,450,000, is the amount we anticipate from the comparable sources of revenue last year. There may be some adjustment in that in the supplementary

estimates. The revenue forthcoming from patients under 12-D will vary that. What I mean is that we have not made any estimate for that in this particular item.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Does that mean that you do not expect to get any?


Milton Fowler Gregg: We expect to get some, but it was overlooked at the time these estimates were being prepared last fall.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Having regard to last year's financial picture, has any been taken in up to the end of the financial year in March of this year?


Milton Fowler Gregg: No. 12-D just came into effect on April 1, 1950, and those estimates were prepared last October and November.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Will the minister tell me
whether, under professional and special services, there is included an amount to cover the costs of veterans who are the responsibility of the department but who are being treated in other than veterans hospitals?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Yes.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Has the minister the figures for the number of veterans who are being treated in other than veterans hospitals?


Milton Fowler Gregg: As at April 30, 1950, at other
institutions we have a total of 1,824 patients.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Is there a standard daily rate paid to these other hospitals for those veterans, or does it vary from institution to institution?


Milton Fowler Gregg: No. They are each subject to contract. As my hon. friend knows, the rates of civilian hospitals across Canada vary; and our contracts have to correspond with the existing rates.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Does the department make a special rate with each hospital or does it pay the standard rate of that hospital or do you try to do the best you can?


Milton Fowler Gregg: That is true, yes.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am sorry, but which is it? I put the question in the form of two questions. Which is the case? I asked the question in a confusing manner. I ask the minister to clear up what I asked.


An hon. Member:: To make up your mind for you.


Milton Fowler Gregg: We negotiate with each hospital for the rate we will pay for the veterans that we send to that hospital. That rate is based upon their prevailing rate.


Edmund Davie Fulton: How are those hospitals selected? Let us take, for instance, British Columbia, where there are veterans hospitals 55946-208
Supply-Veterans Affairs only in Vancouver and Victoria, I believe. How do you make the selection of what other hospitals veterans will be admitted to?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Again I should, like to get advice on that subject; but generally speaking, there are various yardsticks. Let us take, for instance, one outstanding example which is Newfoundland. We have not any D.V.A. hospitals there so we are carrying on on a per diem basis with the hospitals that exist. Then in certain provinces, for special diseases, the provincial or other hospitals may be specially equipped for the necessary treatment.


Tom Goode: After waiting for an hour, Mr. Chairman, and with the permission of the hon. member for Calgary East, I should like to ask the minister a question.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh.


Frank Exton Lennard: With the permission of the Chairman, you mean.


Tom Goode: I made my statement. You make yours.


Frank Exton Lennard: I just did that.


Tom Goode: There are two items about which I should like to ask the minister. One is for $55,000 with regard to Canadian Red Cross Society and another of $300,000 with regard to medical education and research. Can the minister make a short statement?


Milton Fowler Gregg: The research item is a very special one. This is the first time it has appeared. I would like to suggest that I bring in a statement on it on another item. On the Canadian Red Cross Society, $55,000, that is an item which covers our obligations or our share of half the cost incurred by the Red Cross in providing the handicraft work and the great variety of diversional and therapy activities which are provided by the Red Cross to the patients. Then of course in addition to that, which is not included in this at all, is a series of excellent Red Cross hostelries which are built in association with many of our hospitals where patients and wives and parents can come and spend a few days.


Howard Charles Green: Three weeks ago there was a press dispatch to the effect that the department had instructed Colonel John Crawford to make an investigation into the difficulties that had arisen with regard to the hospitalization of Canadians who were prisoners of war in Japan. I took it from those dispatches that those unfortunate young Canadians are not recovering from their treatment in Japan as quickly as had been expected. Can the minister tell us just what the situation is with regard to these veterans?

Supply-Veterans Affairs


Milton Fowler Gregg: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Both the department-and particularly the medical phase of the department-and the Canadian pension commission have taken a very keen interest in these men ever since their return to Canada. It was requested at that time that special attention toe paid to learn of conditions which had come about because of their service and to have special medical examinations carried out. After discharge each case was followed up and re-examinations were carried out at regular intervals of all who would co-operate or who could be located.
During the past year I authorized a special medical review of all cases under one medical adviser specially selected for that purpose. This officer was recommended to me by the medical people themselves and is Colonel John Crawford who was senior medical officer of the Hong Kong force and who was himself of course a prisoner.
In this study he has access to all reports available to us, and he has the co-operation of outstanding specialists. The Canadian pension commission has conducted a constant review of all cases and has not hesitated to concede entitlement. They pass up no opportunity of finding out if <the physical incapacity may be attributable to experiences during the imprisonment.
The total number of survivors of the Hong Kong force is now, or was at the last check, 1,415. Of these, over 1,000 are in receipt of pensions, with approximately 200 more with entitlement to treatment for disability. I would like the committee to know that the utmost attention is being given to the care of these Hong Kong veterans. I would like hon. members to know too, so that any evidence of hardship that may come to the attention of any hon. member of the house might be passed on to me. I do that because I think it is important to all of us to discourage any expressions of pity on behalf of these men, which is the last thing they want, and which their leaders tell me does not help at all in the recovery from the difficulties or the disabilities they have owing to their imprisonment.
I would like to assure my hon. friend and the committee that under this item the treatment services and the pension commission are giving special attention to these men. If we can And them, as we can in practically every case when they are willing, we try to have them in at regular intervals whether they apply for it or not.


Howard Charles Green: Did the minister say that over 1,000 out of 1,415 are drawing pension?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Correct.


Howard Charles Green: And that another 200 are entitled to treatment because of war disabilities?


Milton Fowler Gregg: That is true.


Howard Charles Green: There are only about 200 who are not disabled at the present time?


Milton Fowler Gregg: And they are being carefully watched.	[DOT]


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canadian pension commission-
533. Administration expenses, $2,132,824.
Edmund Davie Fulton: This is an item for the administration of the Canadian pension commission. Can the minister tell us what was actually spent last year on travelling expenses of the staff?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Last year the travelling expenses of the staff were $85,300. When I say "staff", of course I mean the most important item is the review board which travels extensively. Frankly I am glad to see the chairman of the pension commission encourage extensive travelling because I feel it is very important that these boards should get out, as the hon. member for Kootenay West said last year, and raise the flag even at some of the subsidiary centres as well as in the main city in the province. This year under this item we are asking for $90,000. This amount covers the cost of travelling for the commission staff at head office and the districts. During 1949-50 approximately $85,000 was expended for this purpose. A large portion of the expenditure is incurred by the review boards which traverse the country and consider pension appeal cases. The anticipated increase in their work necessitates a slight increase in the amount required for the new fiscal year.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am not being immediately critical. I notice, for instance, there are 73 medical officers on the commission, according to my calculation of the breakdown. I do not imagine that is in any way too many. But then there is a very heavy item for professional and special services in addition. It amounts to $100,000 this year, and was $115,000 last year. It just strikes me that perhaps one is justified in making some inquiry as to the reason why such a substantial amount is necessary when there are after all quite a fair number of medical officers with the pension commission itself.


Milton Fowler Gregg: That in the main comprises outside specialists' reports.


Edmund Davie Fulton: How would that arise? Does the commission itself want to submit the case for outside help?


Milton Fowler Gregg: That is correct.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Would the expense of an applicant in getting an opinion be covered in this item?


Milton Fowler Gregg: No; that would come under travelling expenses. I beg your pardon; you mean the applicant getting his own opinion?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes.


Milton Fowler Gregg: If the commission authorized repayment of the applicant's independent examination that would come under this item.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
534. Veterans bureau, $436,791.
Edmund Davie Fulton: Six o'clock.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



NATIONAL DEFENCE

[Stage Direction]
Third report of special committee on Bill No. 133, respecting national defence.-Mr. Campney.
At six o'clock the house took recess.

AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, April 28, consideration of the motion of Mr. Thatcher for the second reading of Bill No. 2, to amend the Criminal Code (capital punishment).
Hugues Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, the bill now before the house provides for the abolition of capital punishment in Canada. As hon. members know, this question has been debated in this house many times. The death penalty is as old as human society, but in recent generations sociologists have been exploring the possibility of substituting some other still effective but less drastic means of punishment than that of taking the offender's life. In support of the measure which he has introduced the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher) repeated the classical observations which have so often prompted leaders of social reform to advocate the abolition of capital punishment and its replacement with some form cf deterrence which they submit would be more in keeping with modern trends of the utmost humane treatment of convicts.
Criminal Code
I think the hon. member should be congratulated on the sincerity of purpose which he so effectively and eloquently displayed when presenting his bill a few weeks ago, but I hope that his arguments in favour of the abolition of capital punishment in Canada will not be found sufficiently convincing by hon. members to warrant them in favouring a change in the law as it now stands.
I have no intention of burdening the house with the religious and historical arguments which have been expounded so well in the course of previous debates on this question. Although the hon. member for Moose Jaw claimed that he could not profess to be a biblical authority, he based his first argument on the commandment, "Thou shalt not kill", which was given by the Lord to Moses and which is to be found in the first pages of the Old Testament. I do not profess to be a biblical authority either, but I think the hon. member might have remembered that the bible should be taken as a whole. If he had pursued the reading of this holy book a little further he would have found that the same One who commanded not to kill also directed that certain crimes should be punished by death.
The hon. member objects to capital punishment, and particularly to hanging, as the law provides in Canada, because of the brutality of the actual execution. He quoted the evidence of witnesses who had appeared before a special committee of this house which was set up in 1937. As I recall from reading the proceedings of that committee, it was set up for the express purpose of determining whether another form of capital punishment than hanging would be more humane and whether another form of capital punishment would prove to be a greater deterrent to the commission of murder.
That committee was comprised of members from both sides of the house and it recommended that no change should be made in the law as it stood. In support of his argument as to the brutality of hanging, the hon. member for Moose Jaw recently quoted from the evidence given by a deputy sheriff of Toronto who had assisted in a number of hangings and who testified that the actual time elapsing between the springing of the trap and death was fourteen minutes and seven seconds. The hon. member should have analysed that evidence more carefully. If he had, I believe he would have found that what that witness really was referring to was the time between the execution and the moment when the doctor, who was a witness to the execution, declared that death had

Criminal Code
taken place. That is a matter completely different from the question of consciousness and suffering in the ordeal of hanging.
I believe a substantial summary of a few outstanding points relating to the intrinsic merits of this problem should be given to the house not only for the sake of brevity but for the advantages to be derived from a concise marshalling of the main facts and considerations bearing upon the issue. For instance, our statistics reveal that out of a population of nearly fourteen million people there is a yearly average of only ten individuals who suffer the supreme penalty under the present statutory provision which the hon. member now invites the house to abolish. Each one of these ten men stands convicted of murder after trial by a jury, usually after an appeal heard by the supreme court of his province, and in many cases after an appeal heard by the supreme court of the country.
Furthermore, the condemned murderer who goes to the gallows is one who has been refused a commutation of sentence. He is usually a man who took the life of his fellow citizen for the purpose of gain, or for some other sordid motive, after having planned his crime and carried it to completion with determination and often with very great cunning. Frequently he has a long criminal record and is the type of person to whom people refer as a bad man. I should like to give the house the thought expressed on this subject in 1924 by one who had been solicitor general of the country, the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen. I believe he expressed very concisely and adequately what the situation is in Canada regarding the criminal who is actually executed. These are the words of the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, as recorded at page 1294 of Hansard for April 11, 1924:
But after the jury's verdict and the sentence there is vested in the Department of Justice a power of review-
I might interject that this power is now vested in the Solicitor General.
-and it is only a fair statement of the practice to say that any circumstances that go to show the lack of appreciation, the mental inferiority of the accused, even far removed from actual insanity, or other circumstances of a strongly mitigating character, operate to relieve the victim from the extreme penalty. So that we are left in. the position, in the actual practice of our law, that the most atrocious cold-blooded instances alone are followed through to capital punishment.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, the type of murderer who is executed in Canada is usually a vicious cold-blooded killer, the worst of the lot. I should like to make it clear that in this country the actual infliction of the death penalty is in practice reserved for the worst type of assassin, the man who kills

with full knowledge of his deed, having carefully planned and premeditated his crime which he usually commits for some very selfish or sordid motive. I think we all agree that all citizens are entitled to effective protection, and the law accordingly provides recourse against the criminal aggressor. The common good of all, I believe, is a sound basis for state action and punishment of the criminal in keeping with the nature and the gravity of his crime.
The struggle of society to maintain order is an immense problem involving rights and responsibilities on the part of the state as well as on the part of the individual. With the development of the community the state has become the keeper of the public peace, and has the power to control the activities of members of society so that all may live in harmony as exemplified in the legislation which permits the exacting of the extreme penalty when the crime has been the commission of murder. Thus each and every one of the citizens of our country is entitled to have his life and his goods protected against wanton aggression. When the assassin is convicted of murder the law ordains his death for the protection of all against him and against those others who might be tempted to follow his example. The legislative enactment is intended to promote security, order and harmony in society so that it may function to attain its ends.
One of its most important aims is to guarantee the lives of its citizens. The desire to live is natural, and it is the clear duty of society to inspire the would-be assassin with due respect for the sanctity of human life. Nor, Mr. Speaker, is the death penalty imposed by our law a disproportionate punishment. Suppression of the convicted murderer is in order as he has become a threat to the lives of others and because appropriate punishment must serve as a deterrent to those who would likewise commit murder. There are excellent reasons for the state to dispose of the life of the convicted murderer in keeping with the statutory requirements of the law. I have already mentioned the necessity to provide a really effective and adequate deterrent which will give the maximum assistance in preventing the vicious and coldblooded murderer from slaughtering his fellow man. Does capital punishment as we know it in Canada-because after all this bill would have the effect of taking away capital punishment in Canada-provide that much needed deterrent to committing the crimes of murder, treason or rape for which the extreme penalty is provided?

I take it, Mr. Speaker, that we all agree that in drafting laws for the benefit of the Canadian people we necessarily take into account Canadian conditions as we find them. Our vast expanse of territory with its policing problems-and I can assure hon. members that there are many

our close proximity to large centres where major crime is reported to be rampant, make it necessary for the Canadian authorities to keep all criminals fully informed as to our reputation for justice, swift and sure, and for stern measures in the enforcement of law and order.
I say that our reputation as such has a deterrent effect, and I base this assertion on the numerous testimonials which we in this department, and others connected with the administration of justice, receive from authorities who are charged with similar responsibilities in the country to the south of us. They are all unanimous in saying that the reputation this country enjoys for swift and sure justice, and for strict application of the law, has a deterrent effect on the criminal element in their country, and prevents them from crossing the border to commit crime in Canada.
I say also that the efficiency of our police agencies has the same deterrent effect, and so has the attitude of the Canadian public, whose education for generations allows no patience with those who commit major crime. I should also mention that, generally speaking, the press of Canada shows no such tendency as unfortunately is found elsewhere, to encourage hero worship of the gangster type of criminal.
It is stated by the opponents of capital punishment that this method of punishment has never had the effect of diminishing the incidence of murder in any country. I maintain that leniency to the murderer, to the point of exempting him from the fate which he so cruelly inflicts upon his fellow man, has not proven its effectiveness in preventing crime. On the contrary let me emphasize the fact that the frequency of murder in Canada appears to be at a remarkably low figure. Indeed, if the number of arrests, convictions and executions for murder in Canada is compared with similar data elsewhere, .and may serve as an indication, we find our statistics covering the past ten years show the rate of execution, with a population of approximately fourteen million, to average about ten per annum. It seems that the fate of the killer who eventually goes to the gallows has provided Canadian authorities with an extremely effective means of coping with the incidence of such major crime. Our very low rate of actual executions, which stands at
Criminal Code
one person per million and a half of population, seems to be outstanding proof of the efficiency of our present system of capital punishment.
I say this with some reserve because I believe that in analysing such a question it is not sufficient to base one's argument purely on statistics. There are so many factors which have an extremely important effect on the rate of murder in any country that statistics alone are not sufficient to prove the efficiency or inefficiency of capital punishment. However, I give these figures for what they are worth-and they certainly do indicate a very low incidence of murder in Canada.
All capital cases pass through the clemency records of my department. I have here a table which was compiled recently and which gives the number of cases brought to court between 1939 and 1948.. This table shows the number of cases in this country during those ten years to be 179. Of these there were 89 executions; 46 were disposed of through commutation of sentences and 44 were eliminated by courts of appeal.
While we are on the subject of statistics, and since the hon. member for Moose Jaw quoted profusely from statistics a few weeks ago, I should like to ask him to compare the figures I have just given with those of the six states in the country to the south of us where capital punishment is still abolished. Incidentally I might remark that twenty-five years ago, I believe, there were fifteen states where capital punishment had been abolished. It has been re-established in seven or eight of them. In one it was re-established following a referendum where the people themselves asked for the re-establishment of capital punishment.
These six states were Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, Rhode Island and Wisconsin. We find that in 1946, the year for which I have the figures, the population of those states was 13,388,500. At that time the population of Canada was estimated at 12,307,000. Although I have never had the privilege of visiting these states, I understand they represent a cross-section of the United States, closely resembling that of Canada.
During that year the total number of convictions in those states stood at 65, showing an incidence of 4-85 convictions per million of population, whereas in Canada the figure was 22, showing a rate of 1-78 per million of people. I believe the testimonials I mentioned a little earlier, and these figures- if one is to base his conclusion on statistics- do not point to Canada as a proper testing or experimental ground for the so-called

Criminal Code
humanitarian trends which would be served by the adoption of this bill. I do not believe we are justified in altering our traditional outlook towards this question. I say, why change our law when capital punishment appears to have proven itself most effective in deterring the criminal, or should we say the "potential criminal", from his depredations? The knowledge that execution, the rope, usually awaits the murderer in Canada provides him with a most salutary train of thought.
I know that during the course of his remarks the hon. member for Moose Jaw asked whether anyone could provide him with evidence that hanging had ever kept a murderer from committing his crime. That is rather difficult to establish, but I think if my hon. friend had read more closely the evidence adduced before that committee of the House of Commons which sat in 1937 he would have found evidence given by experts who have had actual contact with criminals in jails and penitentiaries. They testified these criminals openly admitted that, in many cases, what had kept them from committing murder was the fact they knew that if caught they would be hanged. That is in the evidence if my hon. friend wishes to look for it. I say, the longer the preparation for crime, the better chance the criminal has of pondering the consequences and of desisting from his criminal pursuit. This may mean saving the lives of innocent people who do not deserve to be killed; people who are entitled to protection; people to whom our sympathy should go, rather than the criminal. We have no real scientific data or statistics to establish even the approximate number of those who are deterred from the commission of murder, and those whose lives are spared by this deterrent. I doubt, Mr. Speaker, that we should take a chance.
Can we ignore the fact that the strongest instinct of man is that of survival, selfpreservation? When all other moral forces have failed should we not, if necessary, inspire fear if it is to deter the assassin? In that respect I am sure that a great majority of the members in this house who have had the opportunity of serving in the armed forces of this country, and who in common with hundreds of thousands of other Canadians have had to face arduous and tense situations, will agree with me that, in spite of all the arguments that can be brought forward, in spite of all the so-called scientific developments in the sphere of mental sciences and other considerations of the kind, the instinct of self-preservation is strong and still remains in even the most hardened criminal. Should we remove this barrier

of protection our citizens now enjoy to achieve what I consider to be the rather questionable reform proposed by this bill? Should we be remiss in the discharge of our sacred duty towards all Canadians, merely to gratify a sense of humanitarianism towards the most anti-social of all criminals, the traitor, the murderer and the rapist?
From what little experience I have had in dealing with these cases, it is in my view impossible for the bandit planning a crime and contemplating the possibility of murder, not to measure the consequences of his act. I believe he must be very callous indeed to persist in his recklessness. As I said, no one knows how many are deterred by the thought of the rope, the gallows, the drop into eternity. Undoubtedly a few are not deterred. They are the hopeless, the reckless, the desperate few who deliberately take a horrible chance in order to gratify their selfish ends. I am not one of those who will make the way of those desperate few more easy. Those who are responsible for the protection of society, whatever their personal feelings in this matter, in my opinion will be driven to the conclusion that in alleviating the extreme penalty now provided by the law they might assist-and I think that would be sufficient- in multiplying the incidence of murder. They would, thereby, be letting down the people who are surely entitled to the protection of their lives.
I believe, because of this situation in Canada, because of what I have described here tonight, it is our duty to maintain capital punishment no matter how distasteful it may be to take the life of a human being. The execution of the assassin who kills his victim wilfully, and with malice aforethought, is the most effective means we know of at the moment to protect our Canadian people against wanton aggression.


Mr. A. L. Smith (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, I speak tonight, and I hope the expression I use will not be misinterpreted, as a firm believer in capital punishment for murder. I go even farther and say that I am a firm believer in hanging as the method of extermination, and I use that word advisedly, of a murderer. I do not approach this subject so much in the way of sentiment or even of, what shall I call it, exaggerated ethics about the sacred regard we all have, and which our law has, for human life. I know that in this debate the bible has been quoted. We have heard the commandment, "Thou shalt not kill." It seems to me that that commandment has an equal application to the murderer as he kills his victims as it has to the law of this land in seeing to it that capital punishment is meted out to him. But if there

be any question, I am going to quote from the bible, Leviticus, chapter 24, and I begin with verse 15:
15.	And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying, Whosoever curseth his God shall hear his sin.
16.	And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death.
17.	And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death.
18.	And he that killeth a beast shall make it good; beast for beast.
19.	And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him;
20.	Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again.
21.	And he that killeth a beast, he shall restore it: and he that killeth a man, he shall be put to death.
In the argument that I am making before the house I am not relying on those scriptural commandments in the old testament. I am looking at it, I think and I hope, from a more practical point of view. It is unfortunate perhaps but in fourteen years acting as a crown prosecutor I had the terrible responsibility-and it is that-of calling the evidence which hanged quite a number of people. The most that one acting for the crown can do is to see that the individual is well defended. In our courts, Mr. Speaker, that is always done. Irrespective of what you hear about money and all that nonsense, that is always well done. When I hear many people-and there are many of them, and no one can disregard their views- telling us what a cruel thing capital punishment is, my mind always goes back to the man or woman who is dead, without warning, from a bullet, a knife or something of that kind. When I see the man who deliberately committed the act-and we do not hang people unless the act is deliberately done- and when I see all the sob sisters gathering about and telling us that we should reform this fellow, that his crime is the result of certain faults in society, as far as 1 am concerned that is absolute and complete rot. As far as I am concerned, he is a killer, a murderer, doing it deliberately, and he will pay with his own life. If he lives to be one hundred years old, there is nothing else in God's world that he will ever understand.
Let us take a look at things across the line in the states in which they have not capital punishment. Let us take the reports of the parole boards over there. What do we find? Men sentenced to terms of imprisonment, for life most of the time. The reports of the
Criminal Code
parole boards are to the effect that a killer, once paroled over there, ninety per cent of the time goes out and kills somebody else.
I am conscious of the great work done by the various cabinets that we have had in the Dominion of Canada. My memory goes back to the time when Arthur Meighen, quoted by the Solicitor General (Mr. Lapointe), was himself Solicitor General. I remember long talks I had with him at that time. I know this was true then and I think it is true now. In this country no death sentence is carried out unless the Minister of Justice has read every word of evidence given at the trial. No man is hanged unless the Minister of Justice makes a report to the cabinet; and the cabinet itself has the last word on commutation. That was true then and I think it is true at the present time. The Solicitor General nods his head.


Hugues Lapointe: The Solicitor General is the one who reads the evidence.


Arthur Leroy Smith: The Solicitor
General reads every word of the evidence. I made a mistake. I said it was the Minister of Justice. Coming down to the practical thing, no one is hanged in this country except by the verdict of a jury of his peers. I confess that a judge, on an election, is empowered to try a murder case alone and without a jury; but as a matter of fact that is never done. The accused, then, has had that trial and the appeals, with all the advantages that we who are defending can give him; and I have defended a number, some of them unsuccessfully, I may say. After all that is through, then it comes down here, and we hear a lot of petitions for commutation of the sentence. I remember extremely well one case in which I defended a man. The petition was signed only by myself. Commutation was granted. I say these things with great pride in our administration of justice not only in our courts but-and I hate this word "level"-at the cabinet level. I mention these things to show the care which is taken before any man's life is forfeited on the gallows. As the Solicitor General has so truly said, it is almost impossible to get statistics as to how many people have been deterred from committing murder because of the death penalty by hanging in Canada. I realize that probably there can be no worth-while statistics of that kind. But may I add this with regard to many of these amateur crime investigators who gather statistics. You can make statistics out of almost anything. I have talked to a number of people engaged in crime. I remember so well some safe-blowers. A friend of mine was the most expert safe-blower that ever got into western Canada. He was a pal, and he knew how to do it. I asked him if

Criminal Code
he was not afraid when he blew his safe that he might kill some people who were innocently in a neighbouring office, or something of that kind. He was not greatly concerned about that. He said: "Art Smith, there are a lot of amateurs blowing safes these days." He said: "They may kill somebody, but I never would." He showed me how he blew his safe. He built a little cup with soap, he poured in the nitroglycerine, and he knew how much to put in. He could blow a safe with just a little puff and the door was open. He said:	"I pm not concerned about it." He
said:	"You have got to stand up some day
and sentence some of these amateurs to be hanged because they did not know how to handle nitroglycerine," but he had it in his mind. I talked to quite a number of these chaps. You know, these people who commit crime are not all dumb. I have talked to a good many of them. I have pleaded with the Solicitor General for some of them. I have talked to even the present Solicitor General to exercise that mercy which I know is in his soul, but he is keeping it locked up pretty well these days, I do not mind telling you.
I know perfectly well that the fear, not of capital punishment, but of hanging is the greatest deterrent to serious crime in. this country at the present time. I do not know how many of you have read the story by Mr. Duffy which has been running in six issues of the Saturday Evening Post recently. Mr. Duffy is the commandant of the San Quentin penitentiary in the United States. He uses most excellent arguments, from his standpoint, against capital punishment; but what has happened to him is obvious. There they have the gas chamber. The warden of the penitentiary must see each man. He must be present, looking through the window, when the gas is turned on below the chair on which the prisoner is strapped, and so on. It is so easy, Mr. Speaker, with the humanitarian feeling that is in all of us, to say: Well this other chap is killed. The state will look after the children. His widow has gone to work and has got a job. In cold blood now we just cannot execute this man. It is awfully easy to get yourself into that frame of mind and be honest with yourself in so doing.
I have not a word to say in criticism of anyone who is seeking to do away with capital punishment; certainly if we succeeded we would salve our conscience to a considerable extent. But I still firmly believe, Mr. Speaker, that hanging is the greatest deterrent that we know of. You want statistics? If you want testimony go to England. There was lots of it there in the old days. That is all changed now. Today murder has become with some people a fine art. It is true that today the English bobby for the first time in

history is armed with a revolver or a gun of some kind. Why? You rarely heard of a shooting in England until recent years. Murders there were by knife, by club, by garrotte or something like that. But this revolver business is in fact the reason why that rule of the metropolitan police has been changed in the last few years.
I am not going to talk this bill out. I know that I leave myself open to criticism and well meant criticism and honest criticism. I know I can be accused of being cruel and all that sort of thing. It is not cruelty, sir, to take the life of a man when by so doing you save the lives of half a dozen others, as has been the history of the United States.
So far as I am concerned, I am in favour of capital punishment for wilful murderers. I am also in favour of death by hanging by the neck until you are dead, and may God have mercy on your soul. I have heard that often.


Mr. R. R. Knight (Saskatoon):: It is obvious that if my colleague speaks now he will close the debate. Since he has expressed the wish to have an opportunity to attempt to refute the arguments which have been so well put before us by the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith) and the Solicitor General (Mr. Lapointe), I feel it is my duty upon his behalf to fill this gap.
I personally did not intend to take part in the general argument, but I am intrigued somewhat from an academic point of view by the scripture arguments of the Solicitor General, when he told my colleague that there was another book and another argument in scripture that could be read I am quite sure that he was referring to the famous one, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth."


Hugues Lapointe: The one that the hon. member for Calgary West quoted to you.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: My curiosity at any rate was sufficiently aroused to cause me to send for a copy of the bible. There must be two copies since the hon. member for Calgary West has one, unless it is a private one of his own.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Even I recognize the bible when I see it.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Exodus, chapter 21, verses 23 to 25 read:
23	And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,
24	Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
25	Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
Obviously these are the passages to which my hon. friend refers.


Hugues Lapointe: No, that is not the one.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: To finish the quotation I shall now turn to the words of our Lord in Matthew 5, verses 38 and 39, because, after all, what I have read you surely can be admitted to be a barbaric and out-dated document. The scripture of the New Testament is this, where the Saviour said:
38.	Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39.	But I say unto you. That ye resist not evil: But whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
I would like at this time to elaborate it in accordance with my own views, but time is up and I shall resist it.


Hugues Lapointe: He who kills by the sword shall perish by the sword. Is that there also?


Mr. Speaker:: The hour reserved for public and private bills having expired, the house will revert to the business which was interrupted at six o'clock.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS Canadian pension commission-
534.	Veterans bureau, $436,791.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I should like to try to fulfil a few of the promises that I made before dinner. I said that during the period that we had emphasized employment for older veterans during the last three or four years some 160,000 had been placed. A question was asked as to how many older veterans had been placed in the last fiscal year. During the last fiscal year through the co-operation of the national employment service and our own welfare officers upwards of 40,000 older veterans were placed in employment. Despite this fact during the same period there has been an increase of 3,000 in unplaced older veterans. Since February 1 of this year an active campaign has been carried on by the Legion branches in co-operation with other agencies to obtain jobs for these men. In the final analysis, of course, the placing of these men is a community responsibility and with the full co-operation of the community the problem will be solved. This work is being headed up by the veterans welfare service branch with Colonel Percy Philpott, himself a dual service veteran, directing the effort.
Then the question was asked as to what rate was charged the veterans under the 12-D repayment class. At the present time this rate is $8.65 for hospitalization which
Supply-Veterans Affairs includes everything but the doctor's fee, which is arranged between the patient and the doctor.
Another question was with respect to medical education and research grants. Research projects that have to do with the better treatment of veterans are paid out of this grant. One example is the study of the disabilities of Hong Kong prisoners of war which may lead to new methods of treatment. Another example is the use of new drugs, such as cortisone, for various conditions to be found among veterans. Medical education refers to the special training of medical officers and technical staff to undertake special problems in the treatment of veterans. Since this is a new item we will be glad to report fully at the end of the year the results of the first year's experience.
Another question was asked with regard to optometrists. Many optometrists are employed on a schedule fee basis part time; no optometrists are employed full time. No ophthalmologists, or doctor specialists, are employed full time with the department. The non-employment of full-time ophthalmologists is in keeping with the general policy of treatment service for non-employment of fulltime specialists, part-time specialists being employed in their stead.


Edmund Davie Fulton: With respect to medical education and medical research, could the minister state whether anything will be recovered from the Department of National Health and Welfare and whether this work is being undertaken jointly with that department?


Milton Fowler Gregg: There will be no refund. The effort is being carried out under the closest collaboration with the Department of National Health and Welfare.


Mr. White (Hastings-Peterborough):: The
minister stated that the rate charged the veteran was $8.65 per day. Is that the actual cost to the department or is there a profit on that charge?


Milton Fowler Gregg: It is based upon our estimate of the actual average cost of operation of our hospitals across Canada, that is the active treatment hospitals.


George Stanley White: How
does that figure compare with what is allowed by the department when a patient is placed in a private hospital?


Milton Fowler Gregg: I am told it compares quite favourably with the charges made by hospitals of the same standard.


Mr. Cruickshank:: Is any provision made for the hard of hearing? There is the original cost of the necessary equipment as well as the monthly upkeep, and I should like to know if that is paid.

Supply-Veterans Affairs


Milton Fowler Gregg: If the deafness is due to service, treatment is provided by the department and the hearing apparatus is furnished free.


George Alexander Cruickshank: What about the monthly upkeep of the batteries?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Under the conditions I have related, all upkeep is taken care of.


Frank Exton Lennard: What is the explanation for the increase of $29,682?


Milton Fowler Gregg: As my hon. friend knows, the veterans bureau provides free advocate service for veterans seeking pensions. When a veteran feels he has a good case but is unable to prove it, he is able to obtain the services of a competent advocate to help him in assembling his evidence and presenting it when the review board next visits his area. The work of this bureau is certainly not lessening. Here again, as in the case of the pension board, we are encouraging the pension advocates to do their utmost on behalf of applicants, even if it requires extra expenditures on travelling.
We believe that in the long run such a policy will be economical because when a veteran who feels he has a pensionable disability believes that everything is being done that can be done, his mind is in a better state and in the long run the cost to the taxpayer is less.


Frank Exton Lennard: How many more cases have been appealed during the past year than previously, and why has this increase taken place?


Milton Fowler Gregg: I cannot give that offhand but I shall be glad to get the information and give it to my hon. friend, if not on this item, later on.


Frank Exton Lennard: I notice that there are increases in the numbers of pension advocates. There is an increase of one in the case of pension advocate, grade 4; an increase of three in pension advocates, grade 3; an increase of two in pension advocates, grade 2. Where are those pension advocates located and what is the reason for these increases?


Milton Fowler Gregg: I do not think there has been an increase. There has been an increase in those who are listed as permanent as compared with those who were blanketed in with the temporaries. Pension advocates are located in the 18 districts across Canada. In New Brunswick, for instance, there is one, and I think there are three in Toronto.


Frank Exton Lennard: I notice that there are some part-time pension advocates provided for. Should there not be more of these? Are


there a sufficient number of pension advocates throughout the country to adequately look after the cases that are coming in?


Milton Fowler Gregg: The part-time advocates would be located in the smaller districts where the work would not warrant the use of a fulltime advocate.


Frank Exton Lennard: Are there any districts where there is not a sufficient number of pension advocates?


Milton Fowler Gregg: No, Mr. Chairman, I have had no complaints as to the adequacy of the number of advocates. I feel they are fulfilling the purpose for which they are intended, and are taking care of the cases. In visiting the various offices across Canada I made it a point to find out from the pension advocates how many cases they had ready for the next sitting of the review board. So far as I could learn, the meshing of the work of the advocate and the work of the review board was going forward satisfactorily.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I do not wish to make a complaint but merely to ask a question. First of all I should like to say that I think we have a most excellent board of pension commissioners. In administering the act they are fair in every way. It may be unusual for me but I should like to pay a compliment to the parliamentary assistant who has assisted me with every complaint I have put before him. The complaint from my riding, and indeed from my province, is as to the delay in getting appeals ready for the pension commission. I am not sure of the number but I do not think you have enough commissioners.


An hon. Member:: Louder.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I have never been
accused of that before. I do not think there are enough commissioners going to the various provinces. I am not complaining about their decisions but I am complaining about the fact that there is too long a delay before appeals are heard. I do not think you have a sufficient number of commissioners to hear appeals. After all, we must remember that we now have the veterans of two wars to consider, and what may have been sufficient to cover the first great war-and I do not think it was -is not enough how. I think in the province of British Columbia there is too long a delay before the consideration of appeals. I should like to know if we are going to increase the number of commissioners to hear these cases.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I am glad to have that brought to my attention. If there are any special cases of delay I should like to know about them. During the past year I have not felt that the delays were caused by the fact that the review board, composed of commissioners,

was not able to get there. Sometimes what appear to be unreasonable delays are occasioned by the fact that the advocate requires a tremendous length of time to assemble the information, sometimes from far places of the earth, in order to make his case. Consequently such an application is delayed until the advocate feels he has all the available evidence at hand. He then lets it be known to the chairman of the pension commission that he is now ready to deal with eight, nine, ten or fifteen cases at Vancouver or New Westminster, as the case may be. I will look into the matter raised by my hon. friend.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I believe you have a sitting at Kamloops in the interior of British Columbia. I can be corrected by the hon. member representing that constituency if that is not so. I believe you also have sittings in Vancouver and New Westminster. I want to suggest that it means a great deal of inconvenience and expense to veterans, who may or may not have a case, to go to Vancouver or New Westminster. Chilliwack has a population of some 17,000 or 18,000 people. Could we not have a sitting of the commission in Chilliwack? Chilliwack has the largest Canadian Legion branch in the province of British Columbia, and therefore we must have quite a number of veterans. I should like to see a sitting at Chilliwack instead of veterans from the entire Fraser valley having to go to Vancouver or New Westminster at their own expense and inconvenience.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Owing to the large number of veterans in British Columbia, the sittings there are under constant consideration. I will take under advisement the suggestion made. I am informed that an appeal board of the commission is sitting in British Columbia at the present time, and that every appeal listed as ready for hearing is being heard. We have at least three appeal boards sitting in British Columbia each year.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Will the minister take into consideration having one of the appeal boards sitting in the city of Chilliwack?


Milton Fowler Gregg: I will discuss it with the chairman of the board.


Frank Exton Lennard: A few minutes ago the minister said that the reason for delay in the hearings was that the pension advocates take so long to prepare their cases. That is the same complaint I have had, that we have not enough pension advocates to adequately care for the different cases. I would not say that they have too much to do but I feel that some of the pension advocates have a few more cases than they can adequately handle under the circumstances. Sometimes it does not take much to keep them busy.
Supply-Veterans Affairs


Leslie Alexander Mutch: I think it is pretty well the experience of everyone who has had anything to do with this matter that the fastest pension advocate is not necessarily the best one. At the present moment I know of a case which has been in the course of preparation for more than a year. It is an application for leave to reopen, and in order to make the case stand up you have to have new evidence. Correspondence has been going on with the British ministry and with people scattered all over the country. That is where a good deal of the delay arises. Once an appeal fails after leave to reopen has been granted, it is exceedingly difficult to succeed on a second appeal for leave to reopen. In most instances the delays are delays in preparation. It is not so much the result of a shortage of pension advocates as the fact that these people have got a bit foxy through long experience. They have not only the interest of the veteran but their own reputation at stake, and they exhaust every possibility in order to get evidence. Just recently one of these chaps sent a man to a country drugstore to search for prescriptions issued twenty years ago which might substantiate a claim. That involved nearly a week spent in the dusty basement of a small-town drugstore. I am sure these efforts contribute more to delays than either failure to work hard enough or insufficiency of pension advocates.


Clarence Gillis: What are the necessary qualifications under the regulations for a pension advocate?


Milton Fowler Gregg: The qualifications are rather special. Normally of course, if other qualifications exist, training in the law is useful. It is not always possible to entice a lawyer from his practice to that work. To answer the question in an offhand way I would say that the prime qualifications are intelligence, patience, industry, and anxiety to serve the best interests of the veteran.


Clarence Gillis: Is it not necessary that he should know something about the Pension Act?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Oh yes, of course. He gets an orientation course in that.


Clarence Gillis: The reason I ask that is that at one time it was obligatory that a pension advocate must be a member of the legal profession, but that has been removed. It is necessary to know something about the machinery.


George Alexander Cruickshank: So that it may be on the record, I should like to ask the minister a question. I should like to be corrected if I am wrong in my understanding of the procedure. Let us say a man is entitled to

Supply-Veterans Affairs treatment for lung trouble and then, unfortunately, finds that he is affected by heart trouble; in such circumstances is he or is he not entitled to hospital treatment at, let us say, Shaughnessy hospital for that heart trouble, or only for his pensionable disability in respect of his lungs?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Only for his pensionable disability.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Then I should like to take issue with that. A case was brought to my attention which, I am pleased to say, was arranged satisfactorily. The person in question had been blinded at Ypres while serving in the first world war with the Princess Pats. Unfortunately about a month or two ago, owing to his blindness he walked into a woodpile and suffered injury to his elbow. This man was refused treatment in the hospital at Victoria because, it was stated, his elbow injury was not due to his war disability.
I must admit that this matter was straightened out satisfactorily. Surely if a man who was blinded because of his service either in the first or in the second world war meets with further difficulty, his blindness should constitute a disability. It is my view that if a man is disabled in any way owing to service in either of the great wars, whether he suffers from heart, lung or any other ailment, he should be entitled to hospital treatment. We in British Columbia have known of too many cases of brigadiers, generals and even major generals suffering from rheumatism, bad knees or something like that, but who have been able to secure treatment at Shaughnessy when the private soldier could not get treatment because, according to the regulations, he was not entitled to it.
In my view every veteran of either the first or second world war should be entitled to free hospitalization, without declaring himself a pauper. I certainly must object when a blinded man is barred from securing hospitalization for an ailment resulting from his blindness. I admit that, in the case I referred to at first, fair treatment was given; I wish to be fair about that, but I do urge that every consideration should be given by the department to any veteran of either war in the matter of hospitalization.


Milton Fowler Gregg: "Eligibility due to service" might be either direct or indirect. The example of "indirect" would be the blind man injuring himself by walking into the woodpile. I think it will turn out that his injury was an indirect result of his service.
The other point I should like to make is that neither at Shaughnessy hospital nor at

any other D.V.A. hospital across Canada is the ex-major general given any preferred treatment over the ex-private.


George Stanley White: A
minute ago the minister said he was quite satisfied there were enough pensions advocates, and then he referred to the long time it took to prepare a case. Could he tell the committee the approximate number of appeals from Ontario in one year, and the number of pensions advocates to handle those appeals.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Perhaps that might be discussed under item 537.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The minister referred to pensions advocates. I understand that at the moment pensions advocates in British Columbia are located at Victoria and Vancouver. These two cities get all the preference in British Columbia in anything of importance. They have the ministers, and officials go to Vancouver or Victoria, and rarely come to the interior. Some years ago we had a veterans advocate located in the Kootenays, serving what would be considered the ridings of Yale, East Kootenay, West Kootenay, Kamloops and the north country. At the present time, with the advocates having to come from the coast periodically to serve this large area, I am sure that under present arrangements there is some unnecessary delay in interviewing men and taking up their cases. I would ask the minister and his officials to give consideration to locating at least one veterans advocate in the southern interior of British Columbia.


Milton Fowler Gregg: We have included in the estimates an advance for such personnel as may be requested by the chief advocate. I shall discuss with him the points made tonight and if there is a necessity for more advocates the matter will be taken under careful consideration.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
535.	War veterans allowance board, administration, $203,960.
Mr. Wright:: I notice there is a decrease of about $50,000 in this item. The details at page 320 would indicate that this decrease is due to a decrease in travelling expenses. This year there is a sum of $3,000 for travelling expenses as compared with $58,000 last year. Would the minister explain this difference? It seems to me that the board either does not intend to travel, or does not intend to do much inspection this year, as compared with last year. Under the amendment to the act regional boards are being set up, but I would expect those regional boards would cost some money to operate.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I believe the hon. member was not in the house this afternoon when this matter was discussed under the administration item. In response to the hon. member for Kamloops I explained that a good deal of the work formerly reflected in the estimates for war veterans allowance is now being done under welfare services. He will notice a corresponding increase for travelling and other things under that heading. I would like also to add, however, that even with that I will need to ask in the supplementary estimates for more money for war veterans allowance in order to do just that thing which he has mentioned, namely, travelling by members of that board.


Mr. McLure:: I should like to know what authority is given to the war veterans allowance board in a city like Charlottetown. What authoi'ity have they in the granting of a war veterans allowance? Is their report to Ottawa sufficient to decide the matter, or does Ottawa decide on the evidence produced by this board?


Milton Fowler Gregg: The district office in Charlottetown has exactly the same authority in this and other matters as Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver or any of the larger cities. It is a complete set-up in itself. If my hon. friend wishes to look into that more fuly, I am sure he would be interested in the discussions which ranged around the amendment to the War Veterans Allowance Act which passed through the Commons within the last few weeks.
By virtue of that amendment, we have undertaken to decentralize the work of the war veterans allowance board. Whereas in the past the board at Charlottetown looked into the applications, made recommendations to the board in Ottawa, and the board studied the matter and arrived at its decision, it is the intention in the future to have these decisions reached at Charlottetown. The members of the board will visit the local authorities from time to time for the purpose of co-ordination and to hear appeals from local decisions.


Mr. Jones:: Will the minister explain the last item, "professional and special services", reduced by $12,000.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Because of the transfer to welfare services. The hon. member will find it reflected there.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
536.	Veterans insurance, $77,495.
Frank Exton Lennard: In connection with this item, will the minister indicate how many appli-
Supply-Veterans Affairs cations there have been during the past several years, and how many policies were issued?


Leslie Alexander Mutch: Policies or applications?


Frank Exton Lennard: Both.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I may state that during the past year-my hon. friend does not want the amount of money, just the number of applications?


Frank Exton Lennard: The number of applications, and the number of policies issued.


Milton Fowler Gregg: As at April 30, 1950, a total of 27,337 applications had been received. At the same date, April 30, 1950, the policies in force numbered 23,824.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What was spent last year on advertising and publicity under this item?


Milton Fowler Gregg: There was $44 spent.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I notice in the last issue of the public accounts which we have, reporting on the 1948-49 expenditures, advertising and publicity, which was estimated that year at $15,000, was allotted $13,000, and there was spent only $817.92. It appears that the estimate under this heading has been running consistently in excess of the actual expenditures on advertising and publicity in connection with veterans insurance at this time. Would the minister consider reducing the estimate under this heading? There is a consistent record, if I may call it that, of overestimating and underspending. I do not think it is good estimating practice to ask for so much more than is actually needed.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I believe that without question there was an overestimation last year. The main reason for this amount this year is the fact that in 1951 the act runs out, I mean the cut-off date becomes effective. We feel it is important this year that all veterans be notified of that fact, so they may be able to get in under the Veterans Insurance Act before the cut-off date becomes effective.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Has the department a definite advertising program worked out by which the committee can be satisfied that something in the neighbourhood of $5,000 will be spent?


Milton Fowler Gregg: The cut-off date is in February of 1951, and plans are being worked out. The campaign plan is not completed yet, but thought is being given to it.


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Chairman, I know the cut-off date was proposed for 1951, but is it necessary to cut out the veterans insurance at that time? Why can the insurance not be allowed to run?
I bet you there are thousands of Canadian veterans who came back from this war, like

Supply-Veterans Affairs those who came back from the last war, who are not familiar with the benefits of the veterans insurance under this act. Very little advertising has been done. There has been little urging of the veterans to take advantage of this act. A few booklets have been written but they have not been very widely distributed. I bet you that in this city eight out of every ten veterans you might question about the reason why they should take insurance under this act would not be able to tell you anything about it. Instead of cutting down the advertising about this particular insurance, I think consideration should be given to wiping out the cut-off date. There is no reason why the government should not be in the insurance business for the veterans of this war and the last.
There should be more advertising. Someone should be selling that insurance in competition with the old line insurance companies. Many of the veterans cannot get insurance with the old line companies anyway. There is no comparison between them. Competition is supposed to be the life of trade, and I strongly urge the minister to give some consideration to advancing the cut-off date, and commencing an active advertising campaign on the benefits of this insurance to veterans. I do not believe in cutting down this particular item at all. I think we should extend it because there is no comparison between the insurance offered under this act and that offered by the old line companies.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I should like to support what the member for Cape Breton South has said. I think experience in the first world war demonstrated that it was not until the majority of the veterans became settled and had families that many of them realized the benefits of this insurance. They 'could not get insurance with the old line companies. I was in that category myself. I was home for some years before I had a family, and then I realized I had a load to carry. I could not get insurance with the old line companies, so some years after the first world war I took out a policy under this provision. I am of the opinion that what the member for Cape Breton South has said is true. There will be a large number of veterans who will realize the value of this insurance in the next five years who have not realized it up to the moment. I do urge the minister to give consideration to that aspect of this question which is important to those veterans who, without doubt, will want to take advantage of it within the next five years.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I should just like to reassure the hon. member for Cape Breton South and the hon. member for Kootenay West that this light has not been hidden under a
[Mr. Gillis.l
bushel. The veterans insurance has been in all of the booklets on demobilization and since. The act came into effect in 1945 for three years. In 1948 we brought it forward and lifted the cut-off date for three more years, to 1951. I think we might do some modest advertising and see how it works out this year.


Frank Exton Lennard: Where is that advertising to be done?


Milton Fowler Gregg: In those veterans periodicals and others that are most likely to reach the attention of the veterans.


Frank Exton Lennard: As to the veterans periodicals, one might say that there are so many members of one veterans organization or of another veterans organization, but few of these take their veterans organization's official magazine. As to the Canadian Legion, The Legionary is taken by very few of the members. I personally know that fto be so in my own district. If the medium of advertising is through these veterans journals, then the veteran at large is certainly not hearing about it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I should like to make one point clear. I have to confess that when I asked the question with regard to this particular advertising, I did not know that the cut-off date would be next February. If that is the case, when the minister gives the explanation, I withdraw the suggestion I made that possibly this item for advertising could be reduced. I certainly think that, if the cut-off date is only February, wide publicity should be given to that fact. However, I am inclined to agree on the whole with the hon. member for Cape Breton South in the suggestion he has made. For a man in good health I do not think the veterans insurance policy is better than the ordinary policy but for the veterans who cannot get ordinary insurance I do not think there should be a cut-off date, and certainly not by 1951. For the man who is unable to get insurance otherwise through the private companies, I think the privilege of getting veterans insurance should be extended and carried on for, I would say, another five years. It seems to me, as the other hon. member pointed out, that many of these veterans perhaps only now are realizing their family obligations or in fact achieving family obligations; some of us find ourselves in that position. It is only now that they will be realizing the necessity for insurance and looking for that policy. I think the minister might well consider carrying it on for another five years.


Howard Charles Green: Can the minister tell us how long after the first world war it was possible

to get this insurance? If I remember correctly what happened in the veterans affairs committee, the general feeling was that there should not be much hesitation in extending the cut-off date. I would hope that the minister is giving consideration now to extending that date next year.


Milton Fowler Gregg: In view of the discussion tonight, Mr. Chairman, I shall be glad to give that matter careful consideration before any announcement is made as to the cut-off date.


Howard Charles Green: Can the minister tell us how long after the first war it was possible to get this insurance?


Milton Fowler Gregg: I am afraid that none of us here can tell that exactly. Of my own personal knowledge I remember that it was extended several times. I think it was somewhere in the vicinity of 1935, but I am not sure.


Howard Charles Green: That is seventeen years.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: At least four extensions.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Can the minister tell us whether this cut-off date of February 2, 1951, is a statutory provision?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Yes, Mr. Chairman. It was in the amendments to the insurance act which I brought in in 1948.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I would suggest to the minister that if that is the case it may be, and certainly I would think it is likely, that the house would not be meeting again in time to pass an amendment to this act before that date. If therefore anything were going to be done by us to extend the date, it would probably have to be done at this session.


An hon. Member:: Or by order in council.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Therefore it is a matter that should receive what you might call immediate consideration. There is another question I wish to ask as to the figures the minister gave of approximately 27,000 applications and approximately 23,000 policies issued. Do I understand that those are the numbers of applications and policies issued as from the inception of the act?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


Douglas Scott Harkness: My understanding has always been that this insurance was for the benefit of veterans who were unable to get an insurance policy from the ordinary line companies because of various disabilities they had and so forth. I was rather surprised to find that the number of applications exceeded the number of policies by some 5,000. I should like to ask the minister what the explanation of that is.
Supply-Veterans Affairs


Milton Fowler Gregg: Perhaps I should have explained that. The number of applications that I quoted was the grand total of applications from the beginning down to the present time. The number of policies in force were those actually in force at the present time, which did not take into consideration at all those whose policies had lapsed; for example, those who had died and whose policies had been paid.


Douglas Scott Harkness: There is then no question of people having applied and having been turned down?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Oh, no. There have been some turned down.


Douglas Scott Harkness: There just have not been any cases of that kind?


Milton Fowler Gregg: There were 58 declined out of the whole lot.


Douglas Scott Harkness: What would be the reason
for those 58 being turned down, just generally speaking? I do not mean to go into every case.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I could not give it exactly, but to cover it generally it could be that they did not meet the requirements of the act. I suppose it probably might be lack of sufficient service or it might be for a number of reasons.


Douglas Scott Harkness: There is one other question I want to ask. This is entirely the administration end of the veterans insurance. I had some question in my mind as to how this veterans insurance had worked out from the point of view of profit and loss. Has the government had a profit on this veterans insurance or has it suffered a loss up to date? If so, what is the amount of the profit or loss?


Milton Fowler Gregg: I think this would answer my hon. friend. The treasury pays the cost of the administration, which is voted here.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I meant apart from administration.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Granted the cost of administration, then beyond that we believe it to be actuarially sound: no profit and no loss.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Does that mean that up to
date there has been a profit to the treasury, we will say, on the operation of this act? And if so, to what amount?


Frank Exton Lennard: The minister said "no profit and no loss".


Douglas Scott Harkness: You cannot have that. That is not practically possible.


Milton Fowler Gregg: To put it briefly the payments received on account of premiums on policies are paid into the fund; the amounts due on account of collections on policies are paid out

Supply-Veterans Affairs of the fund. 'With that intake and outgo, there remained in the fund as at March 31, 1950, a total of $6,307,889.88.


The Deputy Chairman:: The hon. member
for Yale.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I had another question.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. I think the hon. member should consider giving other hon. members an opportunity of asking questions.
I understand that he wants to pursue a certain line of questioning; but suppose, for instance, he would like to pursue it for another twenty or twenty-five minutes. In that case no other hon. members could put any questions. He can always revert to his line of questioning.


Owen Lewis Jones: My question has been partly
answered. I wonder if the minister can tell us the total amount of insurance carried or the value of the insurance carried, the amount of premiums held by the government and, if possible, how those premiums are invested?


Milton Fowler Gregg: The total value of the policies in force is $68,286,000 odd.


Mr. Johnston:: How many have lapsed?


Milton Fowler Gregg: On March 31, 1950, there were 1,092 lapses.


Owen Lewis Jones: What premiums in total are held against this liability?


Milton Fowler Gregg: The sum of $5,996,000. That is held by the Department of Finance.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I was going to ask that question. Apparently there are premiums of $5,996,000 held against the policies. The total payments that have been received are $6,700,000. Is that extra $900,000 what might be called profit, or what is the basis of it?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Perhaps this might answer my hon. friend's question. The total disbursements on account of deaths and so on, payments on policies, have been $311,021.83, leaving a net balance of $5,996,868.05, or a total of $6,307,889.88.


Percy Ellis Wright: What interest does the Department of Finance pay, if any, to the insurance fund for the reserve of which they have the use?


Milton Fowler Gregg: It is 3J per cent.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I do not think my question has been answered yet. There is a difference in the amount held as premiums against the policies of $5,900,000. Apparently there have been disbursements of $311,000. That still leaves some $500,000. My original question was as follows: Was the $800,000 profit, or what might be called profit? Apparently


it has been reduced by the $311,000. I do not know whether that is actually so or not. Apparently you still have $6,700,000 on hand.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I will be glad to send my hon. friend a copy of the balance sheet.


Frank Exton Lennard: When a private insurance company issues a policy the general rule is that if the policyholder pays in anything over possibly three premiums he has a paid up policy of some amount. Does that apply in this instance? If a veteran pays in for four years and then allows his policy to lapse has he any stake in it? If not, that is a departure from the general practice of insurance companies.


Milton Fowler Gregg: The principle is incorporated in the insurance. I have not here the exact number of years, for instance, at which it remains paid up. The principle is incorporated in this insurance.


Charles Edward Johnston: A moment ago the minister gave the number that had lapsed. The number was well over a thousand. I could not catch the odd numbers. In any event can the minister give us the reasons for those lapses? How long do they have to reinstate their policies if they so desire?


Milton Fowler Gregg: I presume the reasons would be the well known reasons why many of us have allowed our insurance in ordinary line companies to lapse-they did not have the money. If the man finds that he can get over whatever difficulty caused his policy to lapse he can renew his application and take out a new policy.


Charles Edward Johnston: How long a period does he have to reinstate it?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Until the cut-off date, whenever that may be set. He can come back and apply again. Perhaps the hon. member means, how long would his policy run if it had been going for several years. I cannot give him that information offhand. I will try and get it for him.


Charles Edward Johnston: Is there any cash refund if he does not carry the policy on?


Milton Fowler Gregg: This perhaps will throw some light on it. I said that the number that had lapsed was 1,092; but I am advised that there have been a total of 3,505 lapsed. Of those 3,505, 2,413 have been reinstated, leaving a net of 1,092 that are still lapsed.


Charles Edward Johnston: Is there any cash refund on those that are not reinstated? What is the rate of interest that is paid on their investment?


Milton Fowler Gregg: I will get that information for my hon. friend.


Douglas Scott Harkness: A little while ago the minister said that he would send me a copy of the balance sheet. That is very nice. I may get it in a week or so, but it will certainly not be any good to me as far as the discussion on this estimate is concerned. As far as I can make out, there is some $500,000, probably more than that, on which we have not been given any explanation. I asked whether it was profit, whether it was reserves or what the situation was in connection with it. That is the explanation I should like to have.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Let us take a date, say March 31, 1950. My hon. friend has a sharp pencil. Under the heading of receipts appears the fund as at March 31, 1949. That is carried forward, and amounts to $4,156,238.49. Still under receipts appears, interest on fund at 3-J per cent, $168,536.15. Under that, interest on overdue premiums, $140.71. Under that, premiums received, $1,980,085.28. Under that, claim repayments recovered through subsequent awards under the Pension Act, death benefits, under a subheading, $2,061,28; annuity payments, $872.97. These are all under receipts. The total is $6,307,889.88.
Now, under expenditures, payments at death-includes $4,892.40 paid up insurance, section 10-the total there is $92,057.44. There were annuity payments of $36,458.92. Excess premiums refunded amounted to $28,976 27. Cash surrender values paid-this partly answers the question asked-$149,538.93. Payments under change of plan of policy, $2,990.27. Total disbursements, $311,021.83. The difference between that and the total net receipts gives a balance of $5,996,868.05, making a total of $6,307,889.88.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The minister said the payments into the fund were $6,700,000 odd, which still leaves $500,000. Where does that come in?	.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I am afraid I do not understand just where the hon. member gets his $500,000.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The minister said the
receipts were $5,900,000, which is the figure just given to us made up of a number of smaller items, but he said at the same time that the payments into the fund amounted to $6,700,000, which gives a difference of some $800,000. The total payments out were $311,000, which leaves out of the $800,000 approximately $500,000.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I am afraid my earlier figures misled the hon. member. The $5 million figure was not a payment into the fund, it was the net balance of the fund itself.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Supply-Veterans Affairs
Payments to or for veterans and dependents
[Stage Direction]
537.	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, $99,739,000.
Mr. Cardiff:: 
Milton Fowler Gregg: 
Lewis Elston Cardiff: That is so.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I suppose it indicates the
growth of our Canadian nationhood that in 1919 it was considered that these should be paid in the way they were, and in this last war the method of payment was changed. The following is the list of awards being
made by Canada war II:	to recipients	in world
		Total
	No. of	amount
	recipients	paid
Victoria Cross 	
2	$ 100.00George Medal	
3	150.00Military Medal	
252	11,498.76D.S.M	
8	365.04D.F.M	
42	1,916.46D.F.C	
14	638.82M.C	
3	136.89D.C.M	
40	1,825.20
With regard to the military crosses it will be noted that if won by an officer, no pension is paid, but where won by a warrant officer, a pension is paid.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: This man complains that he is being discriminated against because the pound has gone down in value, and I think this amounts to a difference of $37 per year.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I have had correspondence with some recipients of this pension. The hon. member will realize that the amount is more of a token payment than anything else. There have been other recipients who have stated to me that they would like to have the payments continue from the original source, the war office. I assure my hon. friend that I shall keep it in mind.

Supply-Veterans Affairs


George Stanley White: I wonder if I could ask one question? At the last veterans affairs committee there was a brief on behalf of the Hong Kong veterans. Can the minister tell us how many of the Hong Kong veterans are receiving a pension and whether or not the pensions board gives any special allowances or consideration to them?


Milton Fowler Gregg: I know my hon. friend was not in the committee this afternoon, and I hope he will read the statement I made about the Hong Kong veterans with regard to both treatment and pensions. The number in receipt of pension was just around 1,000, and approximately 200 more have entitlement for free hospitalization who are not in receipt of pension. This is out of a total of 1,415 survivors.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
538.	Newfoundland special awards, $46,000.
Gordon Francis Higgins: This item appears to be cut almost in half and perhaps the minister could explain. The minister might also explain just what this item covers.


Milton Fowler Gregg: The item is trimmed to the actual need. As my hon. friend may know, before the union of Newfoundland with Canada there were a few veterans in Newfoundland who were in receipt of pension from the G.W.V.A., which was to all intents and purposes administering moneys under the former government of Newfoundland. In order to fulfil the terms of union to the last dollar it was arranged that this should come in as a special item and be carried forward as long as these particular recipients were alive.


Gordon Francis Higgins: The need for this has now gone?


Milton Fowler Gregg: The need for part of it is gone.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Who advised you that the need was gone?


Milton Fowler Gregg: They have all been provided for.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
539.	War veterans allowances, $21,715,000.
Douglas Scott Harkness: I should like to ask the minister whether this estimate includes the increased amount which it is estimated will be required as a result of the changes in the War Veterans Allowance Act to extend the benefit thereof to people who served in British and other allied forces during the first war?


Milton Fowler Gregg: No, Mr. Chairman, that is not reflected here. It will be necessary to ask for a further supplementary amount of

approximately $2 million. When these estimates were compiled the bill had not been brought forward.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The increase of $2 million is entirely due to the greater number of people who will become eligible this year?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
540.	Assistance fund (war veterans allowance), $750,000.
Frank Exton Lennard: I should like to ask how this money was distributed by provinces, what amount in each province?


Milton Fowler Gregg: It is not allotted in accordance with the population. As has been explained before, the intent of the fund is to take care of cases of hardship amongst recipients of war veterans allowance who have no other means of support. This breakdown is at the end of the fiscal year, March 31, 1950. It is as follows:
Applications
Province or city	Approved Amount
Newfoundland	 44
Charlottetown (P.E.I.)	 97
Halifax (Nova Scotia)	 430
Saint John (New Brunswick) ..	492
Quebec (eastern Quebec)	 190
Montreal (western Quebec) .... 1,093
Ottawa	 252
Kingston	  122
Toronto	 1,229
Hamilton	   301
London	 370
North Bay	 287
Winnipeg	 618
Regina	 180
Saskatoon	 253
Calgary	 341
Edmonton	 226
Vancouver	 2,751

9,276	$564,252.20


Frank Exton Lennard: How many were monthly
payments and how many were outright grants?


Milton Fowler Gregg: We have never demanded that our district offices break that down for us. It would be a very difficult thing to do. Based upon the need in some cases, there might well be a grant to overcome the difficulty and a little later an increase in the war veterans allowance. Except as a matter of general interest, I doubt very much whether if it would be worth all the work that would be involved in preparing a statistical record.


Frank Exton Lennard: In other words, these amounts are for monthly payments?


Milton Fowler Gregg: No, these are payments for the fiscal year, for the number of people in each district that I have indicated for the first year of the fund's history.


Frank Exton Lennard: But they were monthly payments?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Not necessarily. Many of them were but some of them were not.


Frank Exton Lennard: Does the cost of administration come out of this item?


Milton Fowler Gregg: No, the cost of administration
is taken care of by the welfare vote.


Howard Charles Green: This particular form of help
was first introduced in the fiscal year 1949-50, and for that year it was set at $500,000. For the present fiscal year there is an increase to $750,000. Last year the provision was really an experiment. The minister told us that he wanted to see how it would work out before deciding on a permanent policy. Is the minister now in a position to tell us what the permanent policy is to be? If assistance of this type is to be continued then I suggest there should be some statute behind it so that these veterans will not be dependent on the bringing in of an annual vote. That is always a very uncertain way to provide for payments. It would seem that we should very soon be reaching the stage of having some statute to define just what the rights are. Perhaps the minister can tell us whether his department has reached any final conclusion as to this matter. I think it should also be pointed out to the minister again that the very fact he is finding it necessary to increase the amount for these grants shows that the amount of war veterans allowance payable is insufficient. These amounts are paid to help recipients of war veterans allowance, and if the amount of war veterans allowance were increased there would not be such need for the grant. I am sure that veterans would prefer to have an increase in their war veterans allowance instead of having to pass a second means test in order to receive payments from the assistance fund.
Then, there is another feature. As I understand the present regulations, a man cannot qualify for any help whatever unless he is drawing full war veterans allowance. It would appear to me that if he is getting a small pension of, let us say, $25 a month, and then gets a certain amount by way of war veterans allowance, he cannot qualify for help under this fund.
I have here a notice sent out by the Vancouver office which refers to "any veteran or veteran's widow in receipt of full war veterans allowance, who is in need." That is, they have to come within that classification in order to qualify for help.
I am wondering why there is that strict provision. Why is the regulation not made wide enough so that help can be given to any veterans in receipt of some war veterans
Supply-Veterans Affairs allowance? I believe there are many cases where a veteran may be drawing only partial war veterans allowance, and yet he may be badly in need of help of this kind. He cannot qualify for it because of the present regulation.
Then, there is one other point; apparently in making an investigation, before allowing any help from this fund, investigators go into all sorts of details. For instance, question 13 on the form refers to entitlement to assistance from other sources, such as social assistance, mothers' allowance, old age pensions, family allowance, medical and hospital care, and other things.
Surely that is going pretty far. Does it mean that an attempt is made to shove the veteran off onto the city authorities for social assistance or, if it is a widow, onto the provincial authorities for mothers' allowance? I do not think the attitude should be that these veterans or widows must try every other source for help before becoming eligible for assistance from this fund. Would the minister explain the situation with regard to these different points?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Mr. Chairman, dealing with the maximum of war veterans allowance, if the recipient were not in receipt of the maximum available, and were in need, then he could be raised to that maximum under the regular terms of the war veterans allowance. That is why we refer to the recipient who is in receipt of the maximum war veterans allowance available. Because if he is not in receipt, and is in need, then he can be brought up to that maximum.


Howard Charles Green: What about the small pensioner?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Perhaps I had better read the regulation, word for word:
Amount allowed: no recipient may receive assistance in any twelve consecutive months in an amount greater than the difference between his total income including war veterans allowance and income from other sources and the maximum amount of income allowed under the War Veterans Allowance Act, 1946. In no case shall the amount exceed $120 for a recipient awarded the rate for a single person or $180 for a recipient of war veterans allowance in the amount of $70.83 a month If awarded otherwise.
In practice I am told that the receipt of a small pension does not debar him from participation in the assistance fund.


Howard Charles Green: Even although he is getting a pension of, let us say, $25; that would allow him about $25 war veterans allowance. Would a man in that position be entitled to get this assistance? If so, the regulation should be clarified.


Milton Fowler Gregg: With his pension and his war veterans allowance we can bring him up to the maximum permissible income.

Supply-Veterans Affairs


Howard Charles Green: I want to get that clear; take the case I mentioned where the man gets a pension of $25. He is allowed $10 over and above war veterans allowance, so that he would get $10 clear, and then the remaining $15 of his pension would cut down the amount of his war veterans allowance to $25.41. In the way these regulations read at the present time that man would be ineligible for any assistance from this fund, because he is not getting $40.41 war veterans allowance.


Milton Fowler Gregg: We are able to augment such a man's pension up to the maximum of the permissible income.


Howard Charles Green: But you do not have to augment it. He is entitled to a pension of $25.


Milton Fowler Gregg: His war veterans allowance, I should say.


Howard Charles Green: He is entitled to a pension oi $25 and under the War Veterans Allowance Act he is entitled to an allowance of $25.41, making a total of $50.41. Can the minister give him further help from this fund?


Milton Fowler Gregg: No, we have already lifted it.


Howard Charles Green: But he could get that before this fund was ever brought into existence. There is no help for him at all from the fund, in those circumstances. Surely some discretion should be given to the district to help these men if they are in need.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I believe I have answered the hon. member as best I can. The normal maximum augmentation of the $25 pension for a single man would be another $25.40, thus bringing it up to $50.


Howard Charles Green: But he is entitled to get war veterans allowance bringing him up to $50 anyway. I am asking whether he is entitled to any help from this fund.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Not above the $50 in this case, no.


Howard Charles Green: There is the other point I mentioned with which the minister has not dealt yet, the question of putting this into legislation.


Milton Fowler Gregg: The answer to that briefly, Mr. Chairman, is that this last year has been the first year for the fund, I do not think my hon. friend is justified in criticizing us for increasing the amount of the estimate this year when we feel the need is there. We might have been subject to criticism if the need had been there and we had not increased the estimate.


Howard Charles Green: I am criticizing you because you have not increased the war veterans allowance.
[Mr. Gregg. 1


Milton Fowler Gregg: There is a good reason for that, and I should like to say a word about what our policy within the department is this year. Frankly, during this year, we would like to utilize this assistance fund to take care of hardship, as we started to do last year, while the discussions mature about old age security generally. There is no question about it; this War Veterans Allowance Act, with the assistance fund alongside of it, is old age security. If my hon. friend wishes me to tell him what I should like to see, it is this. Under the theory of the pre-ageing effect of battle, it has been established that war veterans should get the war veterans allowance ten years earlier than the old age pension would be received, or at the age of 60. I am glad that has happened, even though I do not agree that every individual who survived in battle was pre-aged by ten years. I am sure my hon. friend was not. Nevertheless, I am glad it happened.
When social security for the aged is worked out on behalf of all our people, then whether it is five years or ten years, whatever it might be, I hope that the amount of the war veterans allowance going to the veteran in each of the provinces, in that period between 60 and 70 we shall say, will be the same as it would be for all the people after the age of 70. In other words, in my own province at the present time the war veterans allowance between 60 and 70 is almost exactly the same as the old age pension for the rest of the people from 70 until death. In my hon. friend's province, for 75 per cent of the recipients, the war veterans allowance has been augmented to bring it up to $50 per month as a sort of cost of living bonus. I should like to see the time when the veterans of the various provinces will receive the same as the residents of those provinces are receiving under the old age pension. Now, it is going to take a lot of planning to work that out, but in reality that is the real reason why I would rather see hardship overcome during these two years by this patchwork method, if you will, rather than by making an over-all increase from the eastern border of Saskatchewan to Newfoundland inclusive, which would bring the war veterans allowance, from 60 until death, ten dollars higher than the old age pension from 70 until death for the rest of the population.


Howard Charles Green: This is a temporary arrangement, pending some change in policy. I just want to say a word about the other point with which I was dealing. If a non-pen-sioned veteran drawing $40.41 war veterans allowance has an income of $10 outside his war veterans allowance, he can still get help

from this fund. But take the case of a small pensioner, if he gets $10 extra in addition to his pension, he can get no help whatever from the fund. The way the regulation is worded now, it does not work out fairly, and I think there should be a change in the wording of the regulation, instead of basing it on the fact the man draws a total of $40.41 war veterans allowance. Some other line should be drawn.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I Shall be glad to make a careful study of that, Mr. Chairman, and have it reviewed by the counsel within the department who has given a lot of thought to this matter of the assistance fund.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I heard the minister give a figure as to the percentage of recipients of war veterans allowance in one province who had their allowance supplemented by $50. During the discussion has he given those percentages for the other provinces, and if not, could he do so now?


Milton Fowler Gregg: I have that in my office, but not here. I remember British Columbia figures particularly because I have been told so often in this house that the war veterans allowance is so much lower in British Columbia than the old age pension.


Howard Charles Green: So it is.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Let me reply to that by stating that 76 per cent of the applicants in British Columbia for war veterans allowance assistance have been granted assistance for which they applied. Of the recipients of old age pensions in British Columbia, 74-2 per cent are receiving the extra $10 per month if they have lived in British Columbia three years, and it is looked upon as a cost of living bonus.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That causes me to ask a question. So far as Calgary was concerned, the figure given by the minister worked out to about $40 per year, and that was given to 319 people who applied for assistance under this particular provision. He says now that in British Columbia 75 per cent of the people on war veterans allowance have been brought up to the scale of the old age pension. The scale for the old age pension in Alberta is higher than in British Columbia at the present time; it is the highest in Canada. Apparently the war veterans in Alberta have only had an average of $40 per year increase, so they have not been brought up to anything like the scale of the old age pension.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I did not state that 70 per cent of the applicants for war veterans allowance had been brought up to $50. I said that their
Supply-Veterans Affairs cases had been cared for. I would also indicate that even at the average of the amount shown for Calgary, it has been rather surprising to see the degree of hardship that could be overcome by spot amounts of $25, $30, $40, or $50. It has helped in a great many cases.


Douglas Scott Harkness: But my point still remains. How is it that 75 per cent of the people in Alberta have not been brought up to the scale of the old age pensions if they have in British Columbia?


Milton Fowler Gregg: I did not suggest that, Mr. Chairman. I could also ask the question, if I wanted to do so, why a larger per capita amount had not been spent in the province of New Brunswick, or on behalf of my friends in Newfoundland. We are more economical down there.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the minister about the supplementary amount that has been paid in British Columbia. He says that 75 per cent of the recipients of the war veterans allowance assistance have received spot payments of $40 or $50 to tide them over. Were those $40 to $50 payments a temporary arrangement or a more or less permanent thing?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Some of those will be payments of $10 per month to single men or $15 per month to a man and his wife, while others will be spot payments, and others will be small amounts of money to help the veteran overcome a difficulty. I did not at all attempt to indicate, and if I did I take it back, that they were all in any sense regular amounts paid for the twelve months of the year.


Mr. McCusker:: I should like to ask the
minister if there is a greater proportion of veterans in British Columbia asking for assistance than in the other provinces. It seems to me the grants there are considerably heavier.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I would not say that they are, Mr. Chairman. I would say, however, that there is a much larger proportion of veterans in British Columbia, both old and young, in comparison with the rest of the population, than in any other part of Canada. That is because of the climate.


Emmett Andrew McCusker: I am not doubting what
the minister said, and I do not want to seem to be doing so. I think the minister said that 2,400 applied for assistance in British Columbia compared with about 400 in Saskatchewan.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Who had been accepted.


Emmett Andrew McCusker: Who had been accepted.


Milton Fowler Gregg: 2,751 in Vancouver.

Supply-Veterans Affairs


Emmett Andrew McCusker: Compared to how many in Saskatchewan?


Milton Fowler Gregg: That is Saskatoon and Regina,
which takes in all Saskatchewan?


Emmett Andrew McCusker: Yes.


Milton Fowler Gregg: 432.


Emmett Andrew McCusker: I do not think that there
are seven times as many veterans in British Columbia as there are in Saskatchewan.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Shall the item carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Emmett Andrew McCusker: I should like to have an
answer to that question.


Milton Fowler Gregg: The census is to be taken next year and we shall have for the first time in Canada a real picture of the veteran population. The bureau of statistics have agreed to do that. Until then I am sure I would not be able to answer the question correctly.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Payments to or for veterans and dependents-
541.	Unemployment assistance, $50,000.
Winfield Chester Scott McLure: This is only a small item, but I should like the minister to explain what unemployment assistance is. Large amounts have been gone over tonight. For instance, there is an item for temporary employment. We have already voted about $25 million without asking any questions. But I should like to know what this small item is.


Milton Fowler Gregg: This vote is a traditional one. It has been in the estimates for about twenty years. One of these days perhaps we shall merge it with something else. It has played a useful part, and it provides for controlled assistance, generally in the form of cash, to provide shelter, lodging, fuel and food to veterans in the following classifications who are unemployed and in necessitous circumstances:
(1)	Veterans who served with the Canadian forces during world war I and who are in receipt of a small disability pension under the Canadian Pension Act. Perhaps this will be some satisfaction to the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra because some of those he mentioned may receive assistance here.
(2)	Veterans who served with His Majesty's forces other than Canadian during world war I or with forces of His Majesty's allies during world war I who are in receipt of a small disability pension and were resident in Canada on or befo.re December 1, 1924. Under category B this little fund will now be relieved by the effect of my bill that went through the other day. I am sorry, but if


the hon. member for Queens asked me a direct question, I did not catch it. May I ask if he would repeat it.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I was just asking what this amount was for, and the minister has given practically a general view of it. How much of this was paid out last year? Under what terms does a veteran make application for this assistance? It is something new. I do not know whether or not any of it is being paid out in my province. I should just like to find out whether it is or not; and if not, why not.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Each district is familiar with this little emergency fund; and from time to time there come to their attention veterans within this category who are in need of assistance immediately; and amounts from this fund are used. For the year 1949-50 a total of $29,964 was utilized. Of that, $3,848 was in the way of cash assistance to veterans in need in the categories I have mentioned; $240 was to assist in the purchase of clothing. The number of veterans involved was 1,068.


Mr.   Baler@: Are these veterans who cannot qualify under unemployment insurance or is this a supplement to unemployment insurance?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Yes. These veterans would not be able to qualify under unemployment insurance, no.


Clarence Gillis: Is that fund administered
provincially, and who administers it?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Our district office in Halifax, Saint John, Charlottetown and so on.


Clarence Gillis: You have not the break-down of that by provinces, have you?


Milton Fowler Gregg: No, I have not.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Soldier Settlement and Veterans Land Act-
547. To provide for the cost of administration of Veterans Land Act; soldier settlement and British family settlement, $4,563,514.
Mr. Hansell:: The minister will have to tell me whether or not I am speaking under the correct item. If I should come in on a later item, I shall be glad to defer discussion until then. But I have a case which might be typical of several others. It is that of a war veteran who sought the benefits of the loans offered to veterans for machinery to run his farm. This particular veteran had only put in 259 days and his service was in the western hemisphere. Evidently he was not able to get the loan. In a letter to the minister I explained the situation and I received a reply from one of his officials who evidently answered the inquiry owing to the minister's

absence from his office. The answer I received was the report that was given on this young man's case. That was not the answer I wanted, because the young chap himself gave me the same report, which he had also received some little while before.
The regulations were quoted, and evidently the young veteran has to put in a certain length of time before he can qualify. I am wondering whether that is simply a hard and fast rule or whether the rule could not be made flexible enough to take in deserving cases. According to this young man's interview with me, he was not entirely responsible for his early discharge. He wanted to remain in the forces and he also wanted to go overseas. I must confess the young man feels that perhaps he has been discriminated against a little for some reason or other. I am wondering whether the minister would agree to look into this case further to see if something can be done for this young man. He does not want a grant; he wants a loan. It would appear that he is able to pay back a loan. At present he is residing on land that he is farming. It looks good, and there appears to me to be no risk on the part of the government to grant the loan to this young man under the regulations, if it is possible for him to get under the present regulations.
If there is no risk taken I do not see why he, as well as others who may have been in the army a week longer than he was, are not able to receive the benefit of the loan. I know that in all of these things you have to draw the line somewhere; but in a case like this of a young chap, who after all offered himself and was in the forces, it does seem to me that he should be able to get the benefit of this. As a matter of fact, it is not a benefit; it is simply an accommodation.
I am wondering whether the regulations could be made more flexible, or whether the minister will not look a little further into this case, with a view to trying to accommodate this particular individual.


Milton Fowler Gregg: It is not a matter of the regulations; it is in the act. A great deal of thought was given to this by those who worked on it here and framed the act. The result of their deliberations was: for the veteran who had service overseas, yes; if he were a pensioner on any amount, yes; if he had 365 days, in the western hemisphere, yes. As my hon. friend says, they felt that there had to be a fair cutoff day somewhere, and one year appeared to be sound. Bear in mind that service of less than that time did entitle the veteran to some re-establishment credit for his service, so he was not left out entirely. But for the purpose of this act it was considered that either 365
Supply-Veterans Affairs days, a pension or service overseas was the governing factor. It is there in the act, and I think that it has met with general acceptance. I feel sorry, as my hon. friend does, for those that we have had to turn down. We have not granted any at all under that 365 days. I have one on my desk now for 363 days which I have to turn down; so there it is.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The travelling expenses under the Veterans Land Act, soldier settlement board, seem to be pretty high. I see it is estimated at $600,000 this year. Last year it was $550,000. I was wondering whether it was necessary to have that amount for travelling expenses. I do not know how much of this $550,000 was spent last year. I would like the minister to tell us that. In my own experience with this I think that there is probably a great deal more running around the country than is entirely necessary.
During the last year, for example, there was a sort of garden competition held for small holdings. I know that the supervisors and others ran all over the country looking at those gardens to see which one had made the greatest improvement. A prize was given for the garden which showed the greatest improvement. As a matter of fact, these people went around in threes. I happen to know of three of the supervisors who went around to the men's places looking at their gardens. They spent considerable time there. Then they went on to somebody else's place. They spent a great deal of time doing that. It seems to me that the travelling expenses incurred as a result of these people doing that amounted to a large amount. I do not know how many of them did it. It must have been a large number across Canada as a whole. The cost of that was extensive. I doubt very much whether any good result came from it. This is one instance of the way in which considerable amounts of money are being, if not wasted, at any rate very close to it, in the way of travelling expenses under the Veterans Land Act.


Milton Fowler Gregg: To answer my hon. friends' question, last year the sum of $574,340 was spent in travelling expenses. It is a large amount. I think it will be realized that those who followed the experiences of the soldier settlement board from 1920 on, and saw the losses incurred by the treasury and the taxpayer on account of veterans being placed on land and left to a great extent to fend for themselves under circumstances that they did not understand, losing their morale in many instances, and coming to the point on two occasions where these loans had to be cut off, or substantial portions of them, will not object. We are now in the process of clearing up these problem cases at the latter

Supply-Veterans Affairs end. It was determined that this time men going on the land should have follow-up assistance.
I can assure my hon. friend that the directors, and field supervisors in Alberta and elsewhere, do not enjoy driving their cars out over the hills; they do not do it as a matter of pleasure. But so far-and we are not going to brag too soon-the Veterans Land Act plan both for the farm and the small holdings is moving forward with a good deal of success.
My hon. friend spoke of the competition last year. I am not going to make any apologies either for the competition itself, the prizes, the running around or the publicity with regard to that competition. It will be remembered that two years ago it was my duty to bring to this house in estimates a demand for large sums of money for what I was pleased to call remedial purposes. What it was for was to try and fix. up quickly built structures on our subdivisions across Canada, some of which were bad, but often worse in the minds of those who lived in them, because they were discouraged.
By the efforts of the director and the staff with the people living on those subdivisions, that phase ended and eventually they achieved a measure of enthusiasm for brightening up their property, and growing some garden on it, and as a result of the competition held last year as applied to the small holdings and subdivisions I can tell my hon. friend that the whole standard of the homes on those subdivisions has been greatly raised. So much so that this year we are carrying on a similar scheme of competition as between small holdings which are independently located, not on subdivisions. On the other hand, we will continue to make as large economies as we can in the travelling expenses here, commensurate with service to the veterans.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Tomorrow we will take up third reading of Bill No. 265, respecting the units of electrical and photometric measure; then the resolution which appears in today's Votes and Proceedings to provide and maintain a residence for the Prime Minister
which the Minister of Trade and Commerce will wish to advance as far as possible. I am told that there are some amendments from the Senate to the Income Tax Act which may come up. I have not seen the Minister of Finance but I am announcing them in case it is possible to go ahead. We will proceed with Bill No. 209, to amend the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, 1939, if the Minister of Agriculture is in Ottawa. Then Bill No. 133 and Bill No. 134 concerning national defence and the Militia Pension Act. There is also a resolution in the name of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to amend, consolidate and clarify the Indian Act. If time is left we will take up the estimates of veterans affairs. On Thursday it is our intention to proceed with national defence estimates.


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

[Stage Direction]
528.	Departmental administration, $2,175,279.
529.	District administration, $2,894,311.
530.	Veterans' welfare services, $3,494,538.
531.	Treatment services, $34,389,177.
532.	Prosthetic services, $983,450.
Canadian pension commission-
533.	Administration expenses, $2,132,824.
534.	Veterans bureau, $436,791.
535.	War veterans' allowance board-administration, $203,960.
536.	Veterans' insurance, $77,495.
Payments to or for veterans and dependents-
537.	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, $99,739,000.
538.	Newfoundland special awards, $46,000.
539.	War veterans' allowances, $21,715,000.
540.	Assistance fund (war veterans' allowance), $750,000.
541.	Unemployment assistance, $50,000.
542.	Hospital and other allowances, $3,720,000.
543.	Gallantry awards-world war XI, $18,000. Miscellaneous payments-
544.	Employers liability compensation, $150,000.
545.	Last Post fund, $125,000.
546.	Grant to Canadian Legion, $9,000.