1955-07-18

Mr. Denis:: What total amount has the federal government
(a)	guaranteed: (b) advanced, to date, (1) with respect to each province of Canada; (ii) to the city of Montreal; (iii) to the city of Toronto, under the National Housing Act?
(Translation) :


Mr. Bourget:: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asked me if he could have this question dropped from the order paper because he intends to submit it later with a few changes.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Question dropped.


DIVERSION CHARGES
Mr. Knight:: 1.	What are diversion charges?
2.	How much wheat was shipped through the port of Churchill, during the last season of navigation?
3.	On how much of it were diversion charges paid?
4.	What was the amount of the diversion charge per bushel?
5.	What was the total amount of the charges paid in the above period on Churchill-shipped wheat?
6.	To what grain companies were the charges paid?
7.	What service did such companies render for such payment?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	A diversion charge is a charge assessed by an elevator company when grain shipped from one of its country elevators is diverted away from that company's terminal elevator to another destination. Diversion charges are a long established practice in the western grain trade. Diversion charges originate from the fact that elevator companies consider their country and terminal elevators, as an entity; terminal revenues being an important factor in determining the basis upon which country elevators can be operated. Therefore, the trade practice has developed that when a company losses terminal handling on grain through the diversion of a country elevator shipment to a destination other than a company's terminal, a diversion charge is made in lieu of terminal earnings.
Diversions of grain are necessary if mills or other processors located west of the lakehead are to receive their grain requirements.
Most diversion charges are paid by mills, processors, etc., directly to elevator companies on the basis of rates negotiated between them. The Canadian wheat board is only involved in diversion charges in respect to:
(a)	Grain diverted to interior terminal elevators.
(b)	Grain diverted to Churchill.
(c)	Grain diverted to Prince Rupert.
These diversion charges are a matter of
negotiation between the board and the handling companies and form part of the over-all handling agreement between the board and the handling companies.
2.	12,484,893-4 bushels (export shipments).
3.	Diversion charges were paid on all wheat shipped from country stations to Churchill for prompt export or storage.
4.	1J cents per bushel.
5.	$185,490.21. (Consists of diversion charges on wheat shipped to Churchill during the 1954 navigation season and on wheat subsequently shipped to Churchill to refill the elevator.)
6.	To all elevator companies shipping wheat to Churchill for account of the Canadian wheat board. It is not the policy of the board to disclose the competitive position of various elevator companies in their capacity as agents of the board.
7.	See answer to No. 1.


WHALLEY, B.C., POST OFFICE BUILDING
Mr. Hahn:: 1.	Has the Department of Public Works a lease on the building used as a post office in Whalley, British Columbia?
2.	If so, when was the present lease signed, and when does it expire?
3.	Who were the principal owners of the building at the time of signing the original lease, and what was the occupation of each?
4.	Has there been any change in ownership since the time of signing the original lease? If so, who are the present owners?
5.	How many square feet of floor space does the building contain?
6.	(a) What is the total annual rent paid for the said building?
(b)	What is the assessed value of the building at the present time?
(c)	What was the assessed value of the building
at time originally leased?	'
7.	At the time of renting the building who appraised its rental valuation?
8.	Was the building constructed according to government specifications? If so, what is the description?

Questions
9.	How much was spent by the Department oi Public Works for repairs and maintenance of this building in each year since the lease was signed?


Mr. Bourgei:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Present lease covers a period from May 1, 1951, and expires on April 30, 1958.
3.	Mr. Thomas Binnie, real estate agent.
4.	Not to knowledge of the Department of Public Works.
5.	Building contains 5,040 sq. ft. with a loading platform of 840 sq. ft.
6.	(a) $5,964; (b) $20,340; (c) $16,600.
7.	The district architect of the Department of Public Works.
8.	(a) Building contracted to owners specifications and with the approval of the Department of Public Works.
(b) One storey masonry building, concrete floor, asphalt tile lobby, plaster walls and ceilings, bonded roof, fluorescent lights, oil fire and hot air heating.
9.	Under the terms of the lease the owner is responsible for repairs to the building.
1367 HOWE STREET, VANCOUVER, B.C.


Mr. Hahn:: 1.	Has the Royal Canadian Air Force a property under lease at 1367 Howe street in the city of Vancouver, British Columbia?
2.	If so, when was the lease signed and when does it expire?
3.	For what purpose was this property leased?
4.	What is the monthly rental?
5.	Who are the owners of this building and what is the usual occupation of each?
6.	What is the description of the building?
7.	At the time of leasing the building what person or persons appraised the rental value?
8.	Has any portion of the building been sublet? If so, to whom and for what purpose?
9.	What is the (a) assessed value; (b) appraised value of the building at the present time?
10.	What was (a) the assessed value; (b) the appraised value at the time of leasing?
11.	Is there a penthouse on the building?
12.	If so, has it been sublet?
13.	Who is the lessee, what rental is paid and for what purpose is it used?
14.	How much has been spent by the government on repairs and maintenance of this building since it was first leased?


Mr. Bourgei:: 1.	The Department of Public Works leases space at 1363-1367 Howe street, Vancouver, for the Royal Canadian Air Force (ground observer corps).
2.	The initial lease was signed on May 12, 1952, for 2400 sq. ft. at $4,800 per annum or $2.00 per sq. ft. The lease was revised on March 1, 1954 to cover a total of 4752 sq. ft. at $9,000 per annum or $1.89 per sq. ft. It will expire on February 28, 1959.
3.	For the ground observer corps of the Royal Canadian Air Force.
4.	$750.

5.	Mr. Rowe Holland, barrister.
Mr. William C. Couper, retired.
6.	One storey masonry building with office space on the mezzanine floor.
7.	Evaluated by district architect of the Department of Public Works for rental purposes.
8.	No.
9.	(a) Assessed value; Land, $5,000; building, $21,700; total, $26,700.
(b) No formal appraisal obtained. (See answer to No. 7).
10.	(a) Assessed value in December, 1951, when initial lease being considered: Land, $10,000; building, $35,000; total, $45,000.
(b) Cost of construction including land at $10,000 was $52,296.
11.	No. A portion has extra ceiling clearance as required for the plotting room.
12.	No.
13.	Answered by Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.
14.	Under the terms of the lease the lessor is responsible for general repairs. The Department of Public Works made the following expenditures for miscellaneous minor repairs since the building was first leased: 1952-53, $15.05; 1953-54, $94.55; 1954-55, $6.00.
The cleaning is carried out by the Department of National Defence at its own cost.


CIVIL DEFENCE
Mr. Huffman:: With reference to civil defence exercise Alert No. 2, held jointly with the Americans on June 15, has a review of the results of this exercise been undertaken since that date, and if so. was the test considered satisfactory?


Mr. Marlin:: A review of the entire exercise was recently made jointly by the Canadian and United States civil defence authorities but the findings are not yet available. However preliminary assessment of the Canadian part of the exercise indicates that it was eminently satisfactory and that there was at least an 80 per cent improvement in the effectiveness with which the exercise was carried out as compared with alert No. 1 held last year.
There was no attempt in Canada to carry out a test evacuation in any city in conjunction with alert No. 2. Evacuation trials in Canada were held separately in St. John's, Newfoundland, before June 15 and in Brandon, Manitoba, on June 26. Others are scheduled for later this year in a number of other Canadian cities. Canada's part in alert No. 2 was limited by design to a test of communication facilities and procedures, involving the surprise transmission of attack warning information to a number of participating cities. None of these cities had any

advance information as to the time or nature of the attack that they would have to cope with on June 15. The local and provincial organizations were required in their turn to report to the federal civil defence control centre at Arnprior on the detailed nature of the damage to their target area, the steps being taken to cope with it, and the requirements for aid from outside the target area.
The purpose of this exercise was to probe and expose our operations and other weaknesses. While there were a number of delays and errors in the transmission of messages, these errors and delays were not too numerous and both the provincial and federal civil defence authorities have learned some lessons from the exercise which will lead to improvements in communications methods and procedures when future tests are carried out.


MARYSVILLE, B.C., POST OFFICE BUILDING
Mr. Maclnnis:: 1.	What is the monthly rental paid for the building used for the post office at Marysville, British Columbia?
2.	What amount per month is paid for the caretaking services of this building?
3.	What amount was paid to the owner of this building for furnishings, heating equipment, electric wiring and light fixtures?
4.	What amount was paid for fuel for this building for the calendar year 1954?
5.	Is this building being rented under lease?
6.	If so, when does the lease expire?


Mr. Bourgel:: 1.	$55 a month.
2.	Owner is responsible for janitor and cleaning services.
3.	$133.
4.	$72.56.
5.	Yes.
6.	March 31, 1956.


NATURAL GAS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day are called I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact that his departmental estimates have been dealt with, can the minister tell us if he will arrange to meet a delegation from the lakehead which has requested that there be a meeting with the cabinet, or representatives of the cabinet, on July 21, the request being from the lakehead natural gas committee, to discuss plans in regard to a pipe line.


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I received a request from the mayor of Port Arthur and 50433-399
Inquiries of the Ministry
the mayor of Fort William that I arrange a meeting for a delegation which they would head, with the cabinet, to discuss natural gas. I think hon. members will appreciate that the cabinet is rather busy at the moment in an endeavour to close the session of parliament. I was obliged to wire that I could not arrange the appointment.
Of course if any man or group of men wishes to meet me, they may readily have the privilege of doing so; but this was a request to meet the cabinet.


Mr. Green:: May I ask the minister a supplementary question? Would they be able to meet the cabinet once the house has prorogued?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, it is not everyone who is permitted to appear before the cabinet to state his position in relation to matters pending. Whether it can be arranged in this case, I cannot say; but I will be glad to discuss the subject with the cabinet.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Trade and Commerce not agree that there are reasons why this delegation should have the opportunity, in view of the fact that we had a statement from the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) early last week that there were three different plans under consideration? Then there was the subsequent statement from the Minister of Trade and Commerce that he knew of no plans.
I should think there is every reason that the delegation should be permitted to come to discuss their views, on account of the uncertainty that has been created by those two conflicting statements.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am in a somewhat different position from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) and the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) in that I am the minister for the area affected. This would seem to me a matter that I am capable of dealing with, without intervention by hon. members for Carleton or Vancouver-Quadra. But perhaps I am mistaken about that.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, does the Minister of Trade and Commerce suggest that the lakehead area is a no-man's land for everyone except himself?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I suggest it has been found to be so in the last five federal elections.


Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, the mayor of Port Arthur and the mayor of Fort William had a delegation ready to meet the minister. They had no new suggestions, but they have stated before that they were going to see that the pipe line came

Supply-Veterans Affairs
through. They have no new suggestions now. The minister is to be congratulated on having the courage to stick to his guns.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, one of our difficulties is that we do not know what the plans are. The Minister of Trade and Commerce has said there are none, while the Prime Minister has said there are three. I think we should have this information.


Mr. Rowe:: The hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor) does not know, either.


REPORTED SHORTAGE OP BOX CARS AT DELIVERY POINTS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Castleden (Yorkton):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce? A number of delivery points in my area report that they have been placed on the 8-bushel quota, but box cars are not available. Can the minister inform the house what they can do to obtain the cars?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, it is difficult
for me to deal with unstated locations. The hon. member says there are a number of stations. The recommendation I make is that the producers write to the elevator company of their choice and urge that box cars be allocated to those areas. As my hon. friend knows, the responsibility of allocating box cars to delivery points is in the hands of the grain companies who hold forwarding orders from the wheat board.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand it is agreed
that I now leave the chair without question put.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

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


DEPARTMENT OP VETERANS AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
510. Departmental administration $2,230,141.
The Deputy Chairman:: Department of
Veterans Affairs, resolution No. 510, which is to be found on page 75 of the book of the main estimates, the details commencing at page 609.


Mr. Churchill:: Is the minister going to
make a statement at this point?


Hon. Hugues Lapointe (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: It was not my intention to
make a statement at this point. These estimates, as hon. members know, have been

thoroughly discussed before the estimates committee and I do not believe it would be appropriate for me to make any further statement now. I am willing to listen to the hon. member's remarks.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I was hoping the minister
would make a statement. He is running true to form. This is the fifth successive year in which the veterans affairs estimates have come before the house under the same minister, and on each occasion he has declined to make a statement preceding the discussion of the estimates, and has contented himself with comments here and there throughout the proceedings. It would be an improvement if a statement summing up the year's work of the department and pointing to the continuing problem were presented to the committee by the minister in charge.
This is an important department. It affects a very large number of people; the amount of money voted to the department is considerable, and the committee would welcome at the beginning of the departmental estimates a general statement giving a summary of the departmental administration and activity.
In failing to do that for five years in succession the minister places himself in a peculiar position. I am tendering him some advice now which of course he may not accept. The veterans across this country are intensely interested in the Department of Veterans Affairs, and should hear from the minister in charge from time to time.
There are continuing problems in connection with this department, and on those problems the minister should comment. Year after year the request is put forward for a standing committee on veterans affairs. Year after year special committees are appointed with restricted fields of inquiry. I suggest to the minister that he initiate proceedings to set up a standing committee on veterans affairs. The problems of the veteran are going to be with us for a long time. I think we can count that from the conclusion of a war, veterans' problems will exist for at least 70 years.
We have still on our pension rolls members of the forces which took part in the northwest rebellion in 1885. There are on the rolls members of the forces which participated in the South African war and who will certainly be with us until the 1970's. The survivors of the first world war will be here for another 30 years. The survivors of world war II will last into the 21st century, as will the survivors of Korea. How can you escape the problems of veterans for the next 70 years? If another conflict intervenes there will be other veterans to consider, and over

and above everything else there is the regular army, air force and navy to be considered.
It is not as though the problems of the veterans were solved in any one year. Rather comprehensive legislation was passed after the second world war but it requires review and amendment. If it were perfect the problems of the veteran would be solved, but there are continually recurring problems. Veterans organizations are requesting changes in the legislation, new suggestions are being put forward, and in my opinion these matters should be considered by a standing committee. I think the department would gain from the work of such a standing committee which should be given the power to investigate all phases of veterans legislation and problems connected therewith.
This year the estimates of the Department of Veterans Affairs were referred to the committee on estimates, which met first on April 20 and had a series of meetings which concluded on April 27. That committee gave considerable attention to the estimates and received valuable reports from departmental officials. A special committee on veterans affairs met on March 9 and continued its hearings until March 24. This committee dealt with two particular problems. I think that at this stage in the proceedings the minister might very well have summarized the work of those two committees and reported to this committee thereon, indicating what action if any had been taken or was contemplated by the department in response to the questions raised.
The minister cannot overlook the fact that each year there are questions which require answering concerning the veterans, such as pension rates and war veterans allowances. There is an urgent need to bring in some finding for this house concerning the benefit of doubt section in the Pension Act. There is need to consider section 13 (2), which affects members of the regular forces who are injured. That section is the one which causes so much trouble as to whether or not the claim of the applicant is based on injury or death arising out of duty. Departmental officials have reported to us in committee that study had been given to that section. Why is the minister not prepared at this stage to let us know the result of that study and suggest to us whether or not an alteration in that section is going to be made in due course?
Other problems came up in the course of those committee meetings. One was the question as to whether England in the first world war should be called a theatre of war. This would affect about 50,000 men who 50433-3991
Supply-Veterans Affairs
served there in world war I. That problem was discussed in committee. There is no escaping the problem. I have here a file of letters representing correspondence from veterans or their relatives in every province in Canada with the exception of Newfoundland. Those letters came to me this spring, in addition to the letters that I get from veterans who live in the constituency that I represent. These letters point out the difficulties that still face our veterans.
It is a long time since the first world war ended. Yet the first world war veteran finds that he has unsolved problems, and he looks to the House of Commons to give him some assistance. I did not solicit those letters. I was pleased to hear from so many people and very much interested in reading about their problems. I find that they are the same problems about which I have known for many years now: war veterans allowances; people who have been wounded and have never received a pension, or have been wounded several times and received a pension for only one wound; others who report that because of lack of documents their cases cannot be dealt with; and so on. What is the minister going to do about these matters? Is he content with the legislation as it exists at the present time or is he prepared to suggest modifications?
I think that the veterans across Canada would welcome a more active approach to veterans problems on the part of the minister. He is their representative within the cabinet, and they are dependent on him to press the point of view of the veterans within the cabinet. I think it would be helpful if he showed some of that desire here in the house to indicate that his main interest while a member of the government is in connection with veterans affairs. He cannot do that unless he summarizes and reports on the work of his department. At this stage, Mr. Chairman, I should like to point out that although the problems of veterans keep recurring here year after year-and I suppose every member of the House of Commons is in correspondence with veterans-the veterans of Canada have not raided the treasury or made excessive demands. Some people get the idea that everybody who served in world war I is now on the pension list, or is applying for pension or something of that nature. Let us consider the situation.
We have on the pension roll about 60,000 disability pensioners of world war I. The figures that I have been able to compile from government reports over the years show that from 1923 to 1954 75,385 disability pensioners were placed on the pension roll. Over the same period of years, 121,822 veterans made
8318	HOUSE OF
Supply-Veterans Affairs
application for pension and were refused. I am not suggesting that there was not reason to refuse some of those pension applications. Some people sometimes apply without valid reason. But my own experience with veterans has been that, in most instances, there is some substance to their claims. However, I put these figures before the committee to indicate that the men of the first world war have not been receiving pensions in very large numbers. Just consider the total figures. Of the 650,000 who enlisted in the services in the first world war, 400,000 served in France and approximately 60,000 were killed and 138,000 were wounded. Of that 138,000 who were wounded, the total awards for disability pension were, as I have already said, just over 75,000 which figure is just about half or a little over half of those who were wounded. It makes you wonder what happened to all the rest. While those who were wounded and those who survived without being wounded make a total of
340,000	survivors of the first world war, there have been only 75,000 awards for disability pension. That means that 78 per cent of those who served in France and survived have not been placed on the pension roll in Canada.
If you are going to put the picture forward fully, you would have to look at those who appeared under war veterans allowance. These are the men who, in most instances, had service in a theatre of war-that is in France-have reached 60 years of age and are in extremely difficult financial circumstances. I have not included those figures in this small summary that I am now giving, but I bring it forward to indicate that the survivors of world war I have not constituted a serious financial drain on the people of Canada, when 78 per cent of them have not been placed on the pension roll and only slightly over half of those who were actually wounded have been placed on it. It is estimated that there are 300,000 world war I veterans who are still living. I am not sure whether or not that figure applies solely to those who served outside of Canada or includes some whose service was within Canada.
Let us look at the picture in this way. People speak about veterans being on a pension, and they think everything is fine. They say, "Well, he has a pension." But when you look at the record, you discover that those who are on pension are mostly on very small pensions. On page 819 of the report of the special committee on estimates dated April 26 of this year, the chairman of the pension commission gave us figures to show


how these pensioners are distributed in the pension scale. I quote his words:
. . . 25-48 per cent disability pensioners whose pension is 50 per cent and more and there are 74-52 per cent whose awards are less than 50 per cent:
That is for world war I. If you look at the pensions that were granted in the period from April 1, 1954, to the end of March, 1955, you discover that for world war I people very few received a pension of more than 50 per cent, and most of them were under that figure.
Now, the same thing is true of the pensioners of world war II. The chairman of the pension commission continued on page 820 with respect to world war II. The actual figure is 16-98 per cent who received 50 per cent or more and 83 per cent who received less than 50 per cent. Then he goes on to say:
The average disability pension payment of world war I was 32-64-
That would be dollars.
-and world war II 24-53.
These people, therefore, are not in very comfortable circumstances. Then, just putting the two tables together, world war I and world war II pension entitlements granted during the last 12 months, you find that those who were placed in the bracket of 50 per cent and more number only 8 per cent, while 92 per cent were in the bracket below that. Now, dividing it in a little different way, you find that those who are drawing pensions up to 20 per cent constitute 85 per cent of those who were placed on the roll last year.
Now, surely that indicates that the pensions granted to our disability pensioners are not very good. Most of them, as I have shown, are in the very low brackets. You may wonder why as many as 85 per cent, after going through all the procedure that is set up for the granting of pensions, should not get more than an allotment of 20 per cent. I bring forward those figures to indicate that, interested as the House of Commons has been in the problems of pensioners over the years, the problem is far from being solved. The pensioners have not been granted a great amount of money. Most of them are in difficult circumstances. Even those disability pensioners who are getting these small amounts-at least some of them-are in such difficult circumstances they have had to be placed also on the war veterans allowance. There are 10,000 of them drawing war veterans allowances in addition to their small pension. They are not drawing war veterans allowance in full, only in part, but that indicates that 10,000 disability pensioners, being

assisted in this way for their services overseas, still have to draw war veterans allowances because of their difficult financial circumstances.
Having served on the estimates committee that dealt with the estimates of this department this year, I should like to pay my tribute to the departmental officials who appeared before that committee. I doubt if there is a department of government that is more ably served than is this particular department. The officials who appeared before us had the information readily available and were very helpful throughout our entire discussion. We endeavoured to get from them as much information as possible, and they were prepared to give it. Naturally, when we came to matters affecting policy, we had to look to the minister for decisions. This department is, I think, ably served by its officials. I hope that in the course of our discussion today we will be able to bring up other points that are of interest to veterans as a whole and we will be able to impress upon the minister the fact that this problem is a continuing problem which needs closer attention than has been given, in my opinion, in ministerial circles. I hope he will accept some of the suggestions that will be brought forward today with regard to future plans, and particularly in regard to the setting up of a standing committee.


Mr. Herridge:: While no doubt many of us are anxious to return to our homes as soon as possible in order to refill the drained reservoirs of our hearts, minds and weary bodies, this department's responsibilities and activities are too important to too many Canadians-too many Canadians about whom we are particularly concerned-to receive only casual attention at this time. This department has responsibilities to the older veterans, with their loyalties, their associations, their memories, their increasing aches and pains, and to the younger veterans with their great pride in recent service, and their hopes and aspirations for the future. In addition, the department has responsibilities to the dependents of both groups, and to Canadians in general who are concerned that those men shall receive the treatment that Canada intended them to receive.
This department reaches into the homes of thousands of veterans across the country. What we do in the House of Commons and in the veterans affairs committee in connection with their welfare has a great impact upon those homes. I was very much impressed with that fact recently when I received some figures from the department. It was interesting to note that as of March 31 last there
Supply-Veterans Affairs
were 160,436 disability pensioners and 34,012 dependents of those pensioners. I note that at the same date there were 32,471 veterans receiving war veterans allowances and 11,816 receiving widows allowances. And at this point I must digress to compliment the parliamentary assistant upon his particular interest in this question. There were 856 dependents and 211 orphans. Under the Veterans Land Act I note that there were 29,121 veterans receiving assistance as fulltime farmers and commercial fishermen, that on small holdings there were 30,519, and that 19,852 veterans had received assistance in connection with housing under various arrangements. These figures indicate the great impact by the department upon Canadians.
Before proceeding I should like to express my appreciation of the courtesy and consideration I have received on all occasions from the senior officials, the members of the Canadian pension commission, from the members of the war veterans allowance board, from the officials of Veterans Land Act administration, and the district officials of the department. When I refer to district officials I must take this opportunity to say how much many of us in British Columbia regret losing the services of Colonel Weir, who was assistant district administrator in Vancouver. We understand he has left the department to enter his family business. I know he leaves the department with the best wishes of members of parliament from British Columbia and those of the many veterans whom he has served so well during his tenure of office.
I have always found officials in the department ready to do anything they could to assist veterans and their dependents, within the confines of the law and the regulations. In fact, Mr. Chairman, I wish that the very small minority of veterans who possibly do not realize the immense activities of the department, and the concern of its officials to do the best they can for them, under the law and regulations, could witness some of the day-to-day activities of the department in Ottawa and in the district offices.
In my opinion the Department of Veterans Affairs constitutes administration with a heart. That is, it has developed administrative procedures and techniques that I hope will be used in the near future to deal with our casualties in civilian life. In my opinion this department has established a pattern that we might well follow in meeting the problems of our civilian citizens in connection with disabilities, rehabilitation and re-establishment.
It is the responsibility of parliament to amend veterans legislation when required.

Supply-Veterans Affairs
On that account I wish to bring a few matters to the attention of the house and the minister. Before doing so, however, in all fairness I must pay tribute to the excellent work done on behalf of veterans by the Canadian Legion and the national council of veterans. Their representations and their co-operation with members of the House of Commons, with the parliamentary committee, and with officials of the Department of Veterans Affairs have been most valuable throughout the years. In my opinion every veteran should help carry the burden imposed upon these organizations by joining whichever of them is most convenient.
Before proceeding to what I might describe as the complaining portion of my speech, I should like to say how glad I am that the sombre and rabbit-warren official existence of the officials and staff of the department is now ended because of their occupancy of the new building. It is a building well worthy of the vast and important activities of the department. I hear a colleague to my left saying that while he agrees with me in general, he must bring to my attention the fact that the building is not air conditioned. I hope with him that will come at a later date.
My next reference is to the War Veterans Allowance Act. The committee studied and dealt with the act at some length. Without doubt the bill that was passed has been beneficial to thousands of veterans and their dependents across the country. There is no doubt that this was an excellent step in the right direction. But I do urge the government to give further consideration to the representations of veterans organizations, and particularly to an increase in the permissive income. I believe an increase in permissive income would be of great advantage to many veterans and their dependents.
I support the representations by the Legion with respect to the payment of war veterans allowances to veterans residing outside Canada, but particularly to those veterans who find it necessary to reside outside Canada for health reasons. I have one typical example in my constituency. I understand these cases are few in number; but the present law and regulations do impose great hardships upon these few.
I have taken up with the department officials the case of the veteran in my constituency to whom I have referred, and I must say that those officials are most sympathetic. They are prepared to do whatever they can; but because of the law and regulations they cannot do anything at this
[Mr. Herridge.l
time. This is a man who is over 60 years of age-about 67, I believe-who has been on war veterans allowance, and who suffers from a bronchial condition. I said once before in the house that if one met him in the dark he would think that he was meeting a horse with the heaves. This man finds it most difficult to live comfortably under Canadian climatic conditions. He has a most painful time of it.
When attending Shaughnessy hospital last spring one of the doctors suggested that he go to Mexico and take advantage of that dry and high altitude. With that in mind he sold the little property he had and went to Mexico. He lives now near Mexico City and finds that he can live comfortably and without distress. While he will never be cured he can live in greater ease and comfort. However, because he is not living in Canada he cannot receive his war veterans allowance. Thus far he has lived on the small sum of money he took with him. Because of his condition the medical authorities there have extended his visa, and given him the right to stay in Mexico for some considerable time.
In the near future this man will be without funds. So long as he lives, his happiness and comfort can only be found in a climate of that kind. But because of the present act and regulations-and the officials can do nothing for him-he now finds himself without the allowance and will soon be broke. I do urge that consideration be given to the representations of the Legion in this respect, particularly as they apply to those few veterans who find it necessary to live outside Canada because of health reasons.
While we have veterans legislation we can be proud of, in a general way, there are still lots of bits and pieces that have to be cleared up. Various amendments will have to be made to the veterans charter if the legislation is to function as was intended by the people of Canada. That is indicated by the resolutions passed at the last convention of the Canadian Legion held in Toronto from August 1 to August 6, 1954; I think it is more correct to say at the last veterans parliament of Canada that met in Toronto on that date. I want to bring to the attention of the committee and of the minister a number of resolutions that were passed at that convention on which no action has been taken to date. Some of them are minor; some are somewhat major in character, but I am bringing them to the attention of the committee and of the minister for a particular purpose. I find on reading the minutes of the convention that

of course further amendments to the veterans allowance act were requested of the government. I have dealt with that question. There were 18 resolutions concerning amendments to the Pension Act. Some of them are minor, and may seem almost trivial in a sense, but they are important to the people they concern. There were 17 resolutions concerning amendments to the treatment regulations, and things of that sort; 6 resolutions concerning rehabilitation and reestablishment; 7 resolutions concerning amendments to the Veterans Land Act administration, including one concerning the reduction of acreage in small holdings. I am going to read that resolution because it is of particular concern to a great number of veterans whom I have the honour to represent. The resolution reads as follows:
Be it resolved that this convention once again petition the government to reduce the amount of land required for settlement on small holdings under Veterans Land Act.
This is a matter of very serious concern to many veterans in my constituency and to other constituencies in Canada, but I think particularly to veterans in British Columbia because of the topography and nature of the country. We find it very difficult to get the larger acreage required at present around our small towns and cities. A reduction of the acreage would provide a great opportunity for several hundred veterans in Kootenay West to obtain small holdings which they are very anxious to obtain. I know from experience, and I know departmental officials know from experience, that some of the most successful small holdings in the whole of Canada are in the constituency of Kootenay West. All we want is more of the same thing. I do urge the minister to give serious consideration to these representations. For the life of me, I cannot understand why the government refuses to consider the recommendations and representations that come from time to time from the members from British Columbia and from all across Canada. I cannot see where it would cost the government one five-cent piece, and yet it continues to insist on the present acreage of 1-6 acres if the land is valued at $500 an acre or more, or 3 acres if it is valued at less. It will mean a great deal to a large number of veterans across Canada because, regardless of any housing legislation we have under the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and the new housing legislation brought in at the last session to assist veterans, the best housing legislation we have in Canada is that which can be obtained under the small holdings section of the Veterans Land Act. I will
Supply-Veterans Affairs
say another thing. The officials of the Veterans Land Act and the department administering that act, as I said before, administer it with a heart and with sympathy for veterans, and not as if they were representing a mortgage company or a trust company.


Mr. Gillis:: Hear, hear.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I have the endorsement of the hon. member for Cape Breton South in that matter.
Then, I find 15 resolutions concerning the armed forces pay and allowances and certain things that veterans are concerned with. There is a resolution concerning compensation for prisoners of war. Ten resolutions were passed concerning veterans preference in the civil service. That is one thing the veterans of Canada have to keep their eyes on because a bit of torpedoing is being done on the quiet in different quarters. I strongly suggest these resolutions should receive the attention of the minister and the government.
There were 2 resolutions concerning unemployment and establishment of new industry; 2 concerning imperial veterans; 6 covering suggested amendments to veterans insurance; 2 respecting citizenship and immigration; and others including the Last Post fund, the benevolent fund, the Legion auxiliary services and the corps of commissionaires. I am going to have a bit more to say about that. There have come to see me some responsible people in Ottawa who are very interested in the activities of the corps of commissionaires. But I notice an item for the corps in the estimates of the minister having to do with mines and technical surveys. I am going to blather a bit at length on that item when it comes before the house.
The final resolution that they bring to the attention of the government-last but not least-is one concerning Remembrance day. I bring this to the attention of the committee and the minister to indicate the number of things that do concern the veterans organizations as representatives of the veterans of this country and things that require the attention of this government and this House of Commons. These resolutions indicate the concern of veterans organizations with necessary amendments to the present legislation. They indicate the reason for their concern in respect of the establishment of a permanent select standing committee on veterans affairs. Their concern is expressed in a resolution passed at the last veterans parliament held in Toronto to which I referred
6320	HOUSE OF
Supply-Veterans Affairs before. I am going to read it because it is an important one. The resolution is as follows:
Whereas up to the present time the Canadian government has appointed a veterans parliamentary committee on special occasions,
Therefore, be it resolved that Dominion Command be urged to request the government of Canada to make provision for the establishment and appointment of a select standing committee on veterans affairs to which may be referred from time to time, and as occasion demands, matters affecting war veterans and their dependents, including government or private members' bills and resolutions relating to existing or proposed veterans legislation.
And be it further resolved that there be no restriction to the terms of reference of the standing committee.
The veterans organization have noticed with some dismay the increasing restrictions in the terms of reference to the standing committee in recent years. They want a standing committee appointed; they want a standing committee with power to listen to representations on all sections of the veterans charter.
I have condensed my remarks as much as possible because I know there are a good number of members who wish to speak on this first item. But I do urge the government to accede to the wishes of the veterans organizations and to members of parliament by establishing a permanent committee of the House of Commons so that legislation affecting veterans and their dependents can be continually reviewed.
In that connection, I want to say I was very pleased to know that the estimates of the department were referred to the estimates committee. I did not have the opportunity to be on the committee at that time because I was very anxious to be present at the external affairs committee hearings on the international rivers bill, but the members of our group who were on the committee told me that the officials of the department gave very complete explanations of all the matters that were raised; and that it was a very beneficial experience. Estimates are a matter that can be dealt with by a standing committee on veterans affairs. The estimates of the Department of Veterans Affairs, and all the representations which various veterans organizations wish to bring to the attention of the committee, can be well handled by it.
In my opinion the parliamentary committee is a bridge between the House of Commons and veterans organizations. To date it has been somewhat of a pontoon bridge erected on occasion to meet a flood of immediate representations and complaints. I do urge the government and the minister to make it a permanent bridge between this
[Mr. Herridge.l

House of Commons and the veterans organizations of Canada across which they will be able to walk freely with their problems at any time during which this house is in session.


Mr. Quelch:: Mr. Chairman, since we have already had a number of discussions on veterans affairs during the time the veterans affairs committee was set up and the time that the veterans resolutions and bills were before the house, and having in mind also the fact that the estimates of the Department of Veterans Affairs were referred to the estimates committee, I am going to be brief at this time in my remarks. At this time I am going to be quite brief but I shall have more to say on a number of particular items.
In my opinion the veterans charter does provide the veterans of this country with one of the best programs for the rehabilitation and re-establishment of the veteran to be found in any part of the world, but even so there are still a number of loose ends that need tying up. I should like to say that in my opinion we are most fortunate in the type of official we have to administer the act. I have always found them most considerate and anxious to deal with any matter I bring before them. I might say also that the complaints I am receiving in my mail today are few as compared with the number I used to receive some ten years ago, which I think goes to show that many improvements have been made in the veterans legislation of this country.
Amendments were passed at this session to the War Veterans Allowance Act which removed one of the main grievances that had existed, that was the amount of the allowance. The allowance was raised from $50 to $60 per month for single veterans and from $90 to $108 for married veterans. That came close to meeting the demands of the Legion. However, I regret that the government was not able to meet' the request of the Legion and of the national council of veterans associations in so far as permissive income is concerned. They had asked that permissive income be raised to $1,200 for the single veteran and $2,000 for the married veteran to bring it approximately on a line with the amount of the income tax exemption. While I regret that the government was not able to go that far, I do appreciate that the new directive in connection with casual earnings does go a long way in allowing the veterans to have additional income up to $500 a year provided it is earned in a manner outlined in the directive.
In considering the War Veterans Allowance Act we should always keep in mind that it

Supply-Veterans Affairs
represents the veteran's last resort. When a veteran is unable to obtain a pension owing to some technicality in the act he must seek assistance under the War Veterans Allowance Act. Many times there is a narrow line of demarcation between the veteran who is able to get a pension and the one who is not. The service in both cases may appear to be almost identical, but owing to some technicality the one veteran is not able to get a pension and he must seek assistance under the War Veterans Allowance Act. Usually the cause for that is that his disability is considered to be one of pre-enlistment origin. These cases are reviewed and sometimes a veteran who has not been able to obtain a pension in the first place is allowed a pension in later years.
I think the government should give further consideration to the recommendations by the Legion and the national council of veterans associations in connection with other amendments to the act. For instance, there is the recommendation that veterans living outside of Canada who are otherwise qualified should be granted an allowance. That same recommendation was made when we were discussing old age pensions. If the government will not go so far as to apply that principle generally, at least they should make it possible to grant a war veterans allowance to the veteran who finds it necessary to go south because of health, such as a man suffering from arthritis, rheumatism, or asthma. If a doctor should advise a veteran to go south I think the department should extend the payment of war veterans allowance to such a man when he must leave Canada. I would submit that the same should apply to the payment of old age pensions.
Then there is the case of the widow of an allied veteran who died before he had completed 20 years' residence in this country and who is not considered eligible for a war veterans allowance. The recommendation of the Legion is that when such widow has completed 20 years' residence in this country she should be eligible. I think a good case is made out there, and for the life of me I cannot understand why the government has refused up to this time to grant that request. I should imagine that the amount of money involved would be quite small and it seems to me that this is a case which the government could very well act.
The third point I have in mind is one which is perhaps more contentious. This concerns a veteran of world war I who saw service in England only and who makes a claim for a war veterans allowance. This was recommended by the Legion. While the national council of veterans associations said 50433-400
that they were not opposed to this, they did not stress the advisability of granting a war veterans allowance to such veterans. I can see where there might be good grounds in a number of cases for refusing. I can understand where it could be said that the veteran who had reached England just before the end of the war should not receive a war veterans allowance, but I submit that the veteran who served for a number of years in England and through no fault of his own was kept there say for three years during the first world war should be eligible for the war veterans allowance. A man may have been kept in England because he was an exceptionally good instructor and I do not see why he should be penalized by not being eligible for a war veterans allowance. I think these cases should be dealt with largely on their individual merits.
A couple of recommendations were made by the national council of veterans associations with regard to treatment to which I think the government should give careful consideration. The first was that war disability compensation cases in classes one to eleven be afforded treatment without charge by the Department of Veterans Affairs for non-entitlement conditions. I was surprised when I read that, because I had always understood that a war veteran who was receiving pension would receive treatment for a disability whether it was due to an entitlement condition or not. The comment of the council is to be found on page 4, and it reads:
We have been in agreement and have made representations on previous occasions, notably in 1954, that the war disabled in classes one to eleven should be given treatment without charge for conditions which have been ruled as not related to service. Falling within this category are conditions that in the mind of the individual concerned and/or relatives, friends and even medical consultants are considered to be directly or indirectly related to disabilities for which he has entitlement or to conditions under which he served. In addition, there are conditions for which the individual and his medical consultant are of the opinion that a strong relationship obtains because of the strain of wearing an artificial appliance or of treatments required for the condition for which he has entitlement. A serious disability of any type imposes strain on the physical, nervous and even the mental condition of the individual concerned. We appreciate the fact that the war veterans allowance recipients are automatically accorded free treatment at any time for any condition. We applauded these provisions as being essential and humane. We have tried to rationalize the position of the seriously disabled who because of war disability compensation and income from any other source are substantially barred from free treatment for any condition that has not been ascribed to service.
I hope the government will be able to give favourable consideration to that request. When the minister replies, or, if he prefers,
6322	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Supply-Veterans Affairs
when he is dealing with that particular item, I should like him to give the committee the scale of rates charged for treatment under classes one to eleven for non-entitlement conditions. Are they similar to those charged under class thirteen and class twenty-three as outlined in the little pamphlet "Should Illness Strike" in which the full amounts payable are disclosed?
Then on page 6 there is this recommendation:
That the practice of deducting $15.00 per month from the allowance payable to a disability pensioner, when he goes into a Department of Veterans Affairs hospital for treatment of a disability which has occurred as a result of active service, be eliminated. This council on previous occasions, notably in 1954, has continued advocating this policy and are still of the same opinion.
In that brief they pointed out that the only ones who actually have that deduction made are the 100 per cent disability pensioners. The veterans with a small pension, when they go to hospital, have the amount of the pension increased to 100 per cent and then the $15 deduction is made. The only veteran who is really suffering the $15 deduction is the 100 per cent pensioner. It seems strange that a man with a 100 per cent disability should have a greater deduction than a man with a smaller disability. I am hoping that the minister can give us some assurance that that question is also being taken care of.
There is the question that has been raised by both the other members who spoke-the question of the standing committee on veterans affairs. That matter has been brought to the attention of the minister in several sessions at least ever since world war II, and I am hoping that the minister will be able to give favourable consideration to it. The minister may feel that by referring the estimates of the Department of Veterans Affairs to the estimates committee he is meeting that situation. Of course, the estimates committee is a very different thing from a committee on veterans affairs. On the committee on veterans affairs you have a number of veterans, whilst on the estimates committee you may have men who are more concerned with the soundness of certain estimates than the direct welfare of the veteran. As we proceed through the estimates, I shall have a number of comments to make on the various departments.


Mr. Montgomery:: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to take very much time because most of the points I have been asked to bring before the house from my section of the country have been covered. Before I say anything further, I would join with the hon. member for Kootenay West-I believe it was -who said he had always found the greatest

co-operation from the Department of Veterans Affairs, particularly in his own district. I can support that very strongly, because in my district I received the greatest co-operation from the officials in the various sections of the Department of Veterans Affairs dealing with war veterans allowances, pensions and so on.
However, there is one particular point which has been brought to my attention. Not being on the committee on veterans affairs, I cannot say whether it has been fully dealt with or not, but it will take me only a minute or two to place it again before the house. This is, that it is very difficult for those in receipt of veterans allowances to understand why, when they get to the age of 70, they cannot participate in the old age security plan like all other citizens. There seems to be no reason why they should not. The allowances which they receive are due to special services which they have rendered this country, and are not in lieu of old age security. At least, if that is the intention of the minister, I think he will have to make up his mind to change it. That has nothing to do with the disability pension; it is the veterans allowance. I am not going to deal with that question at any length.
With regard to veterans of world war II who served in England, I believe it was the hon. member for Acadia who admitted that there may be a number of cases where it is very difficult to establish the fact that they should receive allowances. Perhaps there may be a time limit, but where there is a means test I think that those veterans who served only in England in the first world war should be given consideration for receipt of veterans allowances. A great many of them from my section of the country were kept there for no reasons of their own; they desired to get to France as much as anyone else. As the hon. member for Acadia said, it was often the very best class of soldier who was in the training centres. I know myself that very often there were in these training centres personnel who were very keen to get to the front and get into action but who were kept for the purpose of training others, for the purpose of administration and for other purposes for which they seemed to have special training. Now they are penalized for it. As the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre has said, there are not too many of these veterans. In all fairness to them, those who can meet the means test and come under the regulations should be given special consideration by the department for the receipt of veterans allowances.
There is one other thing I should like to mention. It has been well covered, but I

should like to put myself on record as supporting the proposal. If a veteran needs medical care because of some disability and can live happier or with less pain in some other country, I believe that, provided he has the doctor's certificate, he should be permitted to draw the allowance.
I should like to ask the minister one question which either he or his parliamentary assistant may answer later. What has been done concerning the 50 per cent of income derived by a veteran from farm earnings? Is that still considered as net income in so far as the veterans allowance is concerned? If so, I think some consideration should be given to the revising of that schedule. I do not think it is quite fair enough. When the minister answers later, he may give me an answer to that question.


Mr. Noseworthy:: Mr. Chairman, first of all, I should like to express my personal appreciation of the attention which the Department of Veterans Affairs has given to every single case I have had occasion to bring to their notice during this session. I can join with other members in saying that there is no department of the government where trouble cases are attended to with such patience and such sympathy as in the Department of Veterans Affairs.
The point I wish to raise is a matter of concern to the Department of Veterans Affairs, but it is a matter over which they have very little authority. It is a matter pertaining to all the departments of government in relation to veterans who are employed by these various departments. I can think of no better place or time to bring up this matter than under the departmental administration of the Minister of Veterans Affairs. So far as I can discover, the veterans charter is being observed by the civil service commission in initial appointments of employees, as far as veterans are concerned. I have had occasion to interview Legion officials, veterans affairs officials and others. While I have had some individual complaints that the clause in the charter which gives veterans some preference in the matter of initial employment is not being observed, I can find little evidence that such is the situation.
In so far as initial employment is concerned, I am inclined to believe that veterans are still receiving some preference. However, I am informed by the Department of Veterans Affairs and by officials of the Legion that the policy of the government is that once a veteran has been appointed to a civil service position, he must then stand on his own feet, that the matter of preference ends with his appointment, that the department 50433-400J
Supply-Veterans Affairs
attempts to operate on a basis of efficiency and that the veteran is expected to be just as efficient as is any other employee.
That is the point I want to raise. I just question whether or not we are right in demanding that a veteran-regardless of what his war experience has been and regardless of what he may have suffered during the war -once he has been appointed to a civil service position, should be able to discharge his duties just as efficiently as one who has not seen war service. In other words, it would seem to me that we owe to these veterans not only the responsibility of providing something by way of priority and preference in the matter of initial employment but also something by way of humane consideration after that appointment has been made and in connection with the carrying on of the veteran's duties.
I have one case to which I am going to refer because it is an extreme case. It is one of a number of cases most of which are less pronounced probably than this particular one, but all of which stem from the same complaint, namely that a veteran, once employed, is expected to discharge his duties with the same efficiency as an employee who is a nonveteran and that within the government services no consideration can be given and no allowances can be made for the war experiences of such an employee.
This young man in particular was a good war veteran. He was awarded six medals during the second world war. He served in various theatres of war. He is efficient up to a point, intelligent and capable. His weakness is that after every pay day he absents himself from duty for a few days. He has done that so often that department officials grow weary of that habit. He has now reached the stage where no government service will employ him. I have taken the case up with the chief commissioner of the civil service, the Department of Veterans Affairs and the deputy ministers of several departments in which he has been employed. Deputy ministers agree that this young man, because of his service to his country and because of his ability, should be given every possible chance of making good. The situation now is that he is to be cast out of the government service completely and that he must find a position in some private industry. The explanation I obtained is that the government has already put up with more than any other employer would put up with.
Of course my attitude is this:	Should not
the government or should not any department of the government put up with more from a man of that kind than would any employer in private industry? After all, I am convinced

Supply

Veterans Affairs
that, for these men who have given so much of their lives in the service of their country, we must try to find places in our public service without too high a regard for the demand for efficiency. While I can appreciate every departmental manager wanting efficiency in his department and every minister wanting efficiency in his department, and while I can appreciate the criticism about inefficiency in government services which we often hear from the public, it would seem to me that here is one field in which special efforts and special considerations are called for from a humane point of view rather than from the strictly business point of view.
I would urge the minister and his department to see to it that, wherever possible, the veterans preference does not cease with the initial appointment to a government position but that some regard in the services be given to the war record of some of these men who, because of their war record, may be very difficult as employees. I think that is one of the debts which the country owes to these men. I think we must be prepared to receive them into the government services and to make some due allowances for the difficulties which may well be the result of their wartime services.


Mr. Bryce:: Mr. Chairman, I want to take only about two minutes of the time of the committee inasmuch as I had the opportunity of being on the estimates committee and then had the privilege of asking all the questions I wanted to ask. However, in the committee there arose one problem that I have not yet solved. I arose when I was asking the minister about the different rates of pay for certain classes over the dominion. I learned that for the same services the rates of pay a year were $876 at Halifax, $1,344 at Toronto, $1,068 at Winnipeg and $1,560 at Vancouver. When I asked about that, the minister said: Some are more equal than others. I have not got to the bottom of that matter yet. Maybe I am too thick to understand it. I know that these people are rendering the same services, so if they are rendering the same services they cannot be more equal than anyone else. They are only doing what they are told to do. I do not believe it is a good thing for the Dominion of Canada to be paying half the amount for like services rendered in Halifax that is paid in Vancouver. We take a lot of joking from these Vancouver people who tell us how good they are and how good their weather is. People living in Vancouver under these circumstances should be able to work for a lot less than the Halifax people who are suffering all these hardships. I do not want to labour the point, but I think the minister should straighten that out.

There is another thing about which I want to ask the minister, as it took place since the committee met. In my constituency we have had a disaster, so there will be many people who will be unable to meet their payments this year. I have talked to the officers of the department and they assure me leniency will be shown. I should like some promise or assurance from the minister that he will be lenient with these people who have had no crop this year, and practically nothing last year.


Howard Charles Green: I hope the Minister of Veterans Affairs will deal with the different points that have been raised by the various members before this item carries. This will be the last opportunity the house will have to deal with veterans affairs at this session. I do believe the minister should give us the views of the government with regard to these different questions.
During this session, as hon. members know, for the first time we have had set up a committee on estimates. Amongst the departmental estimates referred to that committee were those of veterans affairs. I presume that a similar course will be followed in future years with regard to at least some of the departments, but for the life of me I cannot understand why veterans affairs estimates should not be referred to a standing committee on veterans affairs. For many years the great nation-wide organizations of veterans have been asking for such a standing committee. The same request has been made year in and year out by members on all sides of the house, including government supporters. Yet the government has never seen fit to appoint a standing committee on veterans affairs.
We have a good example of what such a committee could be in the standing committee on external affairs. Some years ago, when this house began to give very serious attention to external affairs, a standing committee was set up to deal with everything relating to that particular department. I think it cannot be contradicted that this committee has met with great success. It sat this year, as it has for many years now, and the estimates of the department were referred to it after a preliminary debate in this house. The various departmental officials appear before that committee on external affairs, and the committee has always been handled in such a way that a wide opportunity was given for the taking of evidence and the discussion not only of expenditures, but of everything having to do with the department. I believe that the Department of Veterans Affairs should be in favour of having a similar committee.

One result of having a standing committee on external affairs has been to get the members of all parties working rather closely together on the various problems that have to be faced from time to time. As one of the members speaking before me pointed out this morning, there will always be problems in veterans affairs. New problems and variations of old problems will come up as the years go by. Probably there will be a Department of Veterans Affairs for another 40 or 50 years, so why not get down to a businesslike basis, set up a standing committee and have these estimates referred to that committee every year. The veterans organizations could have representatives appear. They always take the lead, in any event, in pointing out where there is need of improvement in veterans legislation. If such a course were followed next year, I believe it would bring very satisfactory results for the veterans of Canada as a whole, and of course that should be the main objective of this house in dealing with veterans affairs.
There are one or two points on which I should like to hear the minister this morning. One has been mentioned by some of the hon. members who have spoken, and it has to do with the need for an increase in the permissive income so that it may be easier to qualify for war veterans allowance. I have no intention of repeating the arguments that were made during the debate on the bill to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act, other than to point out that on the government's figures over one-third of the recipients of war veterans allowance are over the age of 70 years. The figures were 15,542 out of a total of 44,154, and that of course includes widows. The next group, aged from 65 to 70, number 11,521, which constitutes about another quarter of the total number of war veterans allowances. Taking those two groups together, that means that seven-twelfths of the recipients of war veterans allowance are 65 years or over. When they get to that age, they are not in a position to earn anything-certainly, very few of those over 70 can earn anything. I believe the ceiling should be lifted to enable those who reach 70 to receive the old age security payments.
This old age security is now on a contributory basis. The money is raised by levies on income taxes, corporation taxes and sales taxes. These veterans, and the widows of veterans, have been contributing like everybody else in the country in paying these taxes, so there is no reason why they should not be entitled to the full $40 when they
Supply-Veterans Affairs
reach the age of 70, without having a reduction made in the amount they would get under war veterans allowance. This situation will have to be dealt with, and I regret that government supporters on the veterans affairs committee this year refused to make a recommendation dealing with this situation. As a matter of fact the veterans affairs committee of this session made no recommendations whatever, except in respect of the bills referred to them. There may have been recommendations on one or two other minor matters. I would point out to the minister that the committee of 1952 did make a recommendation with regard to the ceiling on permissive income. It was in these words:
Your committee further recommends to the government continued and sympathetic study of the needs and requirements of recipients of war veterans allowances, keeping in mind the recommendations of veterans organizations in that respect, and particularly with regard to permissive income.
And then the committee, of 1954 again recommended consideration of permissive income, in these words:
In tabling herewith a copy of the evidence adduced, your committee desires to draw attention to the fact that the submissions by the Canadian Legion, the national council of veterans associations and the Canadian non-pensioned veterans' widows, each contained, in addition to representations in respect of the said bills, representations urging changes in the War Veterans Allowance Act to raise the amounts of allowances payable thereunder, and also to raise the level of permissive income.
The committee this year made no such recommendation. Perhaps one reason was because they were not called together to consider making recommendations of this type. When they had finished hearing the evidence on the particular bills referred to them, the committee went out of business. I do not know why that happened.


Mr. Bennett:: That was by agreement of all the parties. Your party agreed to that.


Howard Charles Green: There may have been some kind of agreement, but certainly I knew nothing about it, and I know other members in the opposition who knew nothing about it.


Colin Emerson Bennett: I spoke to the hon. member for Royal and he said your party was in agreement.


Howard Charles Green: If the parliamentary assistant spoke to the hon. member for Royal, it was only after a delay of weeks and weeks, when the business of the session was coming to an end. This committee should have continued its sittings after it dealt with the bills, and made recommendations. It is not an excuse to say that weeks afterwards, and just at the tail end of the session, the parliamentary assistant or someone else on the government

Supply-Veterans Affairs side spoke to members in the opposition party and that they just said there was no use in having the committee sit.


Colin Emerson Bennett: I just want to clear that up. I went to call the committee for a final meeting, and the hon. member for Royal said that he did not think a final meeting of the committee was necessary.


Howard Charles Green: When was that?


Colin Emerson Bennett: And as a matter of fact I have a written card from him to that effect. I then consulted the leaders of the veterans affairs groups of the other two parties, and they concurred, too. And it was only after those meetings with those people that it was decided not to have the meeting.


Howard Charles Green: When was that?


Colin Emerson Bennett: I have not the date here; but I will get the card the hon. member for Royal sent to me.


Howard Charles Green: How many weeks was that after the committee had finished dealing with the bill to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act?


Colin Emerson Bennett: I am just saying that it was on the understanding with the hon. member for Royal that it was decided not to have a final meeting of the veterans affairs committee-and of course after consulting with Mr. Tucker, the chairman; in fact the idea of not having a meeting originated from your party.


Howard Charles Green: I question that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Withdraw.


George Alexander Drew: Nonsense.


Howard Charles Green: The point is that there was a long delay after the committee had dealt with the bill amending the War Veterans Allowance Act. The committee should have gone right ahead to deal with the question of bringing in a report. This business of coming in, weeks later, and then asking them whether they think it is worth while for the committee to sit, does not meet the situation at all.


Colin Emerson Bennett: I am very surprised the hon. member has raised this point.


Howard Charles Green: There is one other question about which I would ask for information from the minister, and it has to do with merchant navy veterans. In the report of the committee for 1954 there appeared this paragraph:
The Canadian Merchant Navy Veterans Association, in their submission, laid most stress on a wish that those who served during world war II in dangerous waters receive the benefits of the Veterans' Land Act.


We have never heard of any move to implement that recommendation. Then there was this final paragraph in the report:
Your committee recommends that the government give sympathetic consideration to the said submissions.
One of those submissions was the one I have just mentioned relating to the merchant navy.
I would ask the Minister of Veterans Affairs to tell the committee whether anything has been done to implement that recommendation. In my judgment, and I am sure also in the judgment of the hon. member for Cape Breton South, the men of the merchant navy received pretty shabby treatment from the government in respect of benefits at the end of the second war.
Throughout the war they were considered as one of the four fighting services. Their casualties were heavier in proportion than those of the other three arms of the services. Yet they were not made eligible for many of the benefits that went to the other forces. This was one of the benefits they asked for- in other words that they have the benefit of the Veterans Land Act. That suggestion was endorsed by the veterans affairs committee in 1954. I hope the minister will be able to tell the committee today that action has been taken to implement the recommendation of the committee on that particular point.


George Hugh Castleden: Mr. Chairman, I have a few remarks to make. First I would endorse the request made in the house for a standing committee on veterans affairs. This demand has been repeated; it is a worthy request and something the veterans of Canada deserve. The committee on veterans affairs is appointed by the house and given a certain job to do. While this session it did a good job, I believe its terms of reference limited the scope of its activities, with the result that the wishes of veterans in Canada cannot be interpreted properly by the house.
The work would be carried out more efficiently if we had a standing committee. The terms of reference this year were in these words:
That a special committee consisting of 31 members, to be designated by the house at a later date, be appointed to consider a bill to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act, 1952, and a bill to amend the Veterans Benefit Act, 1954, and such other legislation relating to veterans affairs as may be referred from time to time to the said committee: that the said committee shall have power to send for persons, papers and records, to print from day to day its minutes of proceedings and evidence, to sit while the house is sitting and to report from time to time; that the quorum of the said committee shall consist of ten members; and that the provisions of standing orders 64 and 65 be suspended in relation thereto.

The committee studied the legislation presented to it and received delegations of veterans. While the report was made concerning the legislation submitted to the committee, in my view it was not sufficiently comprehensive because it had very little to report, other than what it had to say about legislation that had been dealt with in the house, and debated at some length. But the great interpretation of the needs of the veterans of Canada with respect to the legislation that was brought in was not considered by that committee. It is our intention that such a committee should be interpreting the needs of all the veterans of Canada. They should be funnelled through that committee to this house. Let that committee analyse the situation and bring in recommendations to the house, and let the legislation be based upon the recommendations of such a committee.
I do not intend to rehash a lot of the arguments presented on that occasion in the briefs of the Legion and other veterans' organizations on legislation affecting the War Veterans Allowance Act, but there are some very interesting things in those briefs which the committee should know. The first request of the Canadian Legion was that the basic war veterans allowance should be $60 a month for single veterans and $120 a month for married veterans. The request was repeated by the national council of veterans associations.
One principle they mentioned was that the veterans in Canada, because of what they had done for Canada, deserved special consideration. The other important factor was that of permissive income. They said the ceiling on permissive income should be raised to $1,200 for single men and $2,000 for married men, and they asked that it be the same all over Canada. They are not asking for a special rate for Vancouver and a different one for Winnipeg; another one for Toronto and a different one for Halifax, which apparently seems to be the basis upon which the government acts. The contention of the Legion was that the present act, with the limitation on permissive income, discourages thrift. I quote from one of the briefs they presented:
The great merit of our Old Age Security Act is that it recognizes the desirability of encouraging individual thrift and saving, but the War Veterans Allowance Act discourages it.
It discourages it by the low limitation on permissive income. Another important thing was that recipients of war veterans allowance, on qualifying for old age security and old age pensions, should receive it without any deduction from the war veterans allowance.
Supply-Veterans Affairs
Here is a piece of discrimination of which Canadians cannot be proud, something which almost casts a slur upon the very people who should get and who deserve special consideration.
There is another item which the minister should study carefully. The widows, when they presented their brief, recommended:
That the widows' allowance under the War Veterans Allowance Act be raised to $60 per month, with a raise on the permissible income to the amount of $240 per annum, as with the cost of living still increasing the widows find it impossible to meet their existing expenses.
The minister and his department should act in the same way as the other departments. A man receiving old age pension was given $16 a month 15 years ago. Today he receives $40 a month, but the cost of living has wiped out all the advantage that he might receive from that increase. It costs so much more to live in Canada, and their costs of living are still increasing. If nothing is done about increasing the pension these people receive, or the amount they are allowed to have in order to live, then an injustice will be done which should not be done.
These people are in an unfortunate position. Wages have increased. When the cost of living increases the labourer, through his union, is able to ask for increased wages based on the new cost of living. These people have no means of earning any money. They are tied down; they are bound around with regulations, so that any increases in their allowances and pensions are wiped out when the cost of living goes up. They can do absolutely nothing about it.
The old age pensioner is caught in the same way. The agriculturist is caught in the same squeeze. His costs of living go up; his costs of operating go up, but his returns diminish. The Minister of Trade and Commerce said the same thing the other day in answer to a question about markets for Canadian goods. He said, oh, well, the farmer can deliver his cattle and hogs on the markets of Europe if he is willing to take the prices they offer over there. He cannot compete, he cannot operate that portion of his business because of the cost of living. The costs of living have caught him.


An hon. Member:: Order.


George Hugh Castleden: What I want to point out to the hon. member who shouted "order" is that the costs of living are affecting every one of the pensioners all the way down the line. The veteran is caught in the same squeeze, and he has no means of getting redress. There has been some increase in pensions but not sufficient to take care of the increase in the cost of living. I think it

Supply-Veterans Affairs
is unjust; it is discriminatory, when the pensioner is not permitted to earn that extra amount in his permissive income.
The fact that the veterans have not asked for any increase in their pensions stems largely from the fact that if it were tied to the cost of living, and it were made obligatory to increase the pension as the cost of living increased, it might go down with a drop in the cost of living. But at any rate this is one place where they might be permitted some increase. They should be allowed to earn a little more. When you keep the thing as low as it is today, then there is discrimination.
This is a matter the minister should watch carefully and do something about in next year's legislation. It is something every veteran and every veterans organization will endorse. They are still going to ask for it until they get it. I refer to an increase in the permissive income.
Will you call it one o'clock? I have some more remarks to make.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.


George Hugh Castleden: Mr. Chairman, in the remarks I was making prior to the lunch hour I was referring to the fact that in some instances the veteran in Canada is having some difficulty under the legislation, and recommended that since the government's responsibility had increased, it should assume the responsibility of making it possible for the veteran under the allowances to live decently and well. I was going to sum up my remarks by going over the recommendations made to the minister and making one or two suggestions which I think would help the situation a great deal.
As a member of the cabinet the minister should see, I think, if something could not be done by the government in its fiscal policy to lower the cost of living in this country for those people who are depending upon pensions. It would help Canada in many ways. I merely suggest to the minister that in his position as a cabinet minister he could help Canadians in this field of life and in other lines of endeavour to subsist.
There is one feature of this whole war veterans allowance set-up which I think will appeal particularly to the minister. I refer to the recipient of the war veterans allowance who is receiving the maximum of permissive income of $1,440. I do not know how he and his family can live with the cost of living as it is today. Supposing that man

becomes eligible to receive the old age pension of $40 per month which would come to him automatically on reaching the age of 70 years. Under the regulations as they exist today he would not receive that $40 per month.
I do not know of any other person in Canada who is penalized to that extent. The lowest wage earner and the wealthiest person in Canada under the regulations as they exist today are eligible to receive this additional $40 per month upon reaching the age of 70 years. I think it is an excellent move; I think Canada can be proud of it, but Canada cannot be proud of the fact that the recipients of war veterans allowances are denied the right to this extra $40 per month. The pay and allowances of the Prime Minister amount to $37,000 per year, but on reaching the age of 70 he received the old age pension of $40 per month. But the war veterans allowance recipient does not receive that extra $40 on reaching age 70.
I think this is one piece of discrimination which is not good for Canada, and I should like to see it removed. I think it would be good for Canada, I think it would be good for parliament, I think it would particularly raise the esteem of Canadians for the administration of this department if the minister would see to this. I am sure he would receive the general support of this house and the people generally if he would raise the permissive income or the war veterans allowance for a married veteran to $120 from the $108 it is at present, under today's cost of living.
Finally I repeat the suggestion that has been made that a standing committee of veterans of this house or a standing committee of this house on veterans affairs be set up which would receive representations from veterans organizations, veterans widows organizations, imperial veterans organizations and so on.
That committee could then make recommendations to this house based on those requests, and the necessary legislation could be placed on the statute books of this country and do much to relieve the situation confronting these people who deserve everything that Canada can give them.


Mr. Nicholson:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to join with what has been said by other hon. members about the staff of this department. I appreciate what the member for Kootenay West has said about the new building, and when the minister rises I should like him to tell the committee how many hours have been lost this summer as a result of that heat. What would be that loss as represented in dollars and cents?

The question of war veterans allowance has been covered at considerable length but in view of letters which have come to me from Legion branches in my area I would not feel justified in letting these estimates pass without urging upon the minister to use his best efforts to have the government reconsider the matter. When the minister discussed the matter on March 4 he said that under the request of the Legion, which would increase the permissive income of single persons, they would be placed in as favourable a position as a veteran who had an 80 per cent disability pension, and if the permissive income of a married veteran were increased to $2,000 he would be receiving nearly as much as a 100 per cent disability married man, who would receive $2,040.
That is a good argument but I suggest that it would be a better argument to ask that the whole pension schedule be increased. I saw a cartoon in a newspaper recently showing a prisoner in the dock congratulating the judge upon having received an increase of $50 a week. The Minister of Justice has provided that increase for some of his personnel, the judges. All the veteran is asking is an allowance of $1,200 a year or $100 a month, with $2,000 for the married veteran. On March 4 the minister said that he believed that the new allowances are capable of allowing the recipient to maintain a reasonable level of subsistence. I was not too sure of the meaning of that word and I found in the dictionary that to subsist means to exist, to continue to exist, to remain in being, to keep oneself alive, to support life. Possibly it is enough to keep oneself alive, but surely the people of Canada do not want to grind down this section of our people so that they merely can subsist. The Canadian Legion asks that the permissive ceiling be raised to $100 per month for single persons and $2,000 for married persons. Surely this is a very modest and reasonable request. I hope that, before parliament meets next year, the minister will be able to convince his colleagues that the extra $13 million he estimated might be necessary can be voted without any question. Last week we voted $170 million for mutual aid as part of our national defence program, which totalled nearly $2 billion. Surely, if we can vote money on this scale, the $13 million the minister estimated would be necessary, if the request of the Canadian Legion were met, can be found by the cabinet.


Mr. Patterson:: Mr. Chairman, I am sure the veterans of Canada are quite pleased with the pattern of legislation which obtains in Canada at the present time. However, as the hon. member for Acadia stated this
Supply-Veterans Affairs
morning, there are still some loose ends that need to be taken care of. I should like to refer very briefly this afternoon to two matters, because I feel that they are two of those loose ends that certainly need to be tied up.
The matter of the ceiling allowed for permissive income is of great concern to the war veterans, and I am thinking especially of those who are the recipients of the war veterans allowances and who are not able to supplement their incomes by casual earnings. It may be because they are not physically able to do so, or it may be because economic conditions in their particular localities do not allow them that opportunity.
I think that this matter should be taken under careful advisement and something further done in this connection. There are those on war veterans allowances, to whom I have referred, and there are those who receive small superannuation allowances and disability pensions. As the hon. member for Yorkton mentioned a short time ago, they are not allowed to receive the full benefit of their pension, whatever it may be, and the allowances. In view of the fact that those who are able can now supplement their income to a fairly satisfactory total, these other groups should be given careful consideration. Even with the increases in allowances that have been granted, it is still inadequate to meet the cost of living at the present time. So I would request that the minister take another look at that particular situation and as soon as possible bring in some further legislation that will take care of it.
There is just one other matter to which I wish to refer this afternoon. It is the delay in the processing of appeals for pensions. Last fall I had the opportunity of meeting the representatives of the Legion branches in my own riding, and this is one of the matters that were brought to my attention. It was felt that in some cases the delay is rather lengthy, and they were of the opinion that when pensions are granted they should be made retroactive to the date of application. In the minutes of the proceedings and evidence of the special committee on veterans affairs of this present session, on pages 11 and 12, this matter was referred to by the dominion president of the Canadian Legion. I am not going to take the time to read these particular sections, but they refer to this matter of making the pensions retroactive. It may be the fault of the department, or there may be other factors that enter into it, but certainly there should be the possibility of making these pensions retroactive to the date of application rather than the date on which they are granted.
6330	HOUSE OF
Supply-Veterans Affairs
That would remove some of the causes of dissatisfaction among the veterans of Canada, because they would realize that this is another way in which the minister is endeavouring to take care of their particular problems.
These are the two matters I wished to raise this afternoon. I concur, of course, in many of the other matters that have been raised -other matters of legislation that could be attended to-but I just wish to emphasize these two at this moment.


Hugues Lapointe: Mr. Chairman, it is not my intention at this stage of the discussion on item 1 to make any lengthy remarks, but I should like to refer to some of the statements made by hon. members during the course of the debate this morning. I should like to thank all members who have participated in the debate for the ideas they have put forward, for the criticism they have offered and for the suggestions which have been advanced.
The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, who started the debate, expressed some regrets that the minister did not make, at the opening of the discussion on the first item of the estimates, any extensive statement. He said that he thought the veterans of Canada would be interested in having the minister's views on the various problems. Well, the veterans of Canada are afforded the opportunity of having the minister's views on all the problems relating to veterans on many occasions. The minister does meet with the veterans organizations, and the department sees that all veterans are very much made aware of the government's policy and their rights under the existing veterans legislation.
Personally I think that the veterans of Canada are much more interested in legislative action than they are in reading any Hansard statements by the minister. That is what I have endeavoured to do during the five years I have presided over the department, as referred to by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. I have endeavoured to do so, and I think the statute books of Canada show that these efforts have not been in vain and that every phase of veterans legislation that existed in the statute books of Canada when I took over this office has been amended in order to meet the changing circumstances as they have arisen. The pension legislation has been amended and at times rates have been increased; war veterans allowances have been increased on two occasions; treatment regulations have been amended to make them more generous; the Veterans Land Act has been amended to enlarge the scope of the act as it was originally conceived. This has been done without 

the necessity of making any extensive statements in the house. However, the results are there and the fact that they are there shows that this continuing attention and consideration, which the hon. member has urged and which rightly must be given to all veterans problems, does exist in the department at the present time.
As I listened to the remarks made by hon. members, it occurred to me that little that had not been discussed before was advanced during this discussion. That is simply normal procedure because, as was pointed out, this year we had a special committee on veterans affairs which studied the legislation concerning war veterans allowance and the department's estimates were thoroughly scrutinized by the special committee on estimates. I would therefore say that practically all aspects of veterans legislation were considered and discussed by the members of those respective committees.
Hon. members have again urged the establishment of a standing committee on veterans affairs. May I say that, to my knowledge, not only during the five years during which I have held this portfolio but during the time of my predecessor similar representations were made, and the policy of the government was expressed at that time. I have repeated it on various occasions. The government sets up a special veterans affairs committee on every occasion when any major changes are to be made in the veterans legislation in order that these changes and amendments can be thoroughly discussed by members of that committee. On those occasions all veterans organizations that wish to make representations before the committee are afforded the opportunity to do so; and they have always taken advantage of that opportunity. I think hon. members will bear me out in this statement. Regardless of the terms of reference of that committee, the veterans organizations have come forward and have been permitted to express their views on every matter. The proof of that statement lies in this fact. Even though the last committee this session was set up to study the war veterans allowance, during the course of the debate this morning some hon. members quoted from briefs of veterans organizations certain extracts which referred not to the war veterans allowance but rather to some other aspect of veterans legislation.
Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, as hon. members are aware, these veterans organizations such as the Legion every year present a brief to the cabinet. They are permitted to come here, put forward their views, express their ideas and discuss with the cabinet and with

the officials of the Department of Veterans Affairs all their problems. To say that the mere fact of establishing a standing committee on veterans affairs would permit these veterans groups more easily to express their views is to disregard the situation as it exists now. I pointed out-I think it was last year when a similar change was asked-that a special committee of this house had been set up to examine the procedure of this House of Commons and to recommend the changes which this committee found to be desirable.
I only wish now to point out that the report of this committee, which was a unanimous one, was brought down a short time ago and that in this report no reference was made to a standing committee on veterans affairs.
Many of those who have spoken have referred, during the course of their remarks, to the legislation on war veterans allowance. During the course of this session we had some quite lengthy debates on war veterans allowance. Extensive changes were proposed with regard to the legislation. The changes were referred to the special committee on veterans affairs, were reported to this house and were adopted. I do not know that I can add much to the remarks that I made at that time and those which my parliamentary assistant made during the course of the debate in this house. Again we were urged to admit under war veterans allowance those men who served during world war I in the United Kingdom only. I think this matter has been thoroughly discussed on many occasions previously. I think it was generally accepted that war veterans allowance was paid to a man who had had front-line service. In order to compensate for the hardships which he had suffered there, he was permitted to draw what was originally the equivalent of the old age pension some ten years before any other Canadian citizen could do so, on the ground that he had pre-aged by that number of years. During the course of the debates and the discussions that took place in previous sessions before I introduced new legislation this year, one of the strongest arguments for an increase in rates made by those who are now asking that service in England during world war I be recognized for the purpose of war veterans allowance was that every recipient had front-line service. I can remember the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra speaking with much force on that subject and many of us were inclined to share his views. But how can you use the same argument when it comes to service in England during the first world war? It is true that service in England during the second world war qualified a veteran for war veterans allowance but that was because during the second war,
Supply-Veterans Affairs
owing to the change in the character of the war, England was considered as a theatre of war whereas it was not so considered during the first war.
Some representations have been made that war veterans allowance should be paid to men who would otherwise qualify but who cannot qualify because of the fact that they reside outside of Canada; or again it is urged that the recipient of war veterans allowance should be permitted, by reason of health considerations, to live outside of Canada. Leaving aside the merit of the question itself, I think hon. members will realize that such a provision would bring about a serious administrative problem. As a matter of fact, if anyone is interested and goes back to the original discussion before 1930 when the war veterans allowance legislation was first introduced, one finds that the various veterans groups at that time endorsed the policy that it should not be paid outside of Canada. Of course, I admit that circumstances have changed, and certainly the suggestion put forward by the hon. member for Kootenay West deserves consideration. We are looking into it at the present time.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am glad to hear that.


Hugues Lapointe: I would not like to go into any detail on the question of the permissive income under the War Veterans Allowance Act. I feel that was thoroughly discussed when the bill was before the house. When the estimates were before the special committee, I recall that my parliamentary assistant made some rather lengthy and informative remarks on the subject. I would think it would be appropriate, now that new rates, a new ceiling and new directives on casual earnings are in force, to make a survey of the application of the act throughout the country under these new conditions before coming to any definite decision as to the need for further changes along that line.
I believe the hon. member for Selkirk mentioned a couple of subjects. He was particularly interested in the question of the wages paid to prevailing rate employees. He brought this matter before the special committee on estimates when the departmental estimates were before that committee. As I understand it, he had some objection to the fact that some of our prevailing rate employees doing similar jobs are not paid the same wages, say in Winnipeg, as they might be in another community in another part of the country. I simply wish to point out, as I mentioned before the estimates committee, that the rates of pay for prevailing rate employees are set by the civil service on the recommendation of the Department of Labour.
6332	HOUSE OF
Supply-Veterans Affairs
The rate is determined by the prevailing rates for similar work in private employment in that locality. This department does not determine the wage rates that will be paid to prevailing rate employees. We simply pay the rate which we are instructed to pay. The rate is determined by a survey made by the Department of Labour at regular intervals.
The same situation exists amongst these prevailing rate employees as exists amongst the tradesmen all over Canada. As hon. members are fully aware, the various tradesmen such as carpenters, electricians or plumbers, are not paid the same rates all over Canada. The wage rates of these people vary, depending on the locality in which they live. A similar situation exists with regard to the prevailing rate employees in this department.
The hon. member for Selkirk also wanted assurance that the leniency the officials of my department said they would exercise with regard to some of his constituents established under the Veterans Land Act, and who had no crop last year, would be exercised. I can assure my hon friend that it is not, and has never been, the policy of the department to dispossess or otherwise prosecute any of our settlers under this act. As a matter of fact, the great success achieved by the Veterans Land Act since 1945 has been due to the close co-operation which has existed between the settlers, the departmental officials and the settlement officers who visit them to help them along. As a result, the figures which were given before the estimates committee indicate we have a splendid record under the Veterans Land Act, not only as to the establishment of good, stable settlers, but so far as collection is concerned. This we intend to continue, as we want to keep these men on the land.
While the hon. member for Acadia did make some remarks which I have already covered, he asked whether classes one to eleven pensioners, hospitalized in a departmental institution, are charged the same rates as other veterans under section 13. He referred to the pamphlet issued by the department explaining the operation of section 13. The answer is that they pay the same rates, but that, in computing their adjusted income, 25 per cent of their pension is exempted. He referred also to the fact that 100 per cent pensioners who were hospitalized had $15 deducted from their pension, as other pensioners did. He pointed out the fact that whereas a low disability pensioner did not actually have a deduction, his pension was raised to the equivalent of 85 per cent, and it was the high pensioner who did suffer from 

the deduction. This was quite true, Mr. Chairman, but I am pleased to announce that last week the treatment regulations were amended so that a pensioner is no longer subject to any such deduction when being hospitalized if his pension is 90 per cent or over.
The hon. member for Victoria-Carleton was particularly interested in the formula used for computing farm income under the War Veterans Allowance Act, and wondered whether this was a fair formula. I can answer only by stating again what the formula is. I think hon. members will agree that it is very simple. The assessment formula for a farmer under the War Veterans Allowance Act is as follows:	Assessed as income, 25
per cent of the first $1,000 of gross farm income, or fraction thereof; 40 per cent of the next $1,000 of gross farm income, or fraction thereof; and 50 per cent of the balance of gross farm income. I believe if hon. members will work that out with pencil and paper they will find it is pretty generous.
Even so, should the recipient find that the formula is not advantageous, he can take the alternative and claim that the basis should be the actual operational expenses against gross revenue. In other words, if he can produce vouchers, accounts and the like, it will be his actual net income that will be considered. So that I believe the formula is generous, and it has been found satisfactory by those recipients of war veterans allowances who are farmers.
I do not wish to add more at this stage, but I shall touch upon some points when we reach the individual items. I might say that the hon. member for Mackenzie did ask me a rather sticky question, as to how many hours were lost by the department owing to the fact that the new veterans affairs building is not air conditioned. I gathered that was the purport of his remarks. My officials inform me that on two occasions the staff was let out three-quarters of an hour before the normal closing time. However, as I am one who has to sit in the building when it is very warm, I would rather the hon. member would not ask me for my personal comment.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I appreciate the minister's statement, and had anticipated to some extent what he would say. Would it be too much trouble for his officials to figure out the total salaries per year paid to all in the building, and what the loss would be in terms of dollars and cents. I am sure his officials could make that calculation, because the salaries are paid on an annual basis. The total number of hours lost would be of considerable interest, and I am sure it would meet a major portion of the cost of air conditioning. Could we have the calculation before discussion of the estimates is completed?


Hugues Lapointe: The hon. member will realize that any estimate of that kind must be pretty rough. I am told however that it would be about $1,500 an hour.


Howard Charles Green: The minister did not deal with the recommendation by the 1954 committee concerning benefits for merchant navy veterans under the Veterans Land Act.


Hugues Lapointe: I am sorry I omitted to do so. All I can say is that the matter has been considered by the government, as were the other recommendations of the committee, but the government has not decided to follow that recommendation.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I have listened to the minister with interest and I thank him for saying that he will give consideration to the plight of these unfortunate recipients of war veterans allowances who, for reasons of health, are required to live outside Canada. He clearly demonstrated that, as head of the department, he has a heart. I might mention that I would have referred to this before but, knowing of the minister's unusual and extreme modesty, I did not like to embarrass him.


George Hugh Castleden: Is the department doing anything about having war veterans allowance recipients receive benefits of the old age pension when they become eligible?


Hugues Lapointe: I can only refer to what I have said on the subject previously, and repeat the views I expressed at that time. Briefly, one cannot consider this question without going into the whole background and history of war veterans allowances. If one goes back to the origin of those allowances he must agree, whether he likes to or not, that the measure was introduced at that time as a social security measure under which those who had the necessary qualifications would receive, ten years earlier than other citizens in Canada, the equivalent of what was then the old age pension. That has always been the basis upon which war veterans allowances have been paid.
Of course others have been brought in under the War Veterans Allowance Act. The scope of the act has been widened and the rates increased; but, generally speaking, its administration has been parallel to that of old age pensions. So that when one asks, as does the hon. member, that old age security payments should be exempted as income in considering applications for war veterans allowance, he is asking that the recipient should receive the equivalent of the old age pension from two different sources. Briefly, that is the situation.


George Hugh Castleden: I just wanted to have the attitude of the department.
Supply-Veterans Affairs


Mr. Blackmore:: Mr. Chairman, before the resolution carries I should like to commend the minister for the improvements he has made. However, I would remind him and hon. members that during the early days of world war II it was a common expression among those who discussed the matter that our object should be to see that no one should be any worse off because he went into the services and served overseas, and also that no one should be any better off because he did not go into the services and go overseas.
I grant that the working out of such a program as would be implied by those generous thoughts is difficult. I would hope however that the minister would keep that purpose in mind, as an ideal. Certain it is that many of our boys are far worse off because they went overseas, and we should aim to rectify that situation.
There is another matter which I suggest the minister would do well, as a member of the cabinet, to keep in mind. This nation has tremendous productive capacity. I understand it is estimated that this year our total production will exceed $26 billion. Now, if in a general way the minister would compute or calculate the percentage of that national production which former members of our armed services ought to be entitled to enjoy, and then endeavour so to manage his department that they would be permitted to enjoy that percentage, I believe that would help. We are prone to pay too much attention to the amount of money we can collect in Canada, rather than the amount of goods and services we can produce in Canada.
There is one other matter which has been mentioned before, but which I should like to mention once more. I feel that if a recipient of war veterans allowances has to go down into the United States or to some other country to improve the condition of his health, it is grossly unfair to deny him his war veterans allowance while he is away obtaining such assistance as he might be able to get in some foreign land. Regardless of what it entails in the matter of administration or anything else, we should recognize fundamentally that a man who is a war veterans allowance recipient should be permitted to go with no penalty attached.


Clarence Gillis: May I ask the minister a question? When he was summarizing the discussion did he mention the imperial veteran, and did he say that active consideration was being given to the matter, or did he miss it? I did not hear him mention it.


Hugues Lapointe: I did not mention it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
6334	HOUSE OF
Supply-Veterans Affairs Treatment services-
513. Operation of hospitals and administration. $39,473,123.
Howard Charles Green: This is the treatment item. Can the minister tell the committee the extent to which the hospitals of the Department of Veterans Affairs are occupied at the present time?


Hugues Lapointe: The figures as of May 31, 1955, show the number of beds as 9,425, and the occupancy at 7,934, which would mean 1,491 beds unoccupied at that time. But, of course, it must be remembered that May, June, July and August are the periods of the year when we have the lowest occupancy, and that when fall starts the occupancy increases until it reaches a peak in January, February and March. I am informed that the peak we reached during the last year was 89 per cent occupancy, and we averaged 86 per cent throughout the year. The authorities consider that between 80 per cent and 85 per cent occupancy would be the normal desired operating occupancy in a hospital.


Howard Charles Green: How do those percentages compare with the civilian hospitals?


Hugues Lapointe: I have no basis here, but I do know that it is higher than one figure that I obtained from the dominion bureau of statistics. However, that figure was for an over-all picture. We do know that in some localities the civilian occupancy is higher than the one I have mentioned for our hospitals. In other regions it is lower. It also depends on the type of hospital.


Howard Charles Green: As the minister knows, the national council of veterans associations urged the parliamentary committee to recommend that pensioners in the classes one to eleven should be given free treatment for disabilities for which they were not pensionable. Apparently the only step that has been taken in that direction is to keep out of the calculations 25 per cent of the pension that a veteran may be getting in deciding what his means are. When was the 25 per cent provision enacted?


Hugues Lapointe: Last year.


Howard Charles Green: That was before these submissions were made?


Hugues Lapointe: Yes, but I might add, if my hon. friend does not mind my interrupting him, that since this submission was made by the war pensioners' association, we have had opportunity to meet with them. They have come and have met with our officials, and we have given them some further information and statistics, and they have given us some. We are trying to work out a formula which will be satisfactory. In the course of 

the discussions the officials of the department were of the opinion that some of their figures were not accurate, or the conclusions that they came to from those figures were not accurate, and similarly they held the same views as regards what we in the department thought. Therefore, we are in the process of a discussion with them on this particular point which they brought before the committee.


Howard Charles Green: Would it not be fairer not to take into consideration at all the pension that a veteran is receiving in arriving at the amount of his income? It does seem that where they have to go to the departmental hospitals for treatment of a condition for which they are not pensionable, if they have to pay for that treatment at all, the department should not take into account the pension that they get and count that as part of the income. Would it not be possible to take the pension right out of the consideration in making this means test?


Hugues Lapointe: That is one aspect of the question we are looking into now. Of course, my hon. friend realizes that section 13 of the treatment regulations, which would be the one affected by any decision such as that, is relatively new. We should like to have the year's operation of that section to see what effect it does have as far as occupancy is concerned before making any further changes. One of the changes that is being studied is the one suggested by my hon. friend.


Howard Charles Green: When will it have been in effect for a year?


Hugues Lapointe: It started at the end of July last year. It has been in operation just about a year, but our statistics are always a little behind.


Clarence Gillis: I agree with the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra. This question of treatment for non-recognized disability is a pretty serious one to the older veterans. Judging from conversations I had recently with some older veterans who had been in the hospital and found themselves in the circumstances that we are describing, there does not seem to have been much change in the regulations in the last year.
Take the veteran of the first war. He has a 20 to 25 per cent pension for a gunshot wound. There may be other conditions, but that is the recognized disability. He is in hospital for that disability and he is of the age when he is running into other trouble, kidneys, prostate, and minor operations which might be necessary. Those things could be fixed up within a few days without any great cost while he is in the hospital,

but when he brings these disabilities to the attention of the doctor he is immediately taken off pay and allowances and his income is assessed as to what he made last year. Unless he is willing to pay the $9.50 per day the condition is not touched.
A veteran of the first world war on pension finds that his pension is pretty well fixed today. If he is getting 25 per cent today that is it as far as that disability is concerned. I cannot see why there should not be more flexibility in the administration of these regulations. Greater latitude should be given to the superintendent of a hospital in connection with men who are in for pensionable disabilities and who find they have other troubles that need to be taken care of. More attention should be paid to these men without the rigidity there appears to be today in the regulations.
It is one thing for us to talk about regulations but it is another thing when those regulations are applied. I am led to believe that there is not much flexibility in this particular matter today, any more than there was two years ago. I should like the minister to make a check on this.
I think the emphasis in connection with veterans legislation is changing today from what it was a couple of years ago. At that time it was a question of getting the pension and veterans allowance rates increased, but the matter of treatment is the main emphasis today. Veterans of the last war are beginning to discover more and more troubles, and this is where the rigidity is creeping into the legislation in and around the hospitals. I think we will have to take a better look at this whole matter of treatment.
Let me say to the minister that I think the application of veterans legislation was 100 per cent more flexible 20 years ago than it is today. It is only within the last five years that this kind of thing has begun to tighten up. Hardship is being created. It looks to me as though we are getting back to the days when we said to these men, "The war is over; we do not need you any more." It is all right to pass legislation, but the real test of any legislation is the way it is administered. We did not pass this legislation merely to make jobs. I am afraid there are too many people in all departments of government who are getting the complex that they have jobs and they will do everything to keep everything they can from others. I think that sort of thing is beginning to creep in. I believe the minister should take a square look at this matter.
There is a decrease in this vote of $314,787, and in item 523 there is a decrease of $417,500. Both these items are in the treatment
Supply-Veterans Affairs
branch of war veterans allowance. These items should be increased, because more people are looking for treatment today than there were a few years ago.
I just wanted to put myself on record as recognizing the importance of the matter raised by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra. I do hope the minister will take a square look at it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Treatment services-
515. Hospital construction, improvements, new equipment and acquisition of land, $4,920,000.
Howard Charles Green: This item has to do with hospital construction, and there is a matter I should like to raise in connection with Shaughnessy hospital in Vancouver. Some years ago a power house was built to provide this hospital with heat and I believe also with auxiliary power, and as part of the equipment they installed what was called a Detroit rotary burner. This burner uses pulverized coal which is taken in wet and then air is blown through it. The result, especially in the colder weather, is every 15 minutes or so the area around Shaughnessy hospital is covered with black smoke and soot.
I have complained about this on diffierent occasions, and I thought this matter had been taken care of. However, I hear from residents of the area that the nuisance is still being committed. I do not see why the department cannot remedy this situation, as it must be costing money to blow this fuel out into the air. There would seem to be something wrong with the burner system.
As the minister knows, this hospital is located in the middle of a residential district and several hundred people in every direction from the hospital are having their homes subjected to this deluge, particularly in the winter months. If this were a private company no doubt it could be stopped by a court injunction, but here we have the dominion government doing it in spite of complaints down through the years. This burner was put in shortly after the end of the war.


Hugues Lapointe: I know there have been
complaints about this, but it was my understanding that the matter had been looked after. However, the hon. member says it has not and I shall certainly see to it that any remedial action that can be taken will be taken. I would point out that we are in the process of constructing a new power house at Shaughnessy hospital which I understand will replace the present facilities.

Supply-Veterans Affairs


Mr. Thomas:: Could the minister give us a breakdown by localities and by provinces of the major expenditures under this item?


Hugues Lapointe: The main expenditures are: Saint John, New Brunswick, Lancaster hospital, $200,000; Winnipeg, Deer Lodge hospital, $1 million; Calgary, Colonel Belcher hospital, $1,050,240; Vancouver, Shaughnessy hospital, $718,960.


Ray Thomas: Are those for extensions to the hospitals, for new buildings or for equipment?


Hugues Lapointe: In some cases old facilities are being replaced. In Saint John it covers the purchase of land and construction of a departmental laundry; in Winnipeg, the replacement of 300 beds in the hospital which are in an old wing that had to be done away with; in Calgary, a new wing and facilities; and in Vancouver prosthetic and maintenance buildings and a central heating plant, to which I referred a few minutes ago.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
518. War veterans allowance board-administration, $144,450.
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I was very much interested in the minister's statement a little while ago. We apparently stirred him up so that he rose and gave us some account of his stewardship. I noted that he was claiming quite a bit of credit for the changes in legislation over the last five years, but I might point out to him that there has been a great deal of pressure from all sides in order to get those changes made. I am not so sure that the initiative rested with the minister.


Hugues Lapointe: I would not expect you to say so.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The minister and I have had exchanges of opinion on the floor of this house for some time, and I think we may continue. I am very anxious to see him perform his duties.


Hugues Lapointe: That is the purpose of our presence here.


Gordon Minto Churchill: In regard to war veterans allowance-


An hon. Member:: Carried.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The more people who call "carried", the longer I shall talk. We ran into that when we were in the committee on estimates. It is not helpful at all to those of us who are attempting to get information.
The number of veterans on war veterans allowance is shown as 25,038 in the last departmental report. We received the information-I think it was in the estimates

committee-that the applications for war veterans allowances in the year 1953-54 were numerous and resulted in approval being granted to 83'6 per cent of the applicants. I draw that to the attention of the minister as being in sharp contrast with the number of applications that come before the pension commission and are rejected, as I hope to point out later on when we come to that particular item.
I should like to say a word in regard to what the minister said concerning treating England as a theatre of war for first world war veterans. I had not given any particular attention to that until this year. I notice that some arguments in this connection have been advanced at various times, and the special committee on veterans affairs discussed this particular problem. It arises, as the minister has said, because the United Kingdom has been declared a theatre of war for the world war II people. Once that was done, it was only natural that people who served in England in the first world war would wonder why they were prevented from coming under this particular section of the act. Until you look into the matter, on the face of it you think they should not be admitted, but I feel a second look is perhaps necessary.
As the minister pointed out, in its origin the war veterans allowance was for people who served in a theatre of war. He mentioned "front line service", but a theatre of war does not necessarily involve front line service. In the first world war England was not considered a theatre of war. But when you compare the two, it is a little difficult for the veteran of world war I who was in England for a while to find that the world war II veteran who served only in England in that way becomes eligible for war veterans allowance. I think it is deserving of further study.
When hon. members were discussing this in the special committee the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich asked for information as to the men who had reached England in 1914 and 1915, as contrasted with those who got there very late, say in 1918. Those figures apparently were not available, but I think this is a matter that requires a little further study and should not be simply brushed off. I noted that when this was being discussed by that committee, one of the officials estimated that if the United Kingdom were declared a theatre of war for the first world war veterans, there would be 52,000 still living whose services was restricted to the United Kingdom. Of that number he estimated that 11,500 would be eligible for war veterans allowances, which is 22 per cent, and that the cost would be $9,650,000.

Well, I question those figures. I have sometimes questioned the minister's figures. He likes to throw millions at us and then we are shocked and stunned and have no argument forthcoming, because it seems too large a matter to deal with. But I rather question these figures. I would suggest that 10 per cent of those who served in England in the first world war might become eligible, not 22 per cent. If you get your percentage from those who are now on war veterans allowances as a percentage of the total survivors of the first world war, as I say there are about 25,000 world war I veterans on war veterans allowances, and that is about 10 per cent of the 240,000 survivors of the first world war who were not disability pensioners. Consequently the figure would be reduced from 11,500 to 5,000, and the cost would be reduced from $9,650,000 to $4,200,000.
Then it should be carried a step further and, if anything is going to be done in regard to the men who were in England in the first world war, some attention will have to be paid, as the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich said, to the time they were there and the year they arrived there. From everything I have ever heard about it, conditions were much worse for the first contingent people on Salisbury plain and those who were there in 1915 than they were in say 1918. I just offer that as a correction of the information which was given to the special committee.
There is one other thing I wish to mention with regard to the war veterans allowance which has been discussed at great length. I think too much emphasis has been placed by the minister on the extension of casual earnings, in that he thereby creates the impression that because the regulations have been eased with regard to casual earnings, people on war veterans allowance are in a much better position. But that situation applies only to a certain number who are in good physical condition and can get casual employment. It does not apply to a great many people who have no other source of income than their war veterans allowance, and who are unable to go out and make these extra dollars that other more physically fit veterans of that age can earn.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
War veterans allowances and other benefits-
520. War veterans allowances, $29,736,000.
Howard Charles Green: Is the question of changing the eligibility of the widow of an imperial veteran now a closed book, or is the government still considering the suggestions which were made by the veterans' organizations? I have no intention today of going over the
Supply-Veterans Affairs case at any length, but it seems perfectly clear that the test should be whether the widow had been in Canada for 20 years rather than whether her husband had lived here for 20 years. For example, if the husband died after he had been here 15 years, his widow cannot qualify for the allowance. When the provision was originally made for payment of the war veterans allowance to imperials, the timing was arrived at on the basis that all these imperials had come to Canada by the year 1930.
The minister will remember the discussion which took place in the house session after session about granting the war veterans allowance to imperials. Always it was pointed out-and it was a fact-that all these imperials came here before the year 1930. When the eligibility was granted it just so happened that the law was worded in such a way that rather than taking in those who came here before 1930, it said only those who had been 20 years in the country were eligible. There were a group who had died before they had actually been here for 20 years. Now their widows are just completely out of luck.
I hope the government will take another look at the War Veterans Allowance Act and see whether an amendment cannot be made so as to have the test whether or not the widow has been in Canada for 20 years. Some of these widows are Canadian women who married imperial veterans here, yet they are not eligible because the husband died before he had been 20 years in the country. I think this is an extremely unfair situation, and one which calls for a remedy. There are not a great number involved, but in principle the present law is wrong. These particular widows should be covered. I hope the minister will assure the committee today that the government has not closed the book on this question. I hope it will be possible to have further consideration given to it between now and the next session of the house.


Hugues Lapointe: Mr. Chairman, I can assure my hon. friend that in this matter, as in other matters pertaining to veterans problems, the government has not closed the book nor does it ever close it. All these matters are under continuous consideration. I can assure my hon. friend that this problem is under study at this time.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall the item
carry?


Mr. Lennard:: No, Mr. Chairman. The only trouble is that in a great many cases these problems are considered for so many years

Supply-Veterans Affairs
that those who might participate have all died off before any decision is reached.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
521. Assistance fund (war veterans allowances). $625,000.
Howard Charles Green: This is the item having to do with the war veterans allowance assistance fund. In the special committee on veterans affairs we discovered that casual earnings were taken into consideration where a veteran applies for this assistance. At first the officials of the department said that such was not the case. Then the forms of application were produced. I have here what is called a "Declaration of income and assets". One of the last items in section A reads as follows: 'Income from any other source. Give details." Also I have a form called "Assistance fund (W.V.A.), welfare officer's report" and it also refers to casual earnings.
What is the present position? Has there been any change in the administration of this fund since the committee sat, so that from now on casual earnings are not taken into account in deciding whether or not a veteran is eligible for assistance from this fund?


Colin Emerson Bennett: There has not been any change since the committee sat. Casual earnings are taken into consideration with regard to determining the need under the assistance fund. As you know, under the assistance fund the department can pay, in the case of a married man, up to $12 a month-or in other words from $108 to $120, the amount of the permissive income ceiling-and in the case of a single man, the difference between $70 and $80. In other words, it might pay up to $10 if the need is shown.
As I think was announced when the committee was sitting, the assistance fund has been liberalized. There is a better formula, which makes it a better deal for the veteran. It is the intention of the department to use the assistance fund more liberally. But it is true that when the department is taking a look at whether a need exists under the assistance fund, casual earnings are taken into consideration. For instance, under our class 2 of casual earnings a man may be making $50 a month and getting $108 war veterans allowance, and there would be no need for the assistance fund as it is set up at the present time.
I should like to add this. In the case I illustrated there, a married man might have five children and then even with the $50 there could be need of the assistance fund. It depends upon the circumstances.


Howard Charles Green: In the committee the government made quite a point of the fact that [Mr. Lennard.l

there were these casual earnings, and stated that they were not taken into consideration in arriving at the amount of war veterans allowance a man could receive. But evidently they are taken into consideration in deciding whether or not he can get the small amount between the allowance and the total permissive income. In the case of a single man I think that is only $10 a month, and in the case of a married man it is $12 a month. Apparently the department is considering casual earnings when it comes to a decision as to whether these veterans can get this extra $10 or $12 per month.
I cannot see the logic in allowing a veteran to get his casual earnings without interference with his war veterans allowance-incidentally, I heartily approve of that-yet not allowing him to get the benefit of the assistance fund because he may be receiving casual earnings. It does not seem fair. Why not make them casual earnings both in respect of the allowance and in respect of the assistance fund? Why should there be a difference in the way casual earnings are treated as between the allowance on the one hand and the assistance fund on the other?


Colin Emerson Bennett: I think the big point we made in the committee, if the government did make any point in respect to casual earnings, was that it did not interfere with the rates under the war veterans allowance. We said there were three or four categories of casual earnings which might apply. A veteran could go out and take odd jobs, and that would not affect his rate of allowance. He could take a part-time regular job and earn up to $50 a month, or he could be seasonably employed and he could earn as much as he wished in any 12-week period without affecting his rights. We thought that was a liberal interpretation of casual earnings and I think it was well received throughout the country. It was an important change in administration of the War Veterans Allowance Act.
I cannot elaborate on the assistance fund any more than I have. It is based on need, and a married man may well get along in a small town on $108 per month but he may need $12 more per month if he is living in a city. He may not be able to live on the allowance, and the assistance fund is to meet that need.
Under the assistance fund the department can give him a lump sum payment for fuel, medical bills and so on or, for instance, for a suit of clothes. It is based strictly on need. As I say, we hope the assistance fund is going to be administered more liberally, and there is a better formula than there was.


Howard Charles Green: Have any instructions been sent out to the district offices to liberalize the assistance fund?

Supply-Veterans Affairs


Colin Emerson Bennett: Yes, Mr. Chairman.	outside of Canada he must have served on
active service in the Canadian forces. We Mr. Green: If so, what are the instructions are authorized to reimburse the Last Post fund that have gone out?	for certain expenses.


Colin Emerson Bennett: There is a new detailed directive which is quite lengthy, but I would be glad to get it for the hon. member. It covers at least two or three pages, and describes the detailed formula that consists of six items including rent, fuel, medical expenses, clothing and personal care. The last item includes such things as going to a movie, entertainment, tobacco and so on. This item was added in the new formula, as was the item for clothing.


Howard Charles Green: I do suggest the department take another look at this question of exempting casual earnings entirely in so far as both the allowance and the assistance fund are concerned.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Miscellaneous payments-
524. To provide for payments to the Last Post fund; for the payment under regulations of funeral and cemetery charges, including the perpetual care of graves where applicable; for the cost and erection of headstones in Canada; for the maintenance of departmental cemeteries; for the maintenance of Canadian battlefields memorials in France and Belgium and for Canada's share of the expenditures of the imperial war graves commission, $1,697,060.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I have had quite a few cases brought to my attention in connection with applications for payments from the Last Post fund. In some cases the application was not accepted because of certain misunderstandings. I think it is very unfortunate if a situation like that does occur when you have to deal with the burial of an old veteran. I have known one or two cases where the local people have chipped in and paid for the cost of the funeral. Would the minister tell us what is necessary in making application for a grant from the Last Post fund?


Hugues Lapointe: The Last Post fund operates under a dominion charter for the purpose of preventing, as is mentioned in the charter, "the burial in Canada in a pauper's grave of any veteran who may die in indigent circumstances, and who served on active service with Her Majesty's forces or any forces of Her Majesty's allies or associates." Then it includes "preventing the burial in a pauper's grave outside of Canada of a veteran of the naval, military or air forces of Canada".
The actual qualifications, therefore, are service qualifications. The veteran must be an indigent, and he must have served in Her Majesty's forces or allied forces if he is to be buried in Canada, and if he is to be buried


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I have just one more question. There have been some circumstances under which it was impossible to ascertain the financial condition of the deceased. I recall one case where the boys arranged a good average funeral, having in mind that the veteran's estate would be in a position to take care of it. They received a large bill from the undertaker, and then found the veteran was indigent. In a case like that I find it is very difficult to get assistance. If you do not make an application before the funeral takes place, the application for assistance from the fund can be refused.


Hugues Lapointe: Possibly what arose was
that the funeral took place, the family or friends handled the funeral, and then came to the fund afterward for reimbursement.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Yes.


Hugues Lapointe: The application should have been made at the time of the veteran's death. Furthermore, payments from the Last Post fund are limited, so that in this case when a large bill was submitted they could not pay the total bill. They could not spend more than was authorized under the order in council.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: My principal point was that apparently the application must be made before the funeral. In this case they could not even get the amount that would have been granted applied to the bill. These men are usually without relatives, and their neighbours and friends in some isolated place look after them.


Hugues Lapointe: The Last Post fund set up their own regulations as to the procedure that must be followed, and we reimburse the fund for their expenditures.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: For their total expenditures?


Hugues Lapointe: No, certain expenditures.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canadian pension commission-
526. Administration expenses, $2,272,540.
Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I should like to spend a few minutes on this item, Mr. Chairman. I am happy to say that the situation now is quite different from what it was when I came here in 1940. I receive very few complaints from veterans in connection with their dealings with the pension commission. However, I have one case-and I do not know how many there are in Canada like it-which has gone
6340	HOUSE OF
Supply-Veterans Affairs
through the regular channels. The chairman wrote me on April 22 a letter in which appears this closing paragraph:
However in their adjudication they are governed by the provisions of the Pension Act and unfortunately could not concede his claim.
In other words the door appears to be closed in this case.
Very briefly, this veteran is in his seventieth year. He enlisted in 1916 and was wounded in 1917. That is 38 years ago. His regimental number is 782/242. After reviewing the transcript of evidence I wrote Brigadier Topp about a year ago; to be exact it was last October. There are a number of details in the transcript which I think are important.
The veteran took out a life insurance policy for $2,500 in 1922, when he was about to be married. Some ten years later, when applying for pension, he was questioned about this life insurance policy but apparently his answers as they appear in the transcript were rather vague. This veteran tells me that the doctor who examined him was at that time the hon. member for Wood Mountain.
I think most of us have had the experience of having life insurance examinations which have been casual. He got his life insurance policy for $2,500. It seems a pity that 30 years later the fact that he was able to get that policy should be held against him as evidence that he was quite fit at that particular time. The veteran says he was a bit vague, because when he was questioned in 1932 Dr. Donnelly was still living. He says, however, that Dr. Donnelly is now dead and the policy is cancelled, and he does not mind adding that Dr. Donnelly did not even put an instrument on him. The doctor said, "You appear to be well enough to get a life insurance policy."
The second piece of information that I think did not receive sufficient attention was that the veteran was able to get the evidence of Dr. Harold, who had examined him in 1917. It is stated at page 25 of the transcript, where Dr. Harold gives evidence, that this man was cleared through the field ambulance *n AuSust>
1917, as a stretcher case, complaining of severe pains and weakness in the back and hips, and possible partial paralysis of the hips. On the first page of the summary of evidence it is stated that there is nothing on the service documents to corroborate this statement.
I would point out, however, that since the doctor has been living in another part of Canada all these years, and the veteran was hospitalized for a long period of time, it is possible that all the details did not appear in the service records.


Then another doctor in the person of Dr. Ritchie is mentioned here. He was questioned as to the possibility of the soldier's being gassed, without any documentary evidence indicating that fact. To this Dr. Ritchie replied that there were many men who did not say anything about it, and that it was his experience that they were not seriously considering the matter at the time. He said:
I know in my hospital experience behind the lines 1 treated a great many with wounds and that sort of thing, who I know had been in gas attacks, and there was no report on their flies.
This veteran has been considered on a number of occasions. He is pensionable for chronic bronchitis with chronic pleurisy, rhinitis and pharyngitis. It is pointed out that the multiple sclerosis is a post-discharge condition not attributable to service. I submit that so little is known about the cause of multiple sclerosis that certainly in my opinion this veteran should be given the benefit of the doubt. He was handled by Dr. Harold in 1917, 38 years ago, and Dr. Harold said he was a stretcher case and was suffering severe pain and weakness in the back and hips, and possibly partial paralysis.
This veteran should certainly be given the benefit of the doubt. I note that in the most recent examination the multiple sclerosis diagnosis has been changed to a diagnosis of osteoarthritis of the spine. I do not know too much about the causes of these particular complaints.
This veteran was also reminded that he had been able to carry on his farming occupation for many years, and that is quite true. I pointed out in my letter to Brigadier Topp that I was convinced that if this veteran had decided in 1919 that he did not want to work it would have been possible for him to have established his right to pension at that time and been a public charge ever since. However, he was an ambitious and loyal citizen, and thought there were things more important than the obtaining of pensions. The fact that he has made a reasonably good living during these years should not be held against him at this time.
On another occasion he travelled from his farm in my riding to the city of Saskatoon to appear before the board. He was asked how he travelled, and he said he had travelled by bus because the train had been cancelled that week due to a bridge washout. One of the examiners suggested that if he were well enough to travel all the way from his farm to Saskatoon by bus he could not be in a very serious condition. This annoyed the veteran very much, because if he had not made the trip he would not have been present for his hearing and his case would not have been reviewed.

I would not have taken the time of the committee had I not felt that this veteran, in his seventieth year, a worthy citizen, should be given the benefit of any doubt, when the fact is that 30 years ago he was a stretcher case; and when one doctor-although it does not appear in the service documents-came to his defence and said that he had examined him, and told what he found. I suggest Dr. Harold's evidence should be given more consideration. It is most unusual for a veteran to be able to discover the doctor who looked after him 35 years ago.
Our pension legislation should be worded so there would not be any doubt at all about a veteran who has this kind of record, so far as having a review of his case is concerned. As he has only a short span of life ahead of him, Canada should be able to give him the benefit of the doubt and decide that because of this unfortunate experience 38 years ago, he should be entitled to pension for this disability for the rest of his life.


Victor Quelch: I was unavoidably called out of the chamber when the minister was speaking on this item. However, I was glad to hear that the minister stated that the $15 charge against a disability veteran receiving treatment in a hospital had been discontinued.
Could the minister touch upon the other points. What are the rates that veterans who are eligible for treatment under sections one to eleven pay for non-entitlement conditions? You will recall that the national council of veterans associations suggested that these veterans under sections one to eleven should receive free treatment even though the conditions for which they received treatment had not been granted entitlement.


Hugues Lapointe: In the course of my remarks I answered that question. Briefly, Mr. Chairman, the charges are the same as for patients receiving treatment under section 13, as explained in the pamphlet which my hon. friend had in his hand, except that 25 per cent of their pension is exempt in computing the adjusted income under that section of the treatment services.
I also explained to the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra that at the present time we are having discussions and meeting with the members of the pensioners' association with regard to their representations.


Victor Quelch: I am sorry I was called out when the minister spoke. There is one point in that regard that rather puzzles me. Treatment under section 13 includes men who served overseas and were honourably discharged; that is, these men are not necessarily in receipt of a pension. Under that section they receive free treatment if their adjusted
Supply-Veterans Affairs
income is under $720. I am wondering why we have to get it down to $720. I thought it was $2,500.


Hugues Lapointe: The figure arrived at at that time was $720. That was the ceiling under the War Veterans Allowance Act. Since that time the ceiling has been raised to $840. When the changes were made in the regulations in relation to the $15 deduction, which I mentioned at the same time, this amount of $720 was raised to $840.


Victor Quelch: That is an improvement, but even so-


Hugues Lapointe: Unfortunately it was just last week that these regulations were amended, and they have not yet been circularized. It should take place during the course of this week. I should like to point out, so there will be no confusion in my hon. friend's mind, that the deduction of $15, which will be no longer made under the new treatment regulation, applies to the 90-100 per cent pensioner. In other words, as my hon. friend will recall, an individual goes into the hospital and, regardless of the percentage of his disability pension, he is paid treatment allowances which are equivalent to 100 per cent pension, and from that $15 is deducted for maintenance. This regulation had the effect that the 100 per cent pensioner would find his pension decreased by $15. Under the new treatment regulations this man's pension will not be affected. The new regulation applies to pensioners from 90 to 100 per cent.


Victor Quelch: I am thinking now of section 13, which guarantees that any veteran with an income below $2,500 will not have to pay an excessive charge. The treatment is free provided the adjusted income is below $720. The minister now says it has been increased to $840. The veterans of world war I were entitled to free hospitalization provided that they were classified as indigent. An indigent veteran is one who has an income of less than $1,000.
I see somebody with a look of amazement on his face. That was the definition given to the veterans committee years ago by Dr. Miller. With the value of the dollar today only about 53 per cent of what it was then, why would we lower the amount to $720? That figure should be up around $1,500 to be in line with the rates given to the veterans of world war I. It seems that $720 is altogether too low. I think the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra can back up my statement of $1,000. That figure was given by Dr. Miller some years ago when he was asked what was the income represented by the words "indigent veteran"?
6342	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Supply-Veterans Affairs


Hugues Lapointe: Most of the cases my hon. friend refers to would be recipients of war veterans allowance anyway and would get free treatment. In the case of the new formula as it exists under section 13, although the amount is $840 the formula used in adjusting the income is much more generous than it used to be.


Victor Quelch: Veterans of the first world war in receipt of war veterans allowance would not come under that ruling. I have in mind two cases that I took up with the veterans hospital in Calgary. Neither of these veterans is getting the veterans allowance. They could not get this treatment because it was claimed their income was over $1,000. I took it up with Ottawa and finally they were both admitted to the hospital and received free treatment. Because the income was below $1,000 they were classified as indigent veterans.


Hugues Lapointe: If my hon. friend studies the regulations he will find that once the income has been adjusted according to the formula in the regulations, with the deductions made for dependents, for the time lost during hospitalization, for the time lost afterwards, it is a pretty generous regulation and is more than the actual income of $1,000.


Victor Quelch: That would be true in so far as the veterans who are receiving the war veterans allowance, the disability pension or any of those classifications under this heading are concerned, but it does not cover the veteran who saw service in a theatre of war and who is not receiving any war veterans allowance or disability pension. He apparently would still come under the classification of the $720. There is no adjustment to make in his case. He would not be helped by the adjustment because he has no war veterans allowance and no disability pension to be adjusted. Therefore he is eligible for free treatment only provided his income is less than $720; yet a veteran of world war I is entitled to free treatment provided his income is less than $1,000.


Hugues Lapointe: If he had service in an actual theatre of war and has no income, as my hon. friend mentioned, then he would qualify for war veterans allowance and he would get free treatment.


Victor Quelch: No; provided he has no income over $1,000, a veteran of world war I is entitled to free treatment. If he had an income of $900 he would not be eligible for war veterans allowance.


Colin Emerson Bennett: A single man?


Victor Quelch: A single man.


Colin Emerson Bennett: An income of $900 and no dependents? He is also well protected under this schedule. If he has an income of $900 the most he can pay is $18 in twelve months. In other words he can be hospitalized for 12 months, and the most that can be charged is $18. I think that is pretty good protection, and is a generous regulation. With an income of $900 the amount is $18. If a man has an income of $1,500 he can be in hospital for 12 months and pay only $120 for the whole 12 months. The idea of this section 13 is to protect the veteran against large hospital charges that might ruin him.


Victor Quelch: I will agree it is a good section. I was just wondering why you have the figure of $720, because I do remember that formerly it was $1,000. On the other hand I will agree that on account of the adjustments it probably has compensatory features that more than-


Colin Emerson Bennett: You will notice that there is an amount of $480 allowed for the first dependent and $150 for each additional dependent in arriving at the adjustment income.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, vote 526 deals with the administrative expenses of the Canadian pension commission and is one of the key votes in the series. It affects the following vote 527, which is for almost $130 million for pensions, because the Canadian pension commission is the determining factor in the amount of money that will be paid out for pensions over the year. The staff of the Canadian pension commission comprises about 439 persons. The work of the pension commission was given considerable attention by the estimates committee when we were dealing with this department, and quite a bit of interesting information was obtained.
Those of us who were making inquiries concerning the pension commission were not entering upon that inquiry in a spirit of criticism; we were looking for information. Sometimes when you are looking for information people interpret it' as criticism. I think the pension commission is well able to stand close scrutiny, as it has had a lot of experience and there are many able people working on that commission. Its work over the last few years has not been scrutinized perhaps as closely as it was in the estimates committee a little while ago.
I should like to draw attention to some matters of importance that came out during the investigation. We were surprised to find such a large number of applications for pensions by veterans of world war I at this late date, and in this connection I should like to

Supply-Veterans Affairs
quote from page 790 of the proceedings, where Mr. Melville, the chairman, gave the following evidence:
In the fiscal year ended the 31st of March the commission dealt wtih 3,873 world war I applications. All of these had naturally to be subject to a first hearing because that is the statutory procedure.


Gordon Minto Churchill: These are new applications?


Mr.   Melville@: First applications to the commission. Of those we granted 490 at the first hearing, and 3,383 were rejected.
As late as this there were that many new applications by world war I veterans. I cannot locate the exact page, but Mr. Melville informed us that of that total of 3,383 applications, 625 were granted and 2,758 were not granted, which indicated that 84 per cent failed in their applications.
There are many things with regard to world war I disability pensions which are interesting and which need examination. I pointed out earlier that of the pensions granted by the pension commission for both wars during the last 12 months, 92 per cent were under the 50 per cent pension scale and only 8 per cent ran from 50 up to 100 per cent. You must realize that if a pensioner is receiving a 50 per cent or higher scale of pension and is married, upon his death his widow automatically becomes entitled to a pension. I am not suggesting at the moment that that fact influenced the pension commission in its findings; it is simply an odd fact to which I draw attention just in passing. I would want to investigate more carefully what has been done up to the present time.
We were interested when discussing this to find the extent to which world war II veterans have benefited from the experience of the pension commission and the veterans of the first world war. In answer to a question which I put, Mr. Melville gave this answer as reported on page 786:
After world war I, a veteran was conceded a pension if he claimed for and established that he had a disability incurred or aggravated during his service. Throughout the years from world war I to world war II, and as a matter of fact up until today, we are still receiving applications for pensions from world war I veterans. When world war II came along, bearing in mind the history of what had happened after world war I, the commission established a very different procedure as follows: we examined the discharge board of every man who served in world war II. If we considered he had a disability at the time of discharge we arranged and called him in for examination, and when we had completed the examination and the other necessary reports we gave a ruling.
So we have apparently benefited from our dealings with world war I veterans, whose documents were not always in very good shape. In one of the letters I mentioned this morning a veteran draws my attention to the fact that although he had been wounded he did not wait to have a medical board at
the time of his discharge in 1919, and did not bother to come before the pension commission until 1932 to disclose his wound and ask for a pension. We can understand some of the reasons why older veterans are appearing at this late date, but I still am surprised at the large number making first applications.
We investigated the method by which applications by world war I veterans are considered, and were informed that there was a first and second hearing followed by an appeal board. I am not going to go into all the details, because we discussed them in the committee, but from what calculations I was able to make I formed the conclusion that your chances of getting a ruling on the first or second hearing were not particularly good. I decided that if I were going to go before the pension commission I would try to get to the appeal board as early as possible, because I found that about 92 per cent of those who had their first and second hearings failed, whereas if a man persisted and got to the appeal board he had a better chance. Your chances on the first and second hearings I judged were about one to twelve, whereas if you got to the appeal board your chance was much better, as about 43 per cent of those appeals were granted.
In view of the earnest desire of the pension commission to settle cases without prolonging them, I have wondered why it has not been possible to get them settled without ending up with an appeal. The commission differs very little in composition in its first and second hearings. The same people are doing the work. Perhaps two would sit on the first hearing and a different two, or maybe three, on the second hearing, and three different commissioners would hear the appeal. But those same three commissioners hearing that particular appeal had perhaps the day before been holding the first hearing on someone else.
I think the appeal board has been built up and magnified in the course of the existence of the pension commission. This is where the minister comes into the picture. I know the pension commission is an independent body, and so on, but when problems of policy arise affecting the actions of the pension commission the minister is the person who would have to arrange for any modification of legislation to help out the commission and at the same time help out the veterans.
That is why we spent some time in that estimates committee discussing the question of the benefit of doubt section. The benefit of doubt section was written into the act chiefly with regard to the problem of world war I veterans who are unable to produce documentary evidence. That is very desirable

Supply-Veterans Affairs
when the commission is sitting on a case. I fully appreciate the value of documentary evidence. It makes it much easier for the commission if it is there, but the documents were not well kept in the first world war. The benefit of the doubt clause, to my mind, was introduced for the express purpose of easing the burden of the pension commission. As you will recall, the benefit of doubt clause says:
Notwithstanding anything in this act, on any application for pension the applicant is entitled to the benefit of the doubt, which means that it is not necessary for him to adduce conclusive proof of his right to the pension applied for, but the body adjudicating on the claim shall draw from all the circumstances of the case, the evidence adduced and medical opinions, all reasonable inferences and presumptions in favour of the applicant.
Quite a number of veterans feel that the benefit of doubt clause is not invoked. The pension commission people tell me it is invoked in almost every case. There is a wide difference of opinion. My own feeling is that there is some hesitancy about invoking that clause and finding in favour of the veteran without documentary evidence or medical evidence.
The hon. member who preceded me here was speaking some time ago about the effects of poison gas in the first world war. I asked some questions about that in the estimates committee. I am not at all sure that medical opinion could be very definite with regard to an applicant at the present time. The documentary evidence for people gassed during the first world war was often missing. I doubt if many people failed to get a certain amount of poison gas into their lungs, perhaps not to the extent of doing damage, although I have heard medical opinion to the effect that even small amounts of poison gas could result in some damage which would not appear until a great many years had elapsed. The benefit of doubt would be applicable there, I suppose, if an applicant could show that he was in such and such an area at a time of gas shelling, which would take in the greater part of the war. He would surely not have had to be at the battle of Ypres in 1915 to qualify for consideration under that.
That is all I am going to say on that particular section. The pension commission has other duties to perform. It has to deal with cases that arise from people serving now in peacetime, people with the regular army and people in the militia. Here we have run up against very serious trouble. In the estimates committee I asked some questions with regard to section 13(2) and was given the number of people who had made application during the last five years to the pension commission. That is shown on page 875 of the report. The


total number who applied in those five years was 6,952. These would be people who were injured or died during peacetime. Seven hundred and forty-nine were granted while 6,209 were not granted. In other words, 89 per cent of the applicants were not granted a pension because of section 13(2).
Here is where the minister can be of great assistance. He will have to investigate this and find out what can be done toward modifying or altering the legislation under 13(2). I inquired as to whether the pension commission considers a matter like that and puts forward any recommendations concerning a modification of that section. I cannot find the page now, but the information I received was that that was considered by the pension commission and they were trying to evolve some possible modification of that section.
This is serious. This is the section which requires that a person has to show that the disability or death arose out of or was directly connected with such military service. That is the phrase that causes all the trouble. We see the results of these thousands of applications over the last five years under that section. We see how they were refused. I had an experience a few years ago which ended unhappily for the person for whom I was trying to get assistance, and since that time I have been keenly interested in the work of the pension commission. The minister and I do not see eye to eye with regard to this, but two years have gone by since I indicated the effect of that particular section with regard to the death of a certain soldier, and no change has yet been brought about by the minister.
I shall conclude my remarks on this section at that point, because all I am attempting to show is that, valuable and important as is the work of the Canadian pension commission, there are still opportunities for the commission's work to be improved. I think something may well be done by the pension commission to eliminate some of the hardships by getting decisions made prior to reaching the appeal board stage. Something may be done by the minister himself with regard to the benefit of the doubt clause and its application, and with regard to section 13, subsection 2.
If these things are looked at against the background of decisions over the years, I think perhaps some of our veterans, their widows and dependents will receive better treatment than has been accorded them up to the present time. The commission is bound by the act. This is the body which can bring about the necessary changes in the act. I do not think it is in the mind of any member of the House of Commons that widows and

children should suffer because of an act which is not clear as to where responsibility lies when injury or death occurs to members of the services during peacetime.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I wonder whether the minister would have any comment to make in connection with the case I raised some time ago. If the details are as I set out, would the minister give some consideration to recommending amendments to the act next year so there will be no question about the veteran having the benefit of the doubt?


Hugues Lapointe: My hon. friend will realize, of course, that it is extremely difficult for the minister to make any comment on any individual case such as that which he brought forward, without being in the position of seeing the whole file and finding out exactly what did take place. Of course I am not questioning the truth of what the hon. member has said, but what he asks cannot be done without my having the detailed information on the case. If my hon. friend wishes to refer that case to me I shall be glad to have the chairman of the commission review it and pass on his comments to me.
As to the remarks made by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, I might say that the particular section to which he referred in his remarks is under review at the present time.


Mr. Hansell:: I wish to support those who have spoken with regard to the veteran having the benefit of the doubt, but I should like to raise this further point which I know has given the minister some considerable concern and which has been raised on numerous occasions previously. Of course we are obliged to raise these cases continuously or nothing will be done about them.
The point to which I should like to draw attention is the fact that some applications are turned down on the basis of some pre-enlistment condition. I can understand that situation if it is obvious that it was a pre-enlistment condition, but there is the further fact that many of these men were taken into the forces and given an A-l category on enlistment. Those are the cases which seem to me to be the stickers.
When a man joins the forces and is given a clean bill of health, surely that examination should be thorough enough to make it definite that he is in A-l condition. So he is admitted to the forces. He plays his part. He goes through active service and gives some years of sacrifice to his country. Then as he grows older certain things happen and he has a strong suspicion that they happen by reason of service in the forces. Then, of 50433-401
Supply-Veterans Affairs
course, after examination and after going through all the investigation that doctors and others responsible can go through, the decision is finally arrived at that they cannot grant the pension by reason of some preenlistment ailment which they did not discover when they gave the man a clean bill of health on enlistment.
Naturally the applicant himself is going to be considerably disturbed and agitated. He was perhaps always considered to be in fairly good health as a young man, enlisted and was given a clean bill of health. Now when something is discovered away back there that he did not know anything about, naturally it agitates him considerably because he figures that somebody is "pulling something". I am not saying that such men are justified in feeling that way; yet in a sense they are.
I know I cannot urge the matter any more strongly than has been done by my colleagues in all parties who are veterans. I am not a veteran. I had three sons in the war, one of whom gave his life. I am not a veteran myself though I am interested in veterans. But my colleagues who are veterans-some of the first war and some of the second war-and who have been on the veterans affairs committee, know much more about this matter than I do; and they have spoken of it and urged it. As one who is not a veteran but who represents a good many of them, I want to add my voice to those that have been raised in this matter. I feel greatly concerned about that point. I wish the minister could give some expression of opinion as to what might be expected with regard to these regulations.
We are all aware of the fact that the minister himself has done a great deal for the veterans and wants to do more. I do not think any member of the House of Commons has any personal criticism of the minister, his work or his desires. I do not think any of us has any criticism to make of the general work or of the attitude of the pension commission. The regulations are that way. From external appearances, at any rate, it appears that when, under the present regulations, a veteran is refused a pension because of some pre-enlistment condition which he did not know anything at all about, he becomes seriously disturbed.
I do not know whether the minister cares to reply to that statement. I wish he could give us some hope. If he does reply there is something I should like to have. If figures are available, can he tell us this. Of those taken into the forces and given a clean bill of health when they were taken in, how many applicants have been refused pension
6346	HOUSE OF
Supply-Veterans Affairs
because of some pre-enlistment condition? I wonder whether the minister has figures on that matter? They would be interesting. I do not want figures for the over-all picture of those whose pensions have been turned down because of pre-enlistment causes; rather I want these. Of those who were admitted to the forces and given a clean bill of health at the time, how many have been refused pension now by reason of some pre-enlistment cause? If those figures are available I should like to have them.


Hugues Lapointe: I am afraid, Mr. Chairman, that I have not those figures available. It would be practically impossible, without going through each individual file, to ascertain the proportion of those who were classified under one category or another upon enlistment. I would think the majority of them were classified as being in perfect health, but without going through the individual files it is impossible to find out just what that proportion is.


Howard Charles Green: When the amendments to the Pension Act were under consideration last year, the minister will remember there was quite a lot of criticism about one amendment which gave the governor in council the power to set the salaries of the members of the commission. Previous to that time the salaries had always been set out in the Pension Act.
During the debate some of us predicted that once the bill had gone through there would be an increase in those salaries. I should like the minister to tell us whether or not that has been the case, and if so the amount of the increase and the date upon which it became effective. I point out that as the law stood prior to the amendment of last year the chairman was receiving a salary of $12,000 per annum, the deputy chairman $10,000, and the other commissioners $9,000.


Hugues Lapointe: I believe, Mr. Chairman, my memory on this subject is even a little clearer than that of my hon. friend. He says he predicted that if this amendment were passed it would be followed by an increase in the salaries of the members of the pension commission. He did not predict it; I announced it at the time. I said that one of the purposes of the amendment was to permit me, at the earliest possible date, to increase those salaries. I did not say what the increases would be, but I am quite willing to do so. I did mention at that time that each year when the estimates came before the house the opposition would be in a position to question the minister on that subject and offer any criticism they wished as to the propriety of these salary increases.
The salary of the chairman of the commission was increased by $1,500, making his salary $13,500; the salary of the vice-chairman
[Mr. Hansell.l

was increased by $1,000, making his salary $11,000, and the salaries of the other members of the commission were increased by $1,000 making their salary $10,000. These increases became effective, I believe, on July 1, 1954.


Howard Charles Green: I understand that these commissioners are appointed by the governor in council. What are the qualifications deemed necessary for a commissioner?


Hugues Lapointe: I believe the hon. member is familiar with every member of the pension commission. He is familiar with the commissioners' background and he could conclude from that knowledge what the qualifications are. As he knows, the act does not set any particular qualifications. The government endeavours to find men with good service backgrounds and an understanding of the work involved. In some cases some professional qualifications are very useful. We like to have certain members of the board who have legal qualifications, and also we endeavour to have some who have medical qualifications. Then when the members go out to sit as an appeal board, each board may have one member with some medical background.
As was pointed out by the chairman of the pension commission to the estimates committee, each member of the board at the moment had service in one of the three armed services during world war I or world war II, and some during both wars. They are familiar with veterans' problems. We endeavour also to give some sort of geographical representation, though that cannot be adhered to very strictly. However, we endeavour to see that veterans from all parts of Canada, and from the three services, have someone representing them on the pension commission.


Gage Workman Montgomery: May I ask the minister a further question along that line? Has consideration been given to promoting persons such as pension advocates or district pension advocates to the pension board when vacancies occur?


Hugues Lapointe: Do I understand my hon. friend to ask whether pension advocates are appointed to the board? One member of the pension commission at the moment, Mr. Bray, served for quite a long time as a pension advocate in a district.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Is the list of commissioners the same now as when it was given to us in the estimates committee on April 26, or has there been an addition?


Hugues Lapointe: It is the same except for Mr. Bridges, who died recently. Another commissioner was appointed, Mr. Gordon.

Supply-Veterans Affairs


Gordon Minto Churchill: On pages 824 and 825 of
the proceedings of the committee on estimates, Brigadier Melville gave a list of the names of the commissioners with their military and civilian qualifications. He covered it rather thoroughly and indicated to us that the three services are represented. Some of the commissioners have served in the ranks as well as as officers, which is desirable because they are dealing largely with claims that come from the ranks. Can the minister give us the name of the latest appointment and some information comparable to that which was given to us with regard to the others?


Hugues Lapointe: The new commissioner to whom I referred is Mr. Charles Russell Gordon. His service background has been air force. For some years he was in the regular air force and served overseas during the second world war. He was discharged, I believe with the rank of air commodore but I am not sure of that.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Does the minister know the province or city from which he comes?


Hugues Lapointe: I understand that he originally comes from Vancouver, but more lately had been in Calgary.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have one other question with regard to the commissioners. Is it a full-time job, or are any of the commissioners employed in other capacities?


Hugues Lapointe: It is a full-time job for the period of a commissioner's appointment.


Gordon Minto Churchill: What does the minister mean by that?


Hugues Lapointe: They are appointed by order in council for a term of ten years or less. Some may be appointed for one year, as in the case of an ad hoc commissioner, and some for a period of five years, or of ten years. But during the term of the appointment referred to in the order in council it is a full-time job.


Gage Workman Montgomery: We always considered that Mr. Bridges represented the New Brunswick area. Who among the commissioners come from the maritime provinces today?


Hugues Lapointe: Mr. Bridges, who died
recently, was from New Brunswick. Then Dr. Bates is from Nova Scotia; Mr. Bray was from Ontario; Mr. Langelier was from Quebec, as was also Dr. Laplante; then Mr. August from Manitoba; Dr. Coke from Ontario and British Columbia; Dr. Brown and Mr. Forman are from Ontario. Mr. Pickersgill is from Saskatchewan, and Mr. Charles Russell Gordon from British Columbia.
50433-401i


Gage Workman Montgomery: Since Mr. Bridges' death there is only one representative from the maritime provinces, and no one especially from New Brunswick?


Hugues Lapointe: At the present time there is only Dr. Bates from Nova Scotia.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canadian pension commission-
527. Pensions for disability and death, including pensions granted under the authority of the civilian government employees (war) compensation order, P.C. 45/8848 of November 22, 1944, which shall be subject to the Pension Act; and including Newfoundland special awards, $129,784,500.
Gordon Minto Churchill: In looking through the
reports over a series of years I, in common with other members of the estimates committee, have wondered how it was possible to estimate so closely the pension requirements for any year. It is a fine piece of calculation indeed. I do not see how the commission can be certain how many people will come up>
and apply for pensions in any year. In fact I would think that in some years there should be double the number of other years.
Astonishingly enough, however, the calculations are pretty accurate. For instance, if one looks into the expenditures for 1952-53 and 1953-54 under the heading "pensions" he sees that in the first year the amount was $127,053,000 and in the second it was $127,579,000. Looking at the estimates for 1954-55 we see the amount was $128,030,000 and for 1955-56 it was $129,784,000. Then if we look back at the annual liability as shown in the annual reports of the department and examine the totals for the years 1928 to 1948 for disability pensioners, we discover that in 1928 the annual liability in round figures was $24 million while in 1948 it was $25 million. In between it had gone up to $30 million, and then declined. In 20 years it had gone from $24 million up to $30 million and down to $25 million. This applies only to world war I personnel.
In that same time the number of pensions in force, exclusive of dependents-that is, just the disability pensioners-was 50,635 in 1928 and 69,390 in 1948. In the intervening years the number of pensioners increased to
80,000	and declined to 69,000. No matter how one looks at it there appears to be some sort of system over the years whereby pensions would not increase at any alarming rate, and so the total liability would stay about the same. From 1949 to the present date there have been increases in pension rates, and it is difficult to make a comparison, but I shall be watching it with some care in the future.

Supply-Veterans Affairs
It is the greatest piece of calculation I have seen in government circles, and I think the natural course of promotion would be for ministers in the Department of Veterans Affairs to go on to the Department of Finance, because they seem to be able to hit the nail right on the head. Whether they calculate that each year several thousand veterans are going to die and another 3,000 may then come on the pension roll, I do not know. What has struck me in the investigation I have made is that first war pensions should have risen rather sharply in the first ten years, and then declined, and second war pensions it seems to me should do the same, if the system is working accurately. But to have it on a level line, with not much undulation, is a bit odd, to say the least.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Soldier Settlement and Veterans' Land Act-
529. To provide for the cost of administration of Veterans' Land Act; soldier settlement and British family settlement, $4,998,508.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: As the minister knows, I have repeatedly raised the question of the reduction of acreage for small holdings. What is the reason for the government's refusal to accede to the many representations urging a reduction of the acreage required for small holdings. There seems to be some bull-headedness here.


Hugues Lapointe: The main reason stems from the intention in the act. When the Veterans Land Act was drafted it was proposed that there would be two types of settlement, one for the full-time farmer who would earn his total income from farming operations, and the other for the part-time farmer, the small holder. It was part of the rehabilitation scheme that these small holders would be established on limited acreage, but the idea was that they would be able to supplement their income through making use of the small holdings.
It was found that many would consider establishing themselves as small holders under the Veterans Land Act, not for purposes of rehabilitation but because they wanted to meet a housing need. For that reason it was decided that the small holder would have to acquire a sufficient area of land so he would be able to meet the purpose of the act, which was secondary income through the cultivation of the small holding.
In order to meet the housing demands of veterans on smaller lots or the city-sized lots, we introduced part II of the Veterans Land Act during the course of the last session, and I know my hon. friend is familiar with that particular section.


Mr. McLeod:: I should like to make a few general remarks on this item that refers to small holdings. We are aware that larger amounts were made available last year to both the full-time farmer and the settler going on to the small holding. So far as the full-time farmer is concerned, I believe the larger amount was made retroactive; that is, those who had already been established could make application and could get the larger allowance that was made available. The larger amount was also made available to the small-holding settler. But those who were already established on small holdings did not have this feature of the act made available to them. It would appear that this is something the department could take into consideration, because it looks a little like discrimination. The full-time farmer gets the benefit of it, whereas the man on the small holding does not.
I should like to make the perennial plea on behalf of the old soldier settlers. We know there are still a few of those who after generations, we may say, have not as yet clear title to their property. The amount involved is not much. In fact I understand it would take in the neighbourhood of 2 cents from every person in Canada to wipe out the total indebtedness of the old soldier settlers. I believe no action that might be taken by the department would meet with more favour than if they would consider wiping out this entire debt and give these old veterans clear title to their land.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
531. To provide for the payment of grants to veterans settled on provincial lands in accordance with agreements with provincial governments under section 38 of the Veterans' Land Act and payment of grants to veterans settled on dominion lands, in accordance with an agreement with the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources under section 38 of the Veterans' Land Act. $300,000.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: This item is to provide for the payment of grants to veterans settled on provincial lands. I see there is a reduction this year. I again want to appeal to the minister and the department to do what they can to work with provincial governments to make sure that certain suitable provincial lands are kept in reserve for veteran settlers, particularly small holdings. I do not like to see these good provincial lands taken up often by non-residents when we have veterans who would very much like to have the opportunity to settle on some of these provincial lands, especially where they are close to small communities. As some of the minister's officials know, we have some excellent land in our district. The department or the administration should do all they can to get provincial governments to hold sections of this

land, particularly with lake frontages, with a view to settlement in small holdings, especially around small communities that are growing very rapidly owing to the expansion of the lumber industry.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
353. Departmental administration, $1,049,280.
Mr. Hodgson:: This department has been pretty well debated. The last day these estimates were up some questions were asked. Will the minister answer those questions? This party would like to get along.


Mr. Winters:: Mr. Chairman, there were one or two questions outstanding when the committee rose after dealing with these estimates for some time on July 1. As requested by the hon. member for Victoria (Ont.) I would be very glad to answer those that seem to be outstanding at the present time.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra asked first of all about the west block and what our intentions are there. The situation is that the present building is an old one and is badly in need of repair. The repairs will be expensive and will take some considerable time, judging by what is taking place in the parliamentary library at the present moment.
If the building is repaired it will have a useful life of 50 years at the outside. At the same time there is a requirement for a considerable amount of additional space for parliamentary purposes. With that in mind we have asked competent architects to assess the whole situation, to prepare outline plans and specifications, complete with scale models of several alternatives, and then give us an opportunity to look at them, at which time the decision will be made as to what procedure should develop from there.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra also asked whether I would indicate the cost of several typical public buildings in Ottawa. I think he was under the impression that the costs were running high. I have some figures here of typical buildings which indicate that the costs, so far as I know, are pretty well in line with the costs of buildings being erected by private enterprise at the present time.
The east building of the veterans' memorial building on Wellington street cost about $1.27 a cubic foot, about $18.50 a square foot. The west building of the veterans' memorial building is estimated to cost $1.32 a cubic foot, $18 a square foot. The bureau of statistics building in Tunney's pasture cost $1.05 a cubic foot, $18.20 a square foot. The national printing bureau cost 95 cents per cubic foot and $10.82 a square foot. Those are
Supply-Public Works
typical buildings, and I think the figures will show the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra that the costs are not out of line.
He then asked about the Marpole bridge in Vancouver, which is a subject we have discussed here on several occasions before. I have nothing further to report since it was last discussed in this house.
The hon. member for York West commented on the type of architecture used in Canadian buildings and suggested that the government should try to encourage a style of typical Canadian architecture, with which I fully agree. I might say that we are now employing a great number of private architects, and in each case they are instructed to design buildings having regard to the Canadian use and try to make them typically Canadian. It would be interesting to note that going into the fiscal year 1954-55 we had 42 architects under contract; during the year we employed another 45, and up to date this year we have employed an additional number that now exceeds 35.
The hon. member for Selkirk questioned the different systems of messing on the dredges operating out of Selkirk, and he made particular reference to the Bradbury. Since the hon. member raised this question I have had the pleasure of visiting Selkirk, talking to the people concerned and seeing some of these boats, particularly the Bradbury. The system of messing is basically the same for all. The difference in the case of the Bradbury, which is a tender and not really a dredge, is that she usually returns to her berth every night and is messed from Selkirk by the department. Another feature is that she has a variable load, in that she carries passengers on the lake in addition to the ordinary complement of crew. On the other hand, the dredges remain away from their bases for long periods of time and the messing is left to the dredge master. In all cases the department pays the same amount in respect to messing, which I believe is $1.53 per man.
The hon. member for Niagara Falls referred several times to the Burlington bridge, as did the hon. member for Halton. I might say that we have drafted an agreement which will enable the federal government to participate in the construction of this bridge to the extent of one-third the estimated cost. The bridge is intended to provide a passage over a canal, which was built by the federal authority, and the federal government therefore feels some responsibility for the bridge. It was estimated that this bridge will cost $13,300,000 and we have told the Ontario government we will pay one-third of that cost. They have been sent a draft agreement,
6350	HOUSE OF
Supply-Public Works
and I understand they are getting close to the point where they will be able to invite tenders.
The hon. member for Kootenay West asked why a revision of the Castlegar building had been made after tenders had been called and received. Information was received from the unemployment insurance commission which led us to believe that the size of the building could be decreased. Plans are being revised at the present time, and I expect that within the course of the next six weeks at the outside we will be able to call for tenders for a building more appropriate in size.
The hon. member for New Westminster raised some question in connection with the consolidation of services, and the inference was made that we were moving the facilities from New Westminster because of political reasons. That of course is not the case.


Howard Charles Green: Senator Reid made that statement.


Robert Henry Winters: We have a program of consolidation to bring the architectural staffs together with the engineering staffs and this is part of that process, which I hope will result in greater efficiency.
The hon. member for Eglinton asked if I would say a few words in his absence about the property to which he referred on Wellington street. At the outset I should like to say that although it was clearly defined in Hansard that three properties were involved, the public reading the reports in the press, which generally were quite good, might have formed the opinion that only two properties were involved, that is the Orme and Brock properties, whereas the major portion of the properties involved is the Norlite property which is the biggest and most expensive of the three properties involved.
Perhaps the inference was left that Mr. E. S. Sherwood was acting for the federal government and at the same time was an interested participant in the transaction. Mr. Sherwood was not acting for the federal government, he was acting on behalf of the then owners of the property. Mr. Sherwood had placed a valuation on the properties of $1,646,272.27. As I informed the committee before, we sought the advice of competent independent appraisers to evaluate the property and retained the services of Ernest Pitt and Company, Montreal, and Associated Real Estate Appraisers Inc., also of Montreal. I referred to this company as Appraisers Limited, but this is the correct and full name. Both these appraisers have had comprehensive experience in evaluating properties in Ottawa.

The evaluation arrived at by Associated Real Estate Appraisers Inc. for property and buildings was $1,249,713.32. To that they added $95,437.76 for architects' fees, interest on money, taxes, unforeseen eventualities and so forth, making a total appraised value of $1,345,151.08. In my last statement I omitted this last figure of $95,437.76 as I was dealing only with land and buildings. However, it is an amount that had to be considered in settling for the property.
The Pitt figure for land and buildings was $1,462,863.74. If we add to this the same amount for architects' fees and other expenses that was used in the evaluation by Associated Real Estate Appraisers we reach a total appraisal value of $1,558,301.50. For purposes of comparison with the amount we actually paid it is fair to add architects' and other costs, because we had in fact to pay them in our settlement. In arriving at our final figure we paid $1,396,000, including an allowance for these items.
For purposes of comparison with the appraisals we had there was the figure arising from the Pitt evaluation of $1,558,301.50, including the incidental charges I have referred to already. The Associated Real Estate Appraisers figure was $1,345,151.08 and there was the price requested by E. S. Sherwood of $1,646,272.27, plus 5 per cent interest from the date of expropriation to the date of settlement; and then there was the figure for which we finally settled of $1,396,000.
Before he left the hon. member for Eglinton asked me to indicate the dates on which these appraisals had been submitted. The date of the Ernest Pitt and Company report is January 14, 1954; the date of the report of Associated Real Estate Appraisers is January 18, 1954. Those are the questions the hon. member for Eglinton requested me to answer.


Mr. Winch:: Under vote No. 1 of the minister's estimates there are three or four matters I should like to raise. Two or three, may I say, are only incidental. One, in my estimation, is rather important. But if I put all the questions in one speech it might expedite the business of this house, so may I just speak on the one or two items which may seem small but which should be drawn to the attention of the Minister of Public Works, because otherwise they might never come to his attention.
All of us in the House of Commons and all residents of Ottawa and, I think I can say, of Canada are very proud of the buildings and grounds of the House of Commons. I was rather amazed to hear that only yesterday, on Sunday, there were over 3,200 visitors taken on conducted tours of the House of

Commons. Therefore the condition of our buildings, our grounds and everything that goes with them should mean a good deal to us.
We speak a great deal about economy. I know this could not have come to the attention of the Minister of Public Works, but I am going to draw it to his attention now. We have in the grounds outside the House of Commons a magnificent iron work as a fence, in particular on the Rideau canal side and going back on the river side. Before I came into politics I was a construction worker, and I have some idea of what that kind of wrought iron work costs.
When I come from where I live, as I have to do every morning, and walk up beside the Rideau canal to the House of Commons and see how that hand-wrought iron work is being allowed to rust and rot because no paint is being put on it to protect it, it breaks my heart. Eventually we are going to have to build a brand new fence there; but why should the Department of Public Works when it is only a matter of spending a few dollars on weather protective paint, allow some of the finest hand-wrought iron in Canada to go to rack and ruin? If I could I would take the Minister of Public Works and show him where it has rusted completely through.
Money means a great deal. Why is the Department of Public Works, which is in charge of our buildings and their surroundings, allowing one of the finest fences in Canada to be ruined because they will not put some paint on it? It is going to cost a good deal of money now even for sandblasting to save it, but I would make the suggestion that the minister tell somebody in his department to go and look at that iron fence and, while they are doing that, to look at the masonry on the Rideau canal side.
On the front of the building you have men working now putting in mortar. You had better start on the Rideau canal side too. The mortar has not only gone on the side but it has gone on the top. Water, snow and ice get in. In Ottawa-not now, but as it was a few months ago-the temperature goes below freezing point and you have blocks that are moving. I just want to say that prevention costs much less than new construction.
As one who worked for years on construction and loves the kind of work we have here, I say, sir, that I know you cannot do it, but you can tell somebody to go and see what is happening to thousands upon thousands of dollars worth of the finest artistry in Canada in our own parliament grounds.
I said I was going to speak very briefly on a few points. I do not know when this house
Supply-Public Works
is going to close, but when it does I ask you, Mr. Chairman, and through you the minister, to do one of two things. Before this house met in the first week of January I understand that somebody exiled a number of cats from the House of Commons. May I suggest that you either bring those cats back or bring exterminators into the House of Commons between sessions and get rid of the mice on the fifth and sixth floors. We did not have them last session. I am amazed that the wives of M.P.'s have not raised particular hell. We now have the problem of mice in room 601. On the sixth floor you can see them going across the floor. There are not only mice in the House of Commons. There are cockroaches in the cafeteria and on the third, fifth and sixth floors of the House of Commons. As I say, it is only a small matter, but it means a great deal.
I suggest that you review the exile of the cats and bring them back or bring in exterminators-not while we are here, but in between sessions-and get rid of the cockroaches and the mice that are invading the building. It is not good advertising, and it is not even nice for the members of the House of Commons to see a mouse all of a sudden dashing across the marble corridors. Mice can do a good deal of damage in a building.
That is all I want to say on that. I just wanted to bring it to the minister's attention that he should take care of the cockroaches and the mice and the painting of the iron rails. It can save a good deal of money if somebody does something about it. I am saying all I wanted to say in one speech, because I want to get home; but I am going to stay here till the bitter end and say whatever I think I should say.
There is a major point that I should like to draw once again to the attention of the Minister of Public Works. I spoke on it last year, and I think it requires that I speak on it again. That is the matter of the highway system of the Dominion of Canada. Arrangements were made whereby the federal government interested itself for the first time in the construction of highways in Canada and reached agreement, I believe, with every province except one on a trans-Canada highway system. As far as I am concerned I want to say thanks for that new policy on behalf of the federal government.
Mr. Chairman, I am convinced that it is necessary that the federal responsibility go further than one trans-Canada highway system. Naturally I have a major interest in the province of British Columbia, which to a great extent is different from the majority

Supply-Public Works
of the provinces of Canada. The province of British Columbia is broken up north and south by four main mountain ranges. There are only three passes east and west. We have the Crowsnest pass in the south. We have the Kicking Horse pass or the Big Bend which is accepted now as the trans-Canada route. North of that, and where we have no roads at all, we have the Yellowhead pass.
Those hon. members who come from the prairies and from the other provinces do not realize the cost of highway construction with which we are faced in British Columbia. If my memory serves me correctly the average cost of a highway on the prairies, up to the standards laid down by the federal government on the trans-Canada highway, is about $45,000 a mile. In British Columbia we have spots that cost us $1 million a mile; and that is not just an occasional mile.
I know that under the trans-Canada highway contract the federal government will pay half that cost. But, Mr. Chairman, that affects only one highway in British Columbia. Again I want to ask the Minister of Public Works whether he will not give consideration to a new policy of highway construction. The government has already accepted the principle of a financial interest in highway construction; it has been accepted by every province except one. But that is only on what is known as the trans-Canada highway; that is only on one highway across Canada. I suggest to the minister that the federal authority accept a financial responsibility and a planning responsibility not just with regard to one highway across Canada but with regard to every primary highway in every province of Canada.
Primary highways open up new industries, new developments and new resources. The major beneficiary of new developments and new resources is the federal treasury through all its taxes. I know that a province should accept its responsibility. A province should invest its money in developing its resources. But because we in our dominion are a federal state I say the federal government should also accept some responsibility for financial investment in the provinces because the federal treasury will reap a major benefit from that development; and one of the finest things for development is the opening up of the country by a major primary highway system.
I am a citizen of the city of Vancouver, which has about a third of the entire population of the province of British Columbia. At the moment we have only one highway system that is recognized by the federal government, and that is Kingsway on the trans-Canada highway. We have two other outlets from the city of Vancouver going


east. However, I do not think the one on Burrard inlet can ever be developed as a major road. We have one other outlet which goes straight through the heart of Vancouver and north of New Westminster. I refer to the Lougheed highway.
There are a few more words that I should like to say about this matter, Mr. Chairman. May I ask you to call it six o'clock?
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Harold Edward Winch: When the committee rose at six o'clock, Mr. Chairman, I hope I had impressed three points on the Minister of Public Works. I was trying to make a fourth. If I may, I should like to briefly review them. First, it is my hope that the minister will have some investigation made of the magnificent iron fence we have around this parliament building to see if it can be preserved. It is now rusting away. When I was speaking on that subject I forgot to draw to the minister's attention also that two of the wrought iron lamp standards outside of the front of the building are also rusting.
My second point was that I hoped the exiled cats would be repatriated so as to remove the mice which are now on the fifth and sixth floors of the House of Commons. My third point was that I hoped in between sessions exterminators would be brought in to get rid of the bugs which are in the House of Commons. As I was leaving the chamber at six o'clock I heard someone say there were no bugs in the House of Commons. Will a page boy come over here, please? I spent exactly two minutes in one room catching these. Will you please take this envelope to the Minister of Public Works, to show him that there are bugs in the House of Commons.


Robert Henry Winters: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Public Works is not responsible for bugs and mice in the House of Commons.


Harold Edward Winch: But he is responsible for getting rid of them.


Robert Henry Winters: No, that is a matter of housekeeping; that is under the Sergeant-at-Arms.


Harold Edward Winch: Then call your wife; I imagine she is a good housekeeper. Just because someone said I could not find them, I wanted to show you what I found in two minutes.


Robert Henry Winters: Bring them to the attention of Mr. Speaker.


Harold Edward Winch: It was not on the fifth and sixth floors, where we have the cafeteria and restaurant.
I was discussing a most important matter, and I should like to continue in the hope the minister could give some assurance that the subject will be considered. It is not enough to think that Canada, being a federated country, has a national highway policy when the federal government makes an agreement and contributes to one highway on a trans-Canada basis. The United States is also a federated country, with 48 states, and the federal government there recognizes that an investment in primary highways is a good investment for the national government. I say, sir, it is also a good investment for the national government of Canada.
In Canada we have a country with marvellous resources. Directly and indirectly the federal government reaps a great benefit to the national treasury through the development of natural resources. One of the finest ways of furthering the development of new resources and the establishment of new industries, is through the medium of highway development. In British Columbia-and naturally I have a keen interest in that province because I represent a constituency there-we have a problem that no other province in Canada has because of our four mountain ranges running from north to south.
I want to say, Mr. Chairman, and through you to the Minister of Public Works, that I doubt if there is any province in Canada from which the federal government gets a greater per capita return to the national treasury than it gets from British Columbia. I know that British Columbia pays more income taxes than Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba put together. I am not being at all critical of those provinces, but I am pointing out the return the federal government gets from British Columbia. We have major problems connected with highways, and I believe the minister will eventually have to come to a national highway policy and accept responsibility in all provinces for major primary highways, not just the trans-Canada highway.


Mr. Reinke:: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Harold Edward Winch: Would the hon. member mind if I just went ahead to finish this; then I shall be glad to answer any questions. I know that British Columbia would like to be able to meet her commitments on the trans-Canada highway and complete it. But, sir, we have other major highway responsibilities in British Columbia. We cannot expend all the money British Columbia has available on one 30433-402
Supply-Public Works
highway. You have to come to it eventually, and the sooner you come to it the sooner the federal government is going to increase its revenue. The sooner we have a national policy of assisting all provinces not merely on one route across the province but on all primary highways, the better it will be not only for the provinces but for Canada as a whole.
This is a subject upon which I could speak for hours. It is close to my heart. I know that eventually we shall come to it, so why not now? At least the minister should inform this house and the provinces that he has under consideration a plan of assistance for all provinces in their primary highway construction, and in particular British Columbia because I am a member from that province and I know its problems. We now have our southern route in the Crowsnest, but we are blocked in two ways, one over the Cascade mountains. Personally I believe our route should not be over the Cascade mountains at all on the southern route, but the federal government should get us a corridor in the United States by means of which we could completely avoid spending millions of dollars crossing the Cascade mountains. I have gone over the route; I know it is practical and that it is undeveloped in the United States.
The province alone cannot handle a project of that kind. We have the Big Bend, the Kicking Horse pass route, which is the trans-Canada route; but the Mica dam is going to go in some day and, when it does, no less than 32 miles will be flooded. Then there will have to be a complete rerouting. We have the Yellowhead pass route, which is not yet built. In my estimation it is a good one, and has been proven by the Canadian National Railways to be a good one. They go through on the Yellowhead pass and do not even need pushers on their freight trains.
Those are our routes, our only means of ingress and egress. We cannot spend all our money on the trans-Canada highway. We can develop British Columbia to an even greater extent than it is being developed today if we can obtain some help from the federal government, which should be vitally interested. But until now it has not spent any money. I say to this government that if it wants returns it must also make investments.
Has the Minister of Public Works given any consideration to a national highway program in Canada, beyond the trans-Canada route, in which it will invest in the development of the provinces by assisting them in their program of primary highway development? If they did, then the provinces could spend their money on the secondary feeders
6354	HOUSE OF
Supply-Public Works
into those primary routes. That is a logical development, and one that would pay dividends to the provinces, and most certainly to the federal government. Has the minister anything of that nature in mind, and will he comment on the matter?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Chairman, I think perhaps these are items that might be dealt with more effectively under specific votes. However, if it will hasten our getting to those votes I shall comment on the three points raised, namely the fence around the parliament buildings, the mice and cockroaches in parliament, and the trans-Canada highway as well as the other highway systems in Canada.
As the hon. member said, it is true that we have a magnificent fence around the parliament buildings and one which should be and, in fact, is being maintained. There has been progressive maintenance. If the hon. member will look at that part fronting on Wellington street he will see that a good deal of work has been done both on the masonry and on the wrought iron fence.


Harold Edward Winch: If the minister would walk with me on both sides-


Robert Henry Winters: I agree with the hon. member that the part he mentioned earlier is not in as good state of repair as we would like to have it. But that work will be undertaken shortly, and we have every intention of maintaining that fence.
Then with regard to the mice and cockroaches, as I said earlier that is a matter of housekeeping which comes under the jurisdiction of His Honour the Speaker, and I am sure he is quite competent to deal with it.
Then, as to highways, I think the hon. member will agree with me that our first aim and object must be to complete the trans-Canada highway. Here I would remind hon. members of the committee that nine of the ten provinces signed agreements with us to complete their work on the trans-Canada highway by December 9, 1956. For a variety of reasons that work has lagged. In the three western provinces it has lagged because of weather conditions. I had the opportunity last week of driving over a portion of the highway between Maple Creek and Medicine Hat, and I saw again how impossible it is to do highway work on the western prairies under conditions of wet weather. They have made a good effort, however, and I hope they will carry on.
As of today the total contractual commitments for the trans-Canada highway amount to $193,406,067.61, of which the federal government is committed to half. To date the federal government has actually paid


$66,108,982.38. In addition the federal government assists with other highways and development roads; and as hon. members know, the federal government is entirely and fully responsible for all highways in the northern territories.
The hon. member spoke about the United States effort. Our effort in Canada, on a per capita basis, does not suffer too much in comparison with the United States. It must be remembered, too, that in that country they have a federal tax on gasoline which yields annually something of the order of $1,500 million, which is considerably in excess of what the federal government has been spending on highways there. In this country we have no such revenue.
I agree entirely with what the hon. member said about the value of highways in the development of the country. We are continually thinking in terms of what might be done in the future to stimulate and assist development, always having in mind our immediate objective, that of completing the trans-Canada highway.
Hon. members know that we have on the agenda for the federal-provincial conference this fall the subject of public investment, and I would not be at all surprised if participation in the provincial highways program were one of the subjects discussed there.


Mr. Nowlan:: Mr. Chairman, before the item is passed there is one matter to which the minister referred earlier this afternoon-


Harold Edward Winch: Would the hon. member speak up?


George Clyde Nowlan: Just a minute; perhaps the loudspeaker will come into play. We have been travelling across western Canada and British Columbia, and I would like to go back-


Harold Edward Winch: Would the hon. member speak so we can all hear?


George Clyde Nowlan: I would like to come back to the ground on which we are now standing. The minister told us this afternoon that no decision had been made, as I understood him, with respect to the west block. He said he had asked for plans to be prepared and that there might be renovation, or that there might be reconstruction, or that there might be construction of a new building.
I noticed in one of the newspapers-I believe it was the Montreal Gazette-that someone in his department said that so far there had been only one protest received respecting the demolition of the west block. If only one protest has been received up to now, then I would like to increase the protests by 100 per cent by registering a

Supply-Public Works
second one. Personally I feel it would be a serious mistake to have the west block destroyed or torn down, or even to have an exact replica of it constructed in its place.
Obviously there have been leaks-perhaps inspired leaks, I think-in this matter. We have read that it would cost $6 million for a new building and $3 million to renovate the old one, and there has been a great deal of speculation. I was very glad indeed to hear the minister say this afternoon that no decision had been made, that he was asking for reports and for the preparation of plans, and that after he had that background material he would make a decision on the basis of the information available to him.
I commend him for that. My own personal opinion at the moment is that whatever the dollar cost of building may be, as represented by the plans he receives, the minister should decide that the present building must be maintained. After all, Mr. Chairman, I think we are engaging here in one of the most interesting experiments that has ever been carried on in any country in the world. We are trying to evolve a Canadian nation in this country, based first on two distinctly different racial groups. With that background we are bringing in hundreds of thousands, and we hope millions, of people of other races and other outlooks. Out of that amalgam we are creating a distinctive Canadian nation. I ask you, how are you going to do it if you intend to tear down and destroy-for the sake of getting fluorescent lighting or elevator service, or nice pink and green walls, or something of that kind-the very basis on which this nation was constructed?
Actually on this hill here we have the two old buildings, the east block and the west block. We had the old centre block, which was destroyed by fire and which has been replaced by this building, the centre of the original government of Canada. I hope a hundred years from now Canadians will be coming here and looking over this hill and saying, "There was the establishment of government of Canada; that is where they first met. There is the east block and the west block". Tonight we are sitting in the building which takes the place of the one which was destroyed by fire.
It is true that the west block is an old building and probably needs extensive repairs. I can feel sorry for those who work in it. They would like to have all sorts of modern innovations and improvements, and they probably deserve them. After all, Mr. Chairman, we are erecting buildings around this city very rapidly. A tremendous number of government buildings are going up all over the place. Although one does not wish to 50433-402J
encourage the spending of money, there are certain aesthetic things one can speak of, and one of them is the maintenance of national traditions and historic centres.
This year the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources introduced legislation to enlarge the national historic sites and monuments board. That board is to preserve the historic sites of this country. What would it think, what would the people of Canada think, if we authorize or permit, without at least registering a protest, the responsible minister in charge of the buildings here to tear down and destroy one of the historic landmarks of this nation? I am sure that in Washington, for instance, pressure has been brought to bear on the government to tear down old buildings and replace them with new ones. I am sure that in London there is just as much demand for space and for real estate as there is here.
I have forgotten my history, but it seems to me that No. 10 Downing street was erected by Sir Charles Downing somewhere around 1650, or between that and 1700. It is still preserved as the home of the British prime minister, and is actually the seat of the British cabinet. Westminster hall was built long before that. There undoubtedly were pressures brought to bear to tear out the floors and the lighting and put in fluorescent lighting and put up a modern structure, but they resisted that. In Philadelphia, Independence hall-and I am sure real estate is as valuable there as it is here-was preserved and the great park in front of it was preserved as an historic shrine to the establishment of the American government. Surely we can do as much here.
I am not going to take any more time of the committee, Mr. Chairman. Like the hon. member who preceded me, I feel fairly strongly on this matter. I could speak at length. I speak to the minister as a responsible minister of this government, and I also speak to him as a personal friend, I hopfe, when I say that building should not be torn down and destroyed. You can say you can build an exact replica, and you can do it for $6 million. We have seen these estimates. It will cost $18 million before they get through with it, and it will be no more like the present building than day is like night.
A hundred years from now, if this nation survives and develops in the way we are trying to develop it, people will be coming to Ottawa and looking around and asking, where is the west block? The answer will be, that was destroyed while Bob Winters was Minister of Public Works. If that happens it will not add greatly to his reputation. I say that
6356	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Supply-Public Works
as a friend. I ask him to study this very carefully and to weigh the aesthetic values against dollars and cents, if that is possible in this day and age. If he does that I am quite certain he will come to the decision that the west block should be preserved. If so, Canada will be the better because of it.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Chairman, before we get too far from the progressive speech of the hon. member for Vancouver East, I should like just briefly on this occasion to associate myself with what he said. I hope to discuss the matter of the trans-Canada highway later on when the appropriate item comes before us. I do believe the hon. member for Vancouver East has a very important point when he suggests that we should have a trans-Canada system of highways, and that the dominion government should assist the provinces in building those highways, if not build them entirely itself, because the provinces simply cannot spend the money which is required to build them. I shall have more to say about this matter at a later time, when we come to the item.


William Scottie Bryce: Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the minister for the good service he gave me. There are not many ministers who, in the middle of their estimates, will go out and look up a grievance that a member brings to their attention, but that is what he did for me and I do appreciate it.
I wish I had been more explicit when I raised the grievance on the floor about those fellows who get $1.54 a day for their meals. I think that runs to about $47 a month. I also referred to two dredges. The grievance is that on the Bradbury the $47 is paid for every man who eats, but on the dredges they do not need to spend the $47, as they do on the other boat. Some individual in the crew buys the food, and if they have a crew of ten and they spend only $400, the other $70 does not go back into the kitty; it does not go back into the consolidated revenue fund. Somebody gets it.
The argument of the men on the dredge is that they should be fed in the same way as the men are fed on the Bradbury. The minister tonight gave one or two instances to show that it was not very convenient, but I think it can be done. I am going to ask him again to see what he can do about having the men employed by the same department fed in the same way, and then there will be no hard feelings. I have been at sea long enough to know that it is terrible when you have a dissatisfied crew. They are dissatisfied about their food. If they are not getting the food they should be getting the $47 a month and nothing less.

I spoke on these estimates before, Mr. Chairman. I talked about the breakwater at Gimli. That was on July 1. The minister interrupted to say, as reported at page 5582 of Hansard:
There was supposed to be fill behind it, put there by the municipality. The fill was never put there. That is why the breakwater washed away.
It would take longer than from now to ten o'clock to read all the letters I have received in connection with these few remarks. I hold in my hand a telegram from the Gimli chamber of commerce. It reads:
Have written Minister of Public Works and copy to you good photos of cracks in Gimli breakwater forwarded to minister today.
I hope the minister got those photographs because they will give him an idea of how serious the situation is. The mayor of Gimli writes as follows:
I do not know why the minister would say that the breakwater is washed away because we, the town of Gimli, did not fill behind it, as you know this is not true. I do not think there is any part of the breakwater that was not backfilled. I will admit that there may be places where not enough backfill was placed, but where the breaks in the breakwater have occurred the cause has not necessarily been the lack of fill.
Also please remember that each property owner had to sign and assume the responsibility of backfilling behind their own property which made it very difficult for the town of Gimli to interfere with those particular ratepayers.
And also when this breakwater was constructed a tremendous amount of rock had been placed along the shoreline by these people and the town of Gimli. This material was simply used by the government for the construction of the breakwater.
As I stated earlier I do not think that there is any portion of the breakwater that has not been backfilled, most of it excellently done, but of course you will realize that after two or three years a certain amount of sagging has taken place.
Please convey to the minister from me that, if this is the information he gets from his engineers, he needs a new engineer.
I think I once pointed out to you how this breakwater was built, particularly the most southerly portion where the town joins the municipality. This as I think you know is crumbling due to poor construction and I shall defy any engineer to tell me different. On a separate piece of paper I shall draw you a sketch of this portion to refresh your memory.
I shall take that up with the minister later. Then the Gimli chamber of commerce wrote to the minister under date of July 6. The pertinent parts of this letter read:
A great deal of rock was hauled by volunteers and by the town of Gimli to the breakwater site. This was originally intended to serve as backfill when the new breakwater was built. However, much of this was used in the actual construction of the breakwater. It is true that the town had the responsibility of backfill and maintenance. And in every case where town property meets the breakwater this has been backfilled. It is also true that there are homes that have not adequately backfilled their properties that adjoin the breakwater, but on the other hand regions that have been properly backfilled are among those that have suffered the greatest damage.

Supply-Public Works
We are unanimous in our conviction that the damage to the breakwater is due to faulty construction. As enclosed photographs will demonstrate, one residence which has a solid rock and concrete backfill behind the breakwater is in great danger because this precaution has not prevented large cracks from occurring in the breakwater. This home owner testifies that the asphalt at this point is breaking loose in large chunks.
Where the government ditch enters the lake at the municipal-town boundary there is evidence of very poor engineering. Here the lake has just crumbled the breakwater. Please refer to large photograph enclosed.
The Gimli chamber of commerce takes exception to the statement that adequate backfill would have prevented crumbling of the breakwater. These photos show cracks where adequate backfilling has been carried out. We feel that the engineers that reported to you in this matter are in error.
Those are some of the things the chamber of commerce have to say. I am not going to take up much more time of the committee because there are many estimates to be dealt with, but here is what John Arnason, an old resident of Gimli, has to say:
Dear Mr. Bryce.
There is no doubt about the construction of the government wall at Gimli being faulty. They made it too solid, not allowing the overrun to flow back. They should have had openings to let the water run back, that is the whole trouble. I own 180 feet fronting the wall. It collapsed this summer as the backrun was too strong. South of the government wall I have 100 feet where I built my own and it is still standing as it was made to have the water run back as fast as it came over. I asked the municipality men here who has to look after government wall. They said the porperty owners. When the wall was first built I had bought stones to protect the 180 feet shoreline. I was never allowed one cent for same. Now to protect myself and I feel all the settlement behind I bought $260 stones that I have piled behind the government wall to hold it from flattening out. Another thing, the government wall was only cemented in the front. All the back was only loose stones piled up. The back-wash washed them out and then no support. Our best breakwaters are large stones that don't wash away, but they cost money, $10 per load, but should we on the waterfront protect all the others living behind? Who should I go to that will share the cost?
That man has lived there all his life and he claims it was faulty, that there should be holes in the wall to allow the water to run back. I appeal to the minister to have his engineers do something about this. There are a lot of nice people in Gimli and I have to go back there to live among them. If you do not do something about the breakwater it is going to be too bad for me. The funny thing about this breakwater is that when I represented this community about eight years ago the government said it was not their responsibility. Then after redistribution they were able to get a Liberal member, and the government then found that it was their responsibility. I can show articles in the local newspapers where it is stated that the Department of Public Works assumed responsibility which they never knew they
had before. It was found they had built a wooden breakwater years ago. I appeal to the minister to do something.


An hon. Member:: Do you want another Liberal?


William Scottie Bryce: I do not want them to have another Liberal here. Why should I want another Liberal? There are so many Liberals here now they don't know what to do with themselves.


Mr. Dickey:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to refer for a moment to the remarks made a short time ago by the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings in connection with the west block. I believe all of us in this chamber have an appreciation of the traditions of this country and the necessity of maintaining historic landmarks and that sort of thing. However, I think both this committee and the country must recognize that we are faced with a practical problem and it is the Minister of Public Works who has the responsibility of solving that problem.
The problem is to provide necessary space for the essential services of this parliament, and I think everything that is done should be done with the primary objective in mind of meeting properly the essential requirements of members of both houses of this parliament and the people who serve our needs. The question of the preservation of the west block I think has to be looked at first of all in that light.
After listening to the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings it is quite clear that he himself destroyed his own argument by reference to this centre block in which we meet. He described the original building, which was of the kind and type of the west block and the east block and was destroyed by fire.
What was the result of that fire? The result of that fire was that there was built here on this site what I think is certainly the most beautiful and the most efficient government building I have ever seen, and one of the finest government buildings in any capital in the world. It is not a building that the hon. member or any other member of this house can say does not preserve and pay tribute to the original design of this parliament hill and the traditional feeling of this country, but it is an immeasurably more appropriate, more useful and more adequate building than the old one ever was.
There is no reason at all why the west block cannot be torn down and rebuilt, if necessary, in its same position and in exactly the same way, achieving the utility and the beauty that we are enjoying here in this centre block. Nobody has suggested that there

Supply-Public Works
will be anything in the way of vandalism, as was suggested by the remarks of the hon. member, in what is contemplated. I for one want to encourage the Minister of Public Works in his plans for providing more adequate and appropriate accommodation for this parliament.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Why not pull down some of the temporary buildings?


Howard Charles Green: When the minister spoke this afternoon concerning the west block, he did not deal with my proposal on an earlier occasion that the office in that block which had been occupied by Sir John A. Macdonald should be restored to its original form and made an historic centre of Canada. I cannot see any reason why that should not be done. I think it would be a very attractive centre for people visiting parliament hill; not only for tourists from the United States and other countries, but more particularly for Canadians coming here from all parts of Canada. I suppose a large number of the Canadians who visit this hill come here only once or twice in a lifetime. There is no historic monument of any kind on parliament hill. I wish the minister would let us have his views with regard to this suggestion.
In answering today the questions which were raised on July 1, he did not deal with my question as to whether his department was gradually taking over a larger proportion of the construction work for the dominion government. As he knows, the tendency during the last war and since has been for several other departments to encroach on this construction field. Just last week I asked the Minister of Defence Production whether it was intended that one of his crown companies, which is known as Defence Construction (1951) Limited, would turn over any of its projects to the Department of Public Works. I point out that that particular crown company under another department expects to spend $100 million this year, although the minister's vote is only some $85 million.
I had a very clear-cut and sharp answer from the Minister of Defence Production to the effect that he had no intention of giving the Department of Public Works any of the work that is being done by this crown corporation. But what is the position with regard to other departments, for example the Department of Transport? Are steps now being taken to let the Department of Public Works do some of this construction that is being done by the other departments?
Then there was another question which has been brushed off this afternoon by the minister. It had to do with the Marpole bridge.


Robert Henry Winters: I did not brush it off. I said there was nothing new. That is quite different, is it not?


Howard Charles Green: Brushing it off and saying there is nothing new amount to the same thing.


Robert Henry Winters: You always try to be fair, Why don't you be fair this time?


Howard Charles Green: As the minister knows, some years ago one of his colleagues made a definite commitment to pay $400,000 toward the construction of the new bridge. That was based on a total cost of $1,200,000 to put in a lift span instead of the swing span which is in the old bridge. Such a plan was obviously foolish, and the provincial government finally decided to build a new high-level bridge at a different spot, which is to cost about $8 million. Last year the minister's parliamentary assistant, when asked whether the offer of $400,000 stood, even against the price of the Oak street bridge, replied in the affirmative. I have here the questions and answers at page 6774 of Hansard for last year.


Maurice Bourget: I think the amount of $400,000 has been offered to the province to build the Marpole bridge, but I am informed that they want to build the bridge at Oak street.


Howard Charles Green: That is right.


Maurice Bourget: So far, I do not think-


Howard Charles Green: Does that mean then that unless the provincial government agrees to this ridiculous scheme of simply putting a lift on the old Marpole bridge, the dominion government will not make any contribution at all?


Maurice Bourget: I am told that they will probably make the same offer for the Oak street bridge.


Howard Charles Green: The dominion government will pay $400,000 on a new bridge on Oak street?


Maurice Bourget: That is right, Mr. Chairman.
Since that time there have been various discussions between the Minister of Public Works for Canada and the minister of public works of the province of British Columbia. They got along very well; in fact they were going to go on a fishing trip together, but somehow or other they did not actually come to any terms. Now the province is actually going ahead to build this new bridge. But there has to be a connection from the bridge to Sea island, on which the international airport is situated.
It was because of that airport that the dominion government became involved in the first place. Press dispatches indicate that there were numerous exchanges between the two governments earlier in the present year, but no one knows now whether the dominion is still willing to pay $400,000 toward the construction of this bridge, or whether it is now taking the position that nothing whatever will be paid. I believe there is no

money in either the main or the supplementary estimates to cover any such contribution. I hope tonight the minister will make it perfectly clear just what stand he is taking.


Robert Henry Winters: I have already done that.


Howard Charles Green: I have here an editorial from the Vancouver Herald dated April 21, which sums up the situation in this way. There is, of course, to be a toll placed on this bridge by the provincial government. This editorial says:
The onus for the toll is on the federal government. If or when the federal government comes through with its proportionate share of the cost, the toll will be reduced or removed altogether.
I can see no basis on which the dominion government can refuse to make some contribution to the construction of this bridge.
One final point has to do with the use of public works projects to meet unemployment difficulties. I asked the minister on July 1 to give the house the present policy of the government in that regard. As I pointed out then, until last year we had always understood that his department had a cabinet full of plans for works which would be done when there was unemployment. Now that seems to be a mirage. Apparently there is no such thing.


Robert Henry Winters: Your timing is not quite right. I made a statement long before last year on that matter.


Howard Charles Green: I should like to know the situation at the present time. There was serious unemployment during the recent winter. What is the government's stand at the present time? Does it have any dominion government projects which can be begun in order to relieve unemployment? Perhaps the minister could deal with those three points before the item carries.


Robert Henry Winters: Yes. I shall be glad to deal with them all. The first one was the west block. I may say it is the intention of the government that whatever is done to the west block will be designed to enhance the value of parliament hill, and we shall certainly have in mind the retention of the greatest possible historic content. We have already instructed the architects, when considering this matter, if at all possible to retain in their plans the Mackenzie tower. We have also asked them to give consideration to other features such as those mentioned by my hon. friend.


Howard Charles Green: That includes Sir John's office?


Robert Henry Winters: That includes Sir John's office. The extent to which they can work them into practical plans remains to be seen. They have
Supply-Public Works
only now started drafting sketch plans, and they have put nothing concrete before us. But it is the intention to do only those things which will enhance the hill both as a centre of interest for tourists and as a place of utility, as was so well pointed out by my friend the hon. member for Halifax.
The next question was whether or not this department is doing more work that had formerly been done by other departments. The answer is yes. I read what my colleague the Minister of Defence Production said about his own program, and I have no disagreement about that. But as the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra well knows, within the past few years there has been assigned to the Department of Public Works the trans-Canada highway. We have taken over work for the unemployment insurance commission, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, some for the Department of Transport and some for external affairs. The hon. member also knows that I am responsible to parliament for the operations of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, which is one of the biggest government agencies in the field of construction. So as the department is brought to that stage where it can assume additional responsibilities, I would assume they would continue to be assigned to us.
The next question dealt with the everpresent subject of the Marpole bridge. As I told my hon. friend earlier, there is nothing new to report. That situation remains the same. The bridge that we thought was to be a Marpole bridge at a cost of $1,200,000, and in the cost of which we agreed to participate to the extent of one-third or $400,000, has in fact become an Oak street bridge.


Howard Charles Green: It is still at Marpole.


Robert Henry Winters: That is quite a different proposition and is in reality a link in the provincial government highway system. It now comprises two bridges. One will go south from Oak street to Lulu island and another one from Lulu island to Sea island. I understand that the bridge from the mainland to Lulu island has been designated as a toll bridge under the authority of a bridge commission. No matter who says it or how often he says it, when anyone says that the tolls will be there as a result of federal government action or inaction, may I say that just is not the case. It is a provincial responsibility and I am sure it is generally regarded as such.
With respect to the other bridge from Lulu island to Sea island, the provincial government some time ago asked us if we were agreeable to having them build a causeway.
6360	HOUSE OF
Supply-Public Works
In the interests of navigation, of flooding and other aspects, we arrived at the conclusion that it would not be desirable or practical to build a causeway. Then they asked us if it would be all right if they built a low-level bridge. We agreed to a low-level bridge on condition that they located it in a manner and location that it would not interfere with navigational interests there. I understand that bridge would cost something of the order of $1 million.
Although there has been no decision and, speaking from memory, I believe we have had no specific request, nevertheless our intention to contribute $400,000 toward such a structure still stands. But as I said before- and I think it is a reasonable position to take -the federal government cannot contribute toward a revenue-producing bridge which is purely a provincial structure.


Howard Charles Green: But you would contribute $400,000 to the other bridge?


Robert Henry Winters: If it is not a toll bridge, I would be prepared to recommend to my colleagues that $400,000 be allocated for that bridge.
As to public projects, I recall saying-I think it was back in 1949 on one of my first appearances as a minister in this house- that the concept of a shelf of public works was not realistic. In our buoyant and expanding economy we have all we can do to keep up with current development and implementation of projects rather than resort to what is really a stagnant concept of putting projects on a shelf, doing nothing about them, saving them for the day when we will need to get them off the shelf and put them into effect. With the way this country has been and is developing these projects are being implemented from day to day. Our policy is to carry out those projects which are necessary to the development and growth of this country, and to do them at such time as they will contribute most to the economic and employment situations.


Mr. Hosking:: I should like to say just a word or two with regard to the remodelling of the west block. This is one of the subjects on which it would be easy to make a 40-minute speech, but because of the stage of the session I shall be very brief.
I should like to call to the attention of the senior hon. member for Halifax that most of the members of this house have conducted visitors from their ridings through this beautiful building. All of us no doubt have shown with pride the beautiful modern construction. But I do not think there is one of us who has conducted visitors through this building, who 

has shown visitors the beautiful chapel, this chamber and the red chamber, who has not delayed to the last taking those visitors into the old library. It was there that they gasped with amazement at the beautiful architecture that was not destroyed by the fire.
There is nothing in this new building to compare with what has been saved in the library from the fire. I think it would be a shame if we did anything to destroy the west block. It is a beautiful building. It is historic. It has tradition. If the members of the cabinet will just remember that no visitor who went through this building was not more thrilled by the old library that was not destroyed than by the new part of this building, they will not allow the west block to be altered.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: When we were discussing the national library the other day the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, by inference, blamed his colleague the Minister of Public Works for the fact that it is not planned to have air conditioning in this new public building. I wonder if the minister would be good enough to indicate whether this backward policy is cabinet policy, or whether it is one of the minister's ideas, or whether his officials, in this day and age, hold the view that air conditioning in modern public buildings is impracticable. It would appear to me that the air conditioning industry in Canada, a legitimate industry, should expect the government of this country, with appropriations this year of something over $55 million for the acquisition, construction and improvement of public buildings to spend something on air conditioning. This would make it possible for those who are working or visiting in these buildings to carry on in a better atmosphere than presently prevails in some of these buildings.
This afternoon the Minister of Veterans Affairs mentioned that on at least two occasions this summer it was necessary to send home the staff in the new veterans affairs building. His estimate of the loss was at the rate of $1,500 an hour, though I am sure that on rechecking his daily pay bill over in that new building he would find that $1,500 an hour was too low. Before a decision is made that the staff should go home at four o'clock there is a period of one, two, or three hours, perhaps a whole day, when the members of the staff are unable to work with normal efficiency.
I wonder if the minister would clear up the point I raised. Is this cabinet policy? Is it ministerial policy? Is it a policy of his officials? Will he review the matter and decide that from the year 1955 onward new

buildings being constructed will have this modern equipment? I merely repeat what I said the other day, that if Loblaws, Dominion stores and other departmental stores in the city of Ottawa can provide for air conditioning in their new buildings, surely the government of Canada could make provision for this very popular device.


Robert Henry Winters: If I may answer that question,
I shall proceed to do so. The question of air conditioning is one that has been receiving considerable study. As my colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce said the other day, there has been no government policy so far about installing air conditioning in all new public buildings. The hon. member asks particularly about the new national library. The plans, which are in a state of final preparation, do include air conditioning for the stacks where the books are to be kept and read, and for certain other areas in the building. A decision has not yet been reached as to air conditioning the whole building. Hon. members must realize that if we do establish a policy of air conditioning government buildings, it will cost the taxpayers of the country a considerable amount of money. I think parliament should be well aware of that fact.
The estimated cost of air conditioning the national library alone is of the order of $1,300,000.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Would the minister indicate what is the total cost of the library?


Robert Henry Winters: I believe the total cost of the library, although it has not yet been sent to tender, will be between approximately $5 million and $6 million. In any event, air conditioning for year-round purposes is quite a large proportion of the cost of any public building. It may be that we shall have to come to it. It may be that parliament will wish us to do it. If we do arrive at that stage, I should like to feel that the taxpayers of this country believe that government buildings should be air conditioned.


Mr. Low:: I wanted to take just a very few minutes to ask the minister about two matters of policy. The first has to do with a matter which was raised in the house by the hon. member for New Westminster on the national defence estimates. We find the information concerning it on page 6031 of Hansard for July 12, 1955, and we find the reply of the Minister of National Defence on page 6032 of the same date.
Briefly the matter which was raised by the hon. member for New Westminster, and which he asked me to remind the minister about since he is now overseas on this NATO
Supply-Public Works
tour, is a question concerning the policy of the Department of Public Works with respect to the construction of buildings on the one hand or rental on the other. I believe the hon. member for New Westminster outlined some specific examples to the Minister of National Defence and also quoted from newspaper articles with respect to a specific building in the city of Vancouver. The question that was asked was, does the minister feel he is justified in renting buildings when the amount of rental he pays will return to the owners the full value of the building in seven years or less?
I note that when the Minister of National' Defence replied on page 6032 of Hansard for July 12, 1955, he said this:
With respect to our rental of buildings, we act almost entirely through the Department of Public Works. I understand there are appraisers who fix the values. They proceed on a pattern of determining the value of the building and fixing a reasonable rental. I am not familiar with the matter to which the hon. member refers, but on the other hand I would think that the return of the capital cost of the building in seven years might be out of line.
The hon. member for New Westminster has also had a number of questions on the order paper, two of which I believe were answered today. I have not had an opportunity of looking at those answers. They might contain the very information I should like to have, and perhaps when the minister does reply he could give us the substance of the replies that have been prepared. At any rate I should like to have the government policy with respect to rentals or construction, and where the line is drawn in their decision to do one or the other.
The second matter I wanted to raise was this. I believe the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources received today -if he has not he will receive in the next day or two-a letter and resolution from the associated boards of trade of the Peace river country relative to the Mackenzie highway. A copy of that letter was sent to me. I have read the resolution, and as a result I wanted to ask the minister to give me some idea of the government's present policy with respect to sharing the costs with provincial governments of roads that lead into the Northwest Territories, and over which much heavy equipment is now being moved for the development of the north country.
I might refresh the minister's memory by telling him that about 18 years ago the government of Alberta did push through a winter road, a tractor road, from Grimshaw in the Peace river country to Great Slave lake down on the Hay river. That is a distance of approximately 200 miles. The following spring

Supply-Public Works
the government oi Canada joined with the government of Alberta and together they built the road that is now known as the Mackenzie highway, servicing that whole northern country.
Since that time, of course, there has been a tremendous development all along the road. I might also say to the minister that since the first road was built, the cost of which was shared by both governments, the provincial government has spent more in improving that road than the original cost. Today I doubt that there is a busier highway in the whole of western Canada than the highway from Grimshaw to Great Slave lake, because over it is being carried the great bulk of heavy equipment and supplies required in the tremendous development of the Northwest Territories.
As the minister probably knows, in the spring of the year when the frost goes out, the roads in the northern country become soft and, as a consequence, the government of the province which must administer the regulation of traffic on the highway will either have to place a ban on the hauling of heavy loads, or they will have to let the trucks go through and be prepared to rebuild the road in a very few years. Today the traffic is so heavy, and it is so essential that materials get through on time, that I am of the opinion development will be retarded unless there can be worked out some close co-operation between the two governments to see that the road is built to a standard that will carry the heavy traffic.
As the minister knows, when progress is made in the building of a new road, then almost immediately truckers will put on box cars. They are more than keeping up with the new construction devised to have the roads stand up. These heavy loads go in there and, of course, tear the roads to pieces. The great bulk of the traffic consists of material going in for the development and expansion of the great north country.
I would ask the minister to state the policy of this government with respect to sharing the cost of such road building and improvement, and I would ask him to state if he would consider joining with the provincial government in making improvements on the Mackenzie highway so traffic can go on through unimpeded during the whole season, in order that progress in the Northwest Territories may continue.
In closing I would point out it is expected that in the general area of Alberta within the next few years the provincial government hopes to open up somewhere in the neighbourhood of two million acres more of land to homesteaders, so the population of the country will push farther and farther to the north.

Great farming areas will develop all through that northern area, and doubtless tributary to the highway towns and villages will spring up. I am wondering if some arrangement could be worked out in close co-operation so a permanent highway that would stand up under heavy traffic could be built and maintained by the two governments.


Robert Henry Winters: The hon. member's first question had to do with our policy of rentals, and an indication of where the breaking point is when we make a decision to rent as against constructing a building, or vice versa. The reply is that we consider each case carefully before deciding whether we should build or enter into a rental agreement. It is not only the cost of the rental that must be considered. When we build a new building we have to assume the responsibility for its operation, which usually includes cleaning staff, janitor service, lighting and so on. For these relatively small properties, in most cases the terms of the leases provide that the owners supply janitor service, cleaning, heat, light and the other incidental services, all of which we would have to provide, at the cost of money and personnel, if we were to build our own building.
I think the hon. member will also note that in the circumstances he has in mind the leases almost invariably go back a number of years. In one case it has been outstanding since 1947, and in others since the early fifties. I can assure him that we do look carefully into all these cases to determine whether we should rent or build.
The other point he raised had to do with highways, and particularly the Mackenzie highway. I am not sure what the policy of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources is now, but when I was responsible for the department of resources and development we assumed full responsibility for the maintenance of that portion of the highway between the 60th parallel and Hay river. I am sure I can say for my colleague the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources that it is the government's intention to keep that road in adequate shape to carry any type of highway traffic that can reasonably expect to use it.
I know the hon. member is well aware that there is another great development road passing through Alberta over part of its course, for which the federal government has assumed full responsibility. I am referring of course to the northwest highway.


Mr. Yuill:: Mr. Chairman, the request I wish to make is so small and insignificant when compared with others we have heard that

I am sure there will be no difficulty at all in getting the minister's wholehearted support.
About a year ago I made a request tor a moderate expenditure for the rebuilding of a wharf at the town of Wabamun. Unfortunately about three or four years ago as the result of a grass fire the wharf was burned down to the water's edge. This may not sound very important to the minister, because the amount involved is very small, almost insignificant when compared with spending at the federal level. However, it is very important to the people in the small town of Wabamun. It has been one of the favourite summer resorts for the last 45 years, and is easily accessible to Edmonton. It is situated close to the Jasper highway and has been looked upon as the place to go during the summer months. As a result of its popularity a small village grew up at that point. People were anxious to serve the tourists and campers, and several stores have been built, as well as a modest hotel.
However, as a consequence of the fire people are rapidly losing interest in this place and it is becoming more or less a ghost town, because it has lacked the replacement of the wharf. I have been told the amount of money required would be only $3,500 or $5,000 at the outside. When one realizes the serious consequences from the standpoint of the community I think it must be clear that the replacement of this wharf deserves the minister's serious consideration, despite the fact that Wabamun is only a small town.
Today the people come to that area, but because of the lack of facilities at Wabamun they have had a tendency to travel another seven or eight miles to Seba Beach. And while this may be a good thing for Seba Beach, I do suggest that the people at Wabamun deserve kindly consideration to the point where the wharf be replaced. There was a time when they had facilities to accommodate pleasure boats travelling to and from the interesting points on the lake. They had a starting point for their motor boats. It was becoming more and more popular all the time from the point of view of a summer resort. Now they have nothing. They have to start from the very shore itself with the motor boat. There are no facilities for landing tourists from their motor boats.
As I said a moment ago, the town is becoming more or less a ghost town because of the lack of a wharf. I would urge the minister, before he makes a snap decision on this thing, to weigh all the ramifications in the balance and see whether it is not within the realm of possibility to supply these people
Supply-Public Works with the accommodation they previously enjoyed. I believe they are entitled to it, and I am sure it would be very greatly appreciated by those people.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Before the minister replies I would like to take it upon myself to make a suggestion to the committee. We have developed the habit, by usage, of discussing almost anything applicable to a department under the first item of the department. I should like to suggest to the members of the committee that specific references to specific projects might perhaps be better handled under the particular vote under which they would come, for two reasons; one, that our general debate would be more or less continuous on matters dealing with departmental policy and would not be occasionally interrupted, if I may use that expression, by matters of purely local concern. The other is that with the department officials available in the building, on specific matters the minister would more likely be in a position efficiently to answer the question if it were asked at the time the item came up.
I should like to add this. Because I happen to make this remark at the end of the speech by the hon. member for Jasper-Edson, I am not referring to him any more than to a great many others.
(Translation) :


Mr. Gagnon:: Before this item passes, Mr. Chairman, I wish to draw to the minister's attention a matter which will be no news to him, any more than it is to me or to any member of this house, but which is of major interest to those who live in one of the loveliest towns in the province of Quebec.
Many a time, I have asked that a public building be put up in the city of Chicoutimi, to accommodate various federal offices, more particularly the postal service. Representations to that effect have been made to the minister, and to his predecessor, by the city council, the chambers of commerce and various other public organizations. An amount of $250,000 was even voted to this end in 1953.
The pressing need for a central post office in Chicoutimi is being felt increasingly every day. That is why I deem it to be my duty to renew my request for the construction of this building. The government already has acquired land for the purpose and I am told that the various departments concerned have made known their space requirements to the proper authorities.

Supply-Public Works
I would like the minister to tell me, when he has an opportunity of doing so, how far this project has developed and whether we can expect it to be implemented shortly.
(Text):


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
357. Ottawa-maintenance and operation of public buildings and grounds, including repairs and upkeep, rents, heating, etc., and to authorize commitments against future years in the amount of $500,000, $13,693,749.
George Clyde Nowlan: The heading of this item is "Ottawa" and of course it deals with maintenance and operation of public buildings and grounds. Bearing in mind your injunction of a moment ago, Mr. Chairman, I think it is advisable to deal with this matter under the next heading. I am wondering whether the minister can tell us how matters stand with respect to the printing bureau. I saw a report the other day to the effect that the building was presumably to cost $12 million. Perhaps the committee knows, certainly I do not, how far it has progressed or what the situation is. Can the minister give us a word in respect of that?


Robert Henry Winters: If we were to pay attention to the chairman's injunction perhaps this matter would more properly be dealt with under the acquisition and construction of public buildings. The building is nearing completion. It is expected that the movement of equipment from the present printing bureau building to the new building will start in October.


George Clyde Nowlan: Can the minister tell us at this time what will be the cost of the building?


Robert Henry Winters: It is estimated that the building will cost approximately $14 million to complete, with furnishings and landscaping.


George Clyde Nowlan: Equipment, furnishings,
landscaping and everything?


Robert Henry Winters: Not the printing equipment; exclusive of the printing equipment.


Ernest George Hansell: This afternoon we discussed the parliament buildings. I do not know whether the grounds of the parliament buildings come under this item or under the federal district commission, or what happens. What I have in mind is this. I pass it on to the minister and he can pass it on to whoever is responsible. Perhaps it is a trivial thing, but sometimes if you do not mention some of these trivial things nothing is done with respect to them.
This afternoon the hon. member for Vancouver East talked about mice, cockroaches, and so forth. I should like to say a word about the litter around the entrance to the

parliament buildings on Saturday and Sunday. Perhaps that has not been noticed by the minister because he is not around here on Sunday. If he comes here he goes in a private entrance, I suppose. It seems there is nobody on duty as a sort of clean-up man. I know you cannot have people working overtime, but it just occurred to me that for the sake of a few dollars someone might be given the job of cleaning up the litter. He could be given a little shovel, or something of that kind, to pick up the odd bits of paper and keep the entrance clean.
We have thousands of tourists coming in to look over the building. As soon as they get to the door they throw away their cigarette butts, candy bar paper or paper around films they have put in their cameras, or something like that, in front of the door, and the entrance becomes littered. It is all right during the week, but on Saturday there does not seem to be anybody on duty, and by Sunday afternoon the entrance is not very presentable to people coming in. I just pass this on to the minister. I do not care to take up the time of the committee discussing these trivial things. Some notice should be taken of that and some action taken.


Robert Henry Winters: I shall see that it is brought to the attention of the proper officials.


Ernest George Hansell: Give some old age pensioner the opportunity of making a few extra dollars on Saturday afternoon and Sunday.


George Alexander Drew: I simply want to mention briefly the subject that has been already under discussion, namely the west block and the possibility of the construction of a new building there, or substantial changes to the present building.
Following the remarks of the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings, the senior member for Halifax said we must be practical. I think we must be practical. One of the ways in which we can be most practical is to realize that if we are going to develop the spirit of the nation we must preserve some of the visible symbols of the development of this nation. We have also within the grounds of parliament hill one unique reminder of the early association of Ottawa with the formation of Canadian government. It is not simply a sentimental thing, it is a most practical thing.
I think one of the reasons Westminster has stayed as an example to the whole world of the priceless value of continuing tradition is that they have not too readily destroyed the evidence of the past. There are many hon. members here, including the minister, who have been in the halls of Westminster

in which the whole story of British history has been formed, going back some 800 years. It might have been practical in the cold meaning of that word to have a more modern building.
There is need for modern accommodation here and I think we should have much more modern accommodation. Land is becoming increasingly expensive in Ottawa, but it is still relatively cheap as compared with land in the heart of London. Nevertheless they have preserved the buildings, some of them going back 600, 700 and 800 years. They have done this not simply as a reminder of the past but because they are part of the continuing love of British tradition. We in Canada should retain the opportunities we have to preserve the Canadian tradition of parliament. This is one unique opportunity. In many ways it is of more value from the historical point of view than this building itself.
I do not believe there are any demands sufficiently compelling from the practical point of view to justify the destruction of that historic building and to remove permanently those offices which carry the memories of the spirit of great men who did much to mould this nation. Those were men of both political parties which have shared the responsibilities of government. Their memories should be honoured, and this is one way it can be done rather than to merely say that the architects will be called upon to prepare plans and a decision will be made. I would hope that from the grounds of high practical considerations and the value of our own history a decision would be made that the west block will be preserved in order that people will be able to go there and see the places where men have played their part in moulding the nation.
Not long ago a number of us were privileged to be present when Sir Archibald Nye, the high commissioner for the United Kingdom, presented a remarkable photographic record of Earnscliffe which has been identified with Canadian history in a manner which most hon. members will recall, particularly the fact that it was once the home of Sir John Macdonald. At that time the Prime Minister and others emphasized the value of preserving these historic traditions. Naturally I would subscribe to any effort made to preserve the historical associations of Sir John Macdonald, but in saying that I do not suggest for a moment that my Liberal friends opposite would not subscribe also to the same purpose and idea.
The Prime Minister emphasized the value of efforts of this kind. If it is worth while
Supply-Public Works
to preserve by photographs the living history of buildings in this area such as Earnscliffe, surely it is worth while to preserve intact the building where so much of the actual business of government was done in days gone by.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I wish to
say that I support heartily the words of the Leader of the Opposition. I am sure if the people of Canada had an opportunity to express their opinions on this question 95 per cent of them would say that we should retain this historic monument to Canadian tradition and Canadian history.


Mr. Mcllrailh:: Mr. Chairman, I am afraid the second last speech was reactionarism rampant. The facts with respect to this building are that it has many architectural defects of a rather glaring nature. Notwithstanding what has been said by the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings, parts of it represent architectural garbage at its worst. The building itself has some historical significance; one part of it has real historical significance which I think hon. members on all sides will respect, and that is that part which contains the offices of the first prime minister of Canada. I think everyone here would wish that that fact should be acknowledged and proper historical attention paid to it.
But to say that the whole interior of the building must be preserved in its present form is just neither logical nor consistent. It is quite true that there was a most interesting ceremony here some weeks ago with reference to the home of the first prime minister of Canada, but when the Leader of the Opposition was recognizing that fact I could not help thinking that prime minister would be the first to be progressive and enterprising enough to know that something substantial had to be done with the office building which is unfortunately located on parliament hill, known as the west block, and that his wishes would have been that it be brought in line with the functions it served when he occupied it as prime minister, and also that it be brought in line with the functions it now serves.
There is only a small part of the building that has historical significance. I do not want to get diverted, but there was the prime minister's office, a staircase and so on. That should be preserved. But having done that, to go on to say that you must not modernize the building, that you must not make any changes, does not follow at all. While having the utmost respect for the historical associations, I think we owe it to the citizens of Canada to apply our reasoning and logic to these things. I think that can be done by following the reasonable and more economical course of reconstructing the west block.

Supply-Public Works
After all, the greatest part of that building consisted of departmental office space. The architects are perfectly capable of maintaining the general concept of the building in relation to the other buildings here. I am quite sure that if the Leader of the Opposition had applied his argument to the building we now occupy at the time it was reconstructed after the first great war he would have been in favour of reconstruction according to that photograph with which we are all so familiar. That would have been a tragedy.
By the way, there are still two photographs in existence which were made by the forerunner of the Montreal Standard showing the actual fire. If hon. members will examine those photographs they will see what was wrong architecturally and functionally with that building. By reconstructing the building along the same main lines the architects of that period were able to do a job of complete rebuilding which certainly improved this -centre block materially and still preserved the basic concept of the building in relation to the site.
That is precisely what is required with respect to the west block. I would refer to what occurred in connection with another building, and what might have been avoided in the light of hindsight. It is easy to have hindsight, and I claim no credit for it. Seeing the experience in the east block, surely no one can ask that that sort of thing be done in the west block.


An hon. Member:: Why not?


George James McIlraith: I can only answer that by asking the hon. member if he ever goes through the east block and sees what is there. Surely if he examines the various photographs of this centre block and sees what was done here to preserve the historical associations of the original buildings and yet improve them and perfect them-


George Clyde Nowlan: Did the Americans keep a photograph of Independence hall in Philadelphia, or did they keep the building? Did the British keep a photograph of No. 10 Downing street?


George James McIlraith: Surely we can make the proper decisions this time. I am perfectly well aware that a ramp has been organized for secondary purposes to prevent this step. I think those with local associations are familiar enough with that ramp and its method of working to consider the subject on its merits without being led into believing either that that represents the views of the members of the associations or that the subject matter was considered by the members


of these associations. This is a very important matter and it should be dealt with on its own merits, without relation to these other appeals to passion.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, if there had been any doubt about the necessity for emphasizing to the minister certain points in connection with this matter, that doubt would have been removed by the truly remarkable speech which has just been made. I doubt if there has been a more remarkable speech made in this house. It has been completely remarkable in the fact that it discloses a state of mind which calls for very careful emphasis upon the point we are seeking to put forward. The member talks about a ramp. The desire to preserve the historic entities that are associated with the development of this country cannot be called a ramp and should not be so described. I fail to understand why such a term should be used.


George James McIlraith: I was referring to the correspondence you received on the subject.


George Alexander Drew: I find it difficult to understand where the hon. member got the idea that anyone is arguing that there should be no improvement in the building itself. No one has suggested that there should not be improvement. We are talking about the preservation of a building which is associated with Canadian history in a way that is unique. When the minister talked about architectural garbage-


Robert Henry Winters: I did not say anything about that.


George Alexander Drew: The member who has just spoken talks about architectural garbage. I would remind him that there are many competent architects who regard this as one of the foremost examples of architecture of that period and are very anxious to have that architecture preserved. I for one want to see not only the architecture preserved but whatever improvements may be desirable carried out inside. But also I want to see that the historic features of it are preserved intact. The hon. member who has just spoken says this is an example of the kind of reactionary conduct that we get from this side of the house.


George James McIlraith: That is right.


George Alexander Drew: It is the kind of reactionary spirit that maintained the architecture of the House of Commons at Westminster instead of building an ultra-modern building in recent years.


George James McIlraith: They improved it.


George Alexander Drew: It is the kind of reactionary spirit that rebuilt in London a number of the old office buildings that are associated with Westminster and, in doing so, preserved the very rooms in which much of British history had been formed. It is the kind of reactionary spirit that puts life into history itself. That is the spirit that is being condemned in this manner. If it means anything at all, then let us try to keep before our youth some of the evidence of the past they can see with their own eyes.
I read just a few days ago in the press that the famous Ponte Vecchio in Florence is threatened and that they are taking steps to strengthen the base of that famous bridge which was first built some 700 years ago. It was a rather interesting historical touch. It said that when it was reconstructed in its original form some 400 years ago they had not used quite as good material as they might have and that it is now showing some signs of decay. Nevertheless they are preserving that bridge, which the hon. member would probably describe as architectural garbage.


George James McIlraith: No, that is not.


George Alexander Drew: They are doing that because they believe it is part of the life and the spirit of the history of their country. Just as the people of Britain decided they wanted to preserve the actual visible symbol of their own history, let us here in Canada preserve where we can-and the chances are all too rare-those visible symbols of our own living history.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: The hon. member for Vancouver East.


George Clyde Nowlan: May I say this-


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order. I called the hon. member for Vancouver East.


George Clyde Nowlan: I am sorry.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, I should like to speak on this issue which concerns the renovation of the west block. There is no question whatsoever that the west block inside is no longer efficient as far as being used for government offices is concerned. That I admit. The west block is, or at least ought to be, a name in the history of the House of Commons of Canada. It is quite apparent that on a fitting basis it can no longer perform any useful service. But because the block can no longer perform a useful service, that is no reason for destroying the block itself.
I heard only last year that there were plans for completely tearing down the west block and rebuilding it with the same blocks on the outside, but on the inside rebuilding
Supply-Public Works
it on a more modern and efficient basis. I am not a construction engineer but I have worked for years on construction. I want to say that if the Minister of Public Works is telling us they have to tear down the outside to rebuild the inside, it is time that they got some different architects and engineers. I mean that. According to the press they are going to tear down the entire west block and rebuild it according to chalk marks on every block. If that is so, then the Minister of Public Works has a bunch of stupid engineers and a bunch of stupid architects. I mean that.
I am sorry, sir, because I do not think the Minister of Public Works has stupid engineers and stupid architects. I am only speaking now to you, Mr. Chairman. I am not an engineer, as I have already said. But after I read that the west block would be torn down I made it my business day after day to go through that block. Day after day I went through that west block trying to see what kind of construction it was and trying to find out whether or not the outside walls were tied in with the inside construction. It is my conviction, Mr. Chairman, that the outside walls of the west block are not tied in, on a key basis, with the inside construction.


An hon. Member:: What do you know about it?


Harold Edward Winch: My hon. friend asks what I know about it. All I can say is this. Although I have been a member of parliament for 22 years, here and in Victoria, when I was 17 years of age I started in the construction industry; and although I have no university degree, I think I know construction.
Mr. Chairman, on my trips day after day to the west block I was unable to find any tie-in between the outside walls and the inside construction. If the Minister of Public Works or his engineers would like to do so, I should be glad to have him or them take me and show me any tie-in, on a key basis, between the outside shell of the west block and the inside of the west block.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, if my hon. friend has finished-


Harold Edward Winch: No, Mr. Chairman; I am still standing. As a construction man I am saying I could not find a key or anything else between the outside of the west block and the inside. I am speaking as a construction man. I could not find one key. In other words I am convinced in my own mind that the entire outside shell of the west block could be left and that the entire inside could be completely rebuilt. I am speaking about the west block. I can see that the Minister of Public Works is still watching carefully. If

Supply-Public Works
the building must be torn down, that is fine. But if it could be left with the same-


Mr. Fulton:: Architectural appearance, do you mean?


Harold Edward Winch: That is the expression I want; architectural appearance. If it could be left with the same architectural appearance I know that everybody in the House of Commons would back the Minister of Public Works in its replacement. Definitely, inside it must be taken care of. Outside there is a question, architecturally.


George Clyde Nowlan: Since I was the one who originated this discussion earlier in the day perhaps I can say one thing to the hon. member for Ottawa West through you, Mr. Chairman. I realize that as he is a member for this city he is en rapport with the rumours and suggestions which perhaps are not known to all of us who come from other parts of Canada. I want to say that I knew nothing with respect to any ramp in connection with this matter. What I said here I said on my own. The only thing that possibly contributed to it was this. Having read something in the Montreal Gazette this morning to the effect that' no one had opposed the renovation or rather the demolition of this building, I thought at least one voice should be raised to that end. Certainly if there is a ramp in connection with this matter I did not hear of it until the hon. member for Ottawa West spoke tonight.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
358. Maintenance and operation of public buildings and grounds, other than at Ottawa, including repairs and upkeep, rents, heating, etc., and to authorize commitments against future years in the amount of $800,000, $22,366,419.
Solon Earl Low: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether it would be possible for the minister to allow item 358 to stand over. I should like to get some information from answers to questions which were given this morning, and perhaps others. If it is possible to finish the department tonight, then I will not ask for the item to stand over.


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.


Solon Earl Low: If it is not possible to finish, I would ask the minister to let it stand over.


Robert Henry Winters: It is all right with me, unless we can finish the rest of the items tonight.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Then shall item 358 stand?


Clarence Gillis: What is the object of letting item 358 to stand? If you are going to carry on at all you might as well carry on with this item as go on to something else.


Mr. Harris:: That is what we are doing.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I understood there were other members besides the hon. member for Peace River who had been waiting for item 358.


Clarence Gillis: I have been waiting for it myself.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Then we shall carry on with the discussion of it now? Its final passing can be allowed to stand if the committee so desires.


Clarence Gillis: I have not very much to say, Mr. Chairman.


Harold Edward Winch: Ten o'clock.


Clarence Gillis: What are you going to do, Mr. Chairman? Are you going to carry on or are you going to stop?


Some hon. Members:: Go ahead.


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.


Edmund Davie Fulton: We have been sitting since eleven o'clock this morning.


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Chairman, I have been waiting for this item for some time. I merely want to ask a couple of questions.


Some hon. Members:: Go ahead.


Clarence Gillis: This item has to do with buildings other than in the city of Ottawa. I wanted to ask the minister two questions. First I should like him to bring me up to date on what progress he is making, if any, on a new public building in the city of Sydney. In the second place I should like to probe or check his memory on another matter that has been outstanding for at least the past three years. I refer to repairs to and extension of the post office in the town of New Waterford. It has been a matter of resolution by boards of trade and other organizations for the past three years. I was led to believe at least two years ago that the work was going to be undertaken, but I see nothing in the estimates for it. If the minister can bring me up to date on those two particular matters, that is all I want under this item.


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Chairman, even if I answer these questions I do not satisfy the hon. member for Peace River. The item of new construction in Sydney would more appropriately come under vote 362, which is for construction in Nova Scotia. As to the matter of repairs to and extension of the building in New Waterford, I shall be glad to look the matter up and answer my hon. friend when I answer about the construction of a new building at Sydney.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Is item 358 to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.
The Depuly Chairman: It being ten o'clock, shall I report the resolutions and ask leave to sit again?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: Let us go on.


Robert Henry Winters: Can we not proceed?


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Is it the wish of the committee that I report the resolutions or that the committee continue to sit?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Report the resolutions.


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I hear a number of members calling "ten o'clock". I therefore think I may take it that they do not consent to the committee continuing to sit.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported, read the second time and concurred in.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: Tomorrow we shall continue with public works, mines and technical surveys, labour, justice, finance and secretary of state.


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

[Stage Direction]
510.	Departmental administration, $2,230,141.
511.	District services-administration, $2,715,748.
512.	Veterans welfare services, $3,284,611. Treatment services-
513.	Operation of hospitals and administration, $39,473,123.
514.	Medical research and education, $350,000.
515.	Hospital construction, improvements, new equipment and acquisition of land, $4,920,000.
516.	Prosthetic services-supply, manufacture and administration, $1,053,636.
517.	Veterans' bureau, $514,919.
518.	War veterans allowance board-administration, $144,450.
519.	Veterans insurance, $70,160.
War veterans allowances and other benefits-
520.	War veterans allowances, $29,736,000.
521.	Assistance fund (war veterans allowances), $625,000.
522.	Unemployment assistance, $20,000.
523.	Treatment and other allowances, $2,782,500. Miscellaneous payments-
524.	To provide for payments to the Last Post fund; for the payment under regulations of funeral and cemetery charges, including the perpetual care of graves where applicable; for the
Supply
cost and erection of headstones in Canada; for the maintenance of departmental cemeteries; for the maintenance of Canadian battlefields memorials in France and Belgium and for Canada's share of the expenditures of the imperial war graves commission, $1,697,060.
525.	Grant to Canadian Legion. $9,000.
Canadian pension commission-
526.	Administration expenses, $2,272,540.
527.	Pensions for disability and death, including pensions granted under the authority of the civilian government employees (war) compensation order, P.C. 45/8848 of November 22, 1944, which shall be subject to the Pension Act; and including Newfoundland special awards, $129,784,500.
528.	Gallantry awards-world war 2 and special force, $19,500.
Soldier Settlement and Veterans' Land Act-
529.	To provide for the cost of administration of Veterans' Land Act; soldier settlement and British family settlement, $4,998,508.
530.	To	provide	for	the	upkeep	of	property,
Veterans' Land Act, including engineering and other investigational planning expenses that do not add tangible value to real property; taxes, insurance and maintenance of public utilities, $65,500.
531.	To	provide	for	the	payment	of	grants toveterans settled on provincial lands in accordance with	agreements with provincial	governments
under section 38 of the Veterans' Land Act and payment of grants to veterans settled on dominion lands, in accordance with an agreement with the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources under section 38 of the Veterans' Land Act, $300,000.
532.	To	provide	for	the	payment	of	grants to
Indian veterans settled on Indian reserve lands under section 39 of the the Veterans' Land Act, $125,000.
533.	To provide for the reduction of indebtedness to the director of soldier settlement of a settler in respect of a property in his possession, the title of which is held by the director, or such soldier settler loans which are administered by the Indian affairs branch of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, by an amount which will reduce his indebtedness to an amount in keeping with the productive capacity of the property or his ability to repay his indebtedness under regulations approved by the governor in council, $15,000.
534.	To authorize and provide, subject to the approval of the governor in council, for necessary remedial work on properties constructed under individual firm price contracts and sold under the Veterans' Land Act to correct defects for which neither the veterans nor the contractor can be held financially responsible and for such other work on other properties as may be required to protect the interest of the director therein, $5,000.
Terminable services-
535.	Rehabilitation benefits, including the training of certain pensioners under regulations approved by the governor in council, $2,199,000.
Loans, investments and advances-
Soldier Settlement and Veterans' Land Act-
550.	To provide for protection of security- soldier settlement, and refunds of surplus to veterans, $12,000.
551.	To provide for purchase of land and permanent improvements; cost of permanent improvements to be effected; removal of encumbrances; stock and equipment; and for protection of security under the Veterans' Land Act, $22,636,500.
773.	Departmental administration-further amount required, $18,700.
[Stage Direction]
Supply
774.	Veterans' welfare services_further amount
required, $30,300.
775.	Treatment services-operation of hospitals and administration-further amount required, $510,380.
776.	War veterans allowances-further amount required, $9,421,000.
777.	Assistance fund (war veterans allowances)- further amount required, $250,000.
Miscellaneous payments-
778.	To provide for payments to the Last Post fund; for the payment under regulations of funeral and cemetery charges, including the perpetual care of graves where applicable; for the cost and erection of headstones in Canada; for the maintenance of departmental cemeteries; for the maintenance of Canadian battlefields memorials in France and Belgium and for Canada's share of the expenditures of the imperial war graves commission- further amount required, $28,000.
779.	Grant to army benevolent fund, $8,000.
Canadian pension commission-
780.	Pensions for disability and death, including pensions granted under the authority of the civilian government employees (war) compensation order, P.C. 45/8848 of November 22, 1944, which shall be subject to the Pension Act; and Including Newfoundland special awards-further amount required, $922,500.
Soldier Settlement and Veterans' Land Act-
781.	To provide for the cost of administration of Veterans' Land Act; soldier settlement and British family settlement-further amount required, $66,375.
Terminable services-
782.	Rehabilitation benefits, including the training of certain pensioners under regulations approved by the governor in council-further amount required, $75,000.
Soldier Settlement and Veterans' Land Act-
794. To provide for purchase of land and permanent improvements; cost of permanent improvements to be effected; removal of encumbrances; stock and equipment; and for protection of security under the Veterans' Land Act-further amount required, $2,900,000.

[Stage Direction]
353.	Departmental administration, $1,049,280.
354.	Expenses of work in the interests of fire prevention (formerly under department of insurance), $137,570.
355.	Furniture and furnishings for government departments, $2,248,000.
Property and building management branch-
356.	Branch administration, $158,133.
357.	Ottawa-maintenance and operation of public buildings and grounds, including repairs and upkeep, rents, heating, etc., and to authorize commitments against future years in the amount of $500,000, $13,693,749.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, July 19, 1955