1956-07-12

FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinton):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Finance if he is now prepared to tell the house definitely whether it is his intention to proceed with or to abandon the proposed 20 per cent tax on advertising matter of certain magazines?


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I think I said the last time I mentioned this I would make any announcement that should be made when the resolution was called.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I ask the minister if the resolution will be called this session?


Walter Edward Harris: Certainly.



BANK OF CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. Earl Rowe (Dufferin-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance if, in view of the depressing effect on Canadian business of the present credit restrictions placed by the Bank of Canada on Canadian commercial banks, he will review the serious situation with the governor of the Bank of Canada in an effort to restore more normal credit conditions in this country.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, this is one of several questions of this kind that have been addressed to me lately, and I think I have always answered that I expect to make a statement on them when my estimates are reached.



PIPE LINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. O. While (Middlesex East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. My question arises out of a letter from Hon.
Dana Porter to the minister dated May 14 and tabled. Will the province of Ontario continue to participate in the financing of the northern Ontario section of the pipe line?
My second question is this. Did not the Hon. Mr. Porter in that same letter stipulate that construction of the western section must commence not later than July 1 this year?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the letter from Hon. Dana Porter stated that if the construction of the western side was started on or before July 1 the province would participate in the northern Ontario section. Construction was started well before July 1 and I have every reason to believe it is the intention of the government of Ontario to participate in financing the northern Ontario section.



TRANS-CANADA PIPE LINES    INQUIRY AS TO TABLING OF AGREEMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Roland Michener (St. Paul's):: May I
ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether the proposed agreements which were submitted to the house at the time of the northern Ontario pipe-line bill were completed in fact and if they were not or if other agreements have been completed since will the minister make copies available to the house?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, all agreements with Trans-Canada Pipe Lines were completed prior to the 7th of June and all were tabled in the house. There have been no new agreements or anything purporting to be new agreements.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Has the minister received communications from the united automobile workers' union contending that the increasing number of United States-made motor vehicles and parts being imported into Canada is becoming a threat to the livelihood of workers in Canada's automotive and parte

Inquiries of the Ministry industries? If so, what action does the government intend to take to meet the situation?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. gentleman for giving me notice of his question. I have received a number of postcards from individual members of the united automobile workers' union in connection with the importation into Canada of motor vehicles and parts from the United States. The matter is being looked into.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. While I realize, Mr. Speaker, that the minister's estimates are before the house at the present time, nevertheless this question refers to a question asked and answer made on last Monday, July 9, 1956. This is my question. Does the minister recall receiving any representations from the employees of Westminster veterans hospital, London, last October?


Hon. Hugues Lapointe (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I do not specifically recall receiving representations from the Westminster hospital employees. I did receive representations from the employees of all D.V.A. hospitals at that time.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. A United Press release today from the United Nations states that "Andrei A. Gromyko told the 12-nation commission that the Kremlin was ready to accept the western proposed manpower levels of 2J million men for the United States, Russia and China, 750,000 for Britain and France and not more than 200,000 for other countries." Will the Prime Minister inform the house whether Canada was a party to this proposal to Russia or if there is any ground for such a statement on Mr. Gromyko's part?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, there was a general statement made which was published and which I think was tabled in the house. It was transmitted to us with a letter from Mr. Bulganin. The matter is being considered and is being dealt with, but I do not

remember that there was any specific number of men with respect to the armed forces for Canada referred to in that communication.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs in connection with the matter of an export permit for aircraft to Israel. Has the minister or the government received any communications from the governments of the United Kingdom, the United States and France since he gave evidence before the external affairs committee on April 17, as recorded at page 40, repudiating or in any way altering the statements they had made or indicating that there would be no opposition on their part to the shipment by Canada of such aircraft? Has there been any change since, or have there been any further communications since the minister gave evidence as I stated a moment ago?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: I do not recall any communications from the countries in question on this subject since the date mentioned by my hon. friend, but I shall be glad to look into it.


John George Diefenbaker: Since April 17?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I do not recall any such communications.



ATOMIC ENERGY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Has the minister had an opportunity to consider the statement made by the British delegation to the fifth world power conference at Vienna to the effect that developments which have now taken place assure the cost of production of atomic-generated electricity being below the cost of that produced by other fuels?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I am aware that it is the consensus of opinion, including the opinion of our own scientists, that for large-scale power plants electricity can be produced from atomic energy at a lower price than power produced by coal, but I think no one claims atomic power can be produced at a cost lower than an economic hydro development.


The house in committee of supply, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 498. Departmental administration, $2,215,472.


Harry Oliver White: Mr. Chairman,
I listened with a great deal of interest yesterday to the many members who took part in the discussion of the estimates of this department. There is no doubt that all members are interested in the problems of the veterans. It is not my intention to review all that was said yesterday, but there are a few comments that I wish to bring to the minister's attention, and I hope that they will be useful and that good will come out of them.
There is in my constituency one of the finest, if not the finest, veterans' hospitals in Canada. I have watched its growth from the very day when the property was acquired and the original buildings were built at the close of the first world war up until this day. I am acquainted with many of the doctors and members of the staff of the hospital, and I want to pay a word of tribute and praise to the work of the doctors, the nurses and the staff at the hospital. It is understandable that, where there are such a large number of patients in a hospital covering such a wide area, there naturally will be some complaints and perhaps some injustices, but in most cases these complaints are taken care of in a very efficient way, and I think most of the people are well satisfied with the services they are given.
While I am mentioning Westminster hospital I might say that in 1953 I also referred to the old buildings that were erected there at the close of the first world war, and the minister at that time indicated that some new buildings were proposed. Some additions have been made, and I hope the minister will indicate to the house that the rest of the old buildings will very shortly be removed and new buildings erected in their place. I should be glad if he would later indicate such to the house. I should just say, too, that I am glad that the minister and his department have taken into consideration those pensions between 40 per cent and 45 per cent. I think that action will meet with general approval. I think it is advisable to establish a plan or system of periodic reviews of all pensions and pension cases because the conditions of health change from time to time, as we all know. But there are many pensioners who hesitate to ask for a review of their particular case and there are others who do not hesitate. Sometimes there are many worthy cases that do not get the attention to which they are probably entitled.
Supply-Veterans Affairs
I speak for those pensioners who sometimes are denied a pension because their particular illness or complaint is alleged to have been attributable to causes arising before they enlisted or to post-discharge causes. I have in mind one or two of those particular cases in which it is alleged that the disability is so attributable. Yet these men served in the armed forces for several years. They were passed as being A-l, were accepted and were able to discharge their duties overseas. Yet, when they come back it is said that their disability arises because there was some illness prior to their enlistment.
There is no doubt-and this is well known to the department and to everyone here- that the earning capacity of many veterans has been reduced because of war service in one way or another. Some of them were not able to complete their education. Through disabilities some could not carry on their intended life work. The increase in the rate of pension that was granted a short time ago is still inadequate, in my opinion, in view of the inflation and the present cost of living. Also, the ceilings of earnings are too low considering living costs and the pension level.
I would just say that the grant that was given a short time ago certainly could not be considered to be extravagant. I do not think it would even be considered to be liberal.
Back in 1951 and prior to that time I mentioned in this house the suggestion that the pensions-not only those for war service but also old age pensions-should be hooked to the cost of living index. I am still of that opinion. If that were done, if you once establish what is a fair and right pension level, then as the cost of living goes up the pension would go up; and if sometime in the future the cost of living goes down, the pension could also go down. In that way the income from the pension would bear some relation to its purchasing power and there would not always be these questions arising: it being said that the pension is not high enough and that the cost of living has gone up, and then, after two or three years have elapsed, an amendment being introduced with a view to increasing the pension. This suggestion would eliminate all this problem. Also I had in my constituency four V.L.A. small holding areas, one in London township and two or three in Westminster. I am very well acquainted with the officials there, and at this point I should say that I believe they are doing a very fine job. There are very few complaints. While I am doing that, I should also pay tribute to the young veterans who have taken up these holdings. They

Supply-Veterans Affairs have taken great pride in their homes, improved their properties and they are not only taking an interest but taking part in the community in which they live, in the public life of the community through municipal affairs and church affairs. I might say that it was my privilege to have as a guest in Middlesex East the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare, who addressed the veterans there some time ago. I believe that he also was greatly impressed with the community spirit and the work that they are doing.
Now, I come to the question I asked on Monday regarding the five-day 40-hour week for Westminster hospital employees and the employees of veterans hospitals in other parts of the country, who are asking that they be given the same hours of work as the employees of other departmental hospitals. I listened to the minister's explanation, and then I read the translation of his answer to the hon. member for Quebec West. While the minister has not denied to these employees the five-day 40-hour week, I think that regardless of what employment conditions may be in other industries or in other hospitals in any particular city, all the employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs should be treated similarly, whether they be in London, Halifax, Calgary or any other place. I believe it has been amply demonstrated that the employees of these hospitals can give efficient and continuous service, day and night, on the five-day 40-hour week. Consequently I am asking the minister to seriously consider the representations that have been made to him here and by the employees association last October. I ask him not to let this session go by without granting equality to all employees of the veterans hospitals across Canada.


Mr. Harkness:: I regret, Mr. Chairman, that the government has not seen fit at this session to introduce any legislation to improve the position of the recipients of war veterans allowance. The hon. member for Royal and the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra went into this matter in considerable detail, so I am not going to take the time of the house to give reasons why action along that line should be taken. However, I would say I have never been able to understand why the government was not willing at least to raise the amount of the permissive income. For many years past I have urged, as have others, that the limit on the permissive income should be increased to at least the amount of the income tax exemptions. I would urge the government to bring in legislation at the next session to put that into effect, as well as 
to increase the actual amounts paid to recipients of war veterans allowances.
There is another matter on which perhaps I can get some information from the minister when we come to the details, but I should like to mention it at this time. I refer to the amounts paid by veterans who are not receiving disability pensions for medical attention and hospitalization. A resolution was passed by Calgary branch No. 1, my own branch of the Canadian Legion, in regard to this matter which reads as follows:
Free medical treatment for all veterans over 55 years of age with meritorious service with annual incomes in the case of single men of less than $1,800 and in the case of married men of less than $3,500.
The amount charged veterans who are not entitled to hospitalization has been increased I believe twice in the last few years, and is now in the neighbourhood of $14 per day. A married man with an income of less than $3,500 or a single man with an income of less than $1,800 finds it most difficult to pay that amount, especially when they are over 55 years of age. I should mention that they would not have to pay the full $14 per day as the amount is reduced according to income received. I submit that veterans in those income tax brackets should be given the benefits of hospitalization without payment. I should like the minister to say something about this matter of hospitalization and take under advisement the question of liberalizing the hospitalization policy in order to protect older veterans on comparatively small incomes.
I should like next to say something about the work of the imperial war graves commission. I had the opportunity last summer of seeing Canadian war cemeteries in northwestern Europe and Italy where Canadians who fought in both world wars are buried. I think I can say that without doubt they constitute the finest group of cemeteries to be found anywhere in the world. The care which they are given and the architecture which has been used to fit them into their backgrounds are of an extremely high order. I wish that every person who has a relative buried in one of those cemeteries had the opportunity to go to see it. I am glad that a grant is given to the imperial war graves commission under this department and I should like to take advantage of this opportunity to commend them upon the work they have done in maintaining the graves of our men who are buried overseas.
There is one other matter I should like to take up at this time, the question of compensation to members of the non-permanent militia, and to some extent the members of the permanent forces, when accidents occur which disable them or which result in death.

I bring this up particularly because of a case which occurred in Calgary last year. In outlining this case and referring to some of the difficulties that exist with regard to the legislation I want to make it quite clear that I am in no way reflecting upon the members of the pension commission. The chairman of the pension commission has done an outstanding job and I think he and the other members have carried on their activities with a very high sense of duty. The difficulty concerning cases of this sort, I think, primarily lies in the way the legislation reads and I think an amendment to the legislation in this regard is long overdue. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre mentioned the matter briefly yesterday and referred to the section of the act which deals with pensions to people who come under this classification. He indicated there had been considerable discussion of the matter when the estimates of this department were before the estimates committee last year but that no action had been taken concerning it. I would hope that some definite action would be taken in the near future.
The particular case I wish to give as an illustration of what happens concerns a squadron sergeant major in the South Alberta Light Horse. This man had a good record; he served overseas for five years and was awarded the military medal and he served six years in the militia. The unit is quite widely spread with one detachment at Strathmore some 40 miles from Calgary. They were in Calgary having an Armistice day celebration parade and so forth. The commanding officer of the unit got permission from western command headquarters in Edmonton to send a detachment down to take part in this anniversary day service and parade. Apparently the military transport in the form of a bus or busses had not arrived when the men gathered at the armoury in Calgary. They received a message to the effect that the bus had broken down or had been delayed in some way. The 2/IC of the regiment who was present told the men to take their own private cars. There happened to be a sufficient number of the men who had private cars to provide transportation for all of them, the presumption being that these men would eventually be reimbursed for their gasoline and expenses. In any event they proceeded to Strathmore and on the way back this particular sergeant major and another man were killed in the automobile which was driven by the other man. There was apparently no question of guilt or negligence so far as the driver was concerned and the widow of the
Supply-Veterans Affairs sergeant major was not able to take action against the driver or his estate as the result of the death of her husband.
She applied for the pension and her application was turned down at the first hearing. The decision of the commission was as follows:
Death incurred during military service in peacetime, but not pensionable under section 13 (2) as on the evidence presently available there is nothing to indicate death arose out of or was directly connected with such service.
A second hearing was held in this case and again her application was denied. I do not know whether it will be appealed but I presume it will be. The decision arises because section 13 (2) as it reads and has been interpreted makes it obligatory on the part of the person requesting the pension to prove in a case of this sort that the man was riding in a military vehicle, as I understand it, or a vehicle which had definitely been taken on strength for the time being and for which the man was being paid a mileage allowance.
In this particular case the man was on military duty and it happened through circumstances beyond his control that the military transportation did not turn up. The men were authorized by the senior officer there to use their private cars and it was in those circumstances that this man was killed. His widow's pension was denied but she would have received it if he had been killed in the military bus. It seems to me the interpretation of the act is much too narrow. The act is drawn in such a way as to cause an injustice of this sort.
I would ask the minister and the pensions commission to take this particular case under consideration again. It seems to me it might be possible by ministerial direction or by order in council that something could be done without its being necessary to change the act. I realize there probably is not time during this session to change the act but I think it would be possible by the means I have indicated to give direction to the commission to interpret this particular clause more liberally than is the case now; in other words, to interpret it in the spirit it was conceived to have when it was passed by this House of Commons. I am certain there was never any intention on the part of parliament that the widow of a man who was killed on military duty should be denied a pension because of an accident of the type I have mentioned where a military vehicle was not supplied although it was supposed to have been supplied and a private vehicle was authorized instead.
The same sort of thing applies to some extent to permanent force personnel. I was
5892	HOUSE OF
Supply-Veterans Affairs interested in a case which had an unfavourable first and second hearing and I believe was eventually settled satisfactorily on appeal. This case involved a man who was killed overseas. Only with great difficulty was it established that he was on military duty and his widow was able to get a pension. This occurred some two or three years ago. Eventually she was able to establish the fact and was granted a pension. The circumstances were much the same as in the previous case I mentioned except that in this instance a military jeep was used. There was some difficulty in establishing that the trip it was on had been properly authorized and that the man was properly on duty, as I recall the circumstances. In any event, however, it was finally settled satisfactorily.
It seems to me that in the cases I have mentioned a little more attention should be paid to the spirit of the legislation. If this were done I believe the first case could be settled in a way that would be satisfactory to the widow and other dependents of this soldier. I certainly hope the minister will give some personal attention to this matter and will see what can be done without its being necessary to change the legislation; as I indicated before, it is perhaps too late in the session for that to be done.


Mr. Jones:: First of all, Mr. Chairman, I would like to compliment the minister on the keen interest he has shown in the affairs of veterans especially during the last two or three years. I wish to thank him personally for the courtesy he has always shown me when I have brought personal cases to his attention-and this applies also to his staff in general.
I suppose I should compliment the staff because they carry out the letter of the law, but at the same time I also complain that the letter of the law is predominant in the administration of the veterans legislation and I think the spirit of the law and not the legal interpretation should prevail. It is on that subject that I wish to say a few words at this time.
In order to overcome the difficulty I have mentioned it seems to me a little more leeway should be given to the local administrators, those people who know the local problems and the persons involved. They are far more conversant with the individual cases and are better equipped to find solutions to the various problems than is someone in Ottawa or possibly in Vancouver or Calgary. I think that if a little more power were given to them to interpret the law according to the spirit of the act, many of the problems about which we are now worrying would be solved.
[Mr. Harkness.l

In many instances cases which are recommended to be dealt with in a certain way by local officials who know the circumstances have been turned down by senior administrators who have given a narrow interpretation to the wording of the act. The justice of the case did not enter into it, the morality of the case did not enter into it, the spirit of the case did not enter into it; there was simply a pure, logical reasoning as to the legality of the act.
I was a member of the veterans committee when it sat and I know the attention that was given to any question that came up. I know the feeling of all hon. members that the veteran should be given the benefit of any doubt, yet in practice this is not always done. I could outline the details quite quickly, but I shall not do so at this time. This is my main reason for advocating the setting up of a permanent veterans committee. I think it would be a far more important committee than many of those that now go on year after year, sometimes going through a session without meeting. Such a committee would carry out most important functions of great value to the minister and to the veterans.
Without such a committee we are in danger of gradually building up a legal bureaucracy, a group without a heart, a legal entity ready to carry out only, the letter of the law. If we had a veterans committee dealing with cases, that atmosphere would be changed when a veteran had to appear before a board or other group. I am sure that neither parliament nor the people of Canada wish this condition to continue.
It is true that we have made progress equal to that made in any other country, but there are many problems still unsolved affecting the veteran. I would mention those veterans who served in England during the first world war. Their number is getting smaller each year but they are still denied the right of pension. The hon. member for Kootenay West referred yesterday to two men who had joined up and who served as clerks, one in England and one in France. The one man is receiving a pension while the other is denied a pension. Such discrepancies should be removed and all veterans treated on a fair basis.
I still think that we should make the permissive income under the War Veterans Allowance Act more in keeping with the cost of living today, and the widows of veterans who have resided in Canada for some years should be recognized as being pensionable. I shall not go into the details of these cases, as the minister knows them better than I do.

Another problem which could be dealt with by a committee sitting year after year is one such as has cropped up recently in British Columbia, and this may be true also of other parts of Canada. British Columbia has recently made a reassessment of properties for school tax purposes. I have here a resolution which I should like to place on the record so the minister may know what I am talking about. It reads:
Whereas the reassessment of property in British Columbia which has recently taken place, grave concern is felt for veterans occupying small holdings under the Veterans Land Act, having their holdings of one acre, reclassified from agricultural into residential districts resulting in an increased assessment of at least double the original amount and a good chance of increased taxes due to present tendency of real estate speculation, which surround the V.L.A. project. This particularly' applies to about 60 veterans located in the BankHead district near Kelowna, B.C. These veterans were rehabilitated on these acre lots with a view of their being able to supplement their earnings, now the reassessment will defeat the government's original intention and following the pattern of the first world war veteran, will force the veteran to vacate his holding as was the case of very many of our older veterans, who had taken up land under the Soldier Settlement Land Act and who were forced to quit, because of economic conditions.
Therefore, be it resolved that this north Okanagan zone request the provincial command to make strong representations to the provincial government protesting the reassessment of V.L.A. small holdings into residential areas and thus enable them to derive the benefit which has been granted to them under the veterans charter.
I appreciate that this is probably a provincial problem, but nevertheless the Department of Veterans Affairs has a responsibility to look after the interests of these veterans. In my opinion the least they can do is to protest to the provincial or municipal authorities this reassessment-in this case it is the province-on the ground that the veteran is entitled to special benefits. These men went on these small holdings with the understanding that benefits would accrue to them as long as they occupied the land.
The hon. member for Calgary North referred to the problem of the man who is killed while technically not on duty. Whether or not a man is on duty, I submit he is still a soldier. One or two cases have occurred recently in my riding. A young fellow who had served three years in Germany took a ride in a civilian car and was killed. This case is similar to the one mentioned by the hon. member for Calgary North. This man leaves a widow and two children and so far they have not received a cent from any department of government. They cannot qualify under this act; they cannot qualify under the army or in any other way that I can find out.
Supply-Veterans Affairs
It seems to me that any man who joins the forces should be granted protection at all times for accident and death in order that the widow and orphans he may leave behind shall be protected. In this case the widow and the two orphans are living on charity. It seems to me that every soldier on joining the forces should be given the protection of an insurance policy to cover everything that may happen, with provision for the payment of at least $20,000 to his widow and family in the event of his death. There is a moral obligation to protect these young men in every way. They are depending entirely upon the army for their income and the welfare of their families should be protected.
We have not met this particular problem. I do not blame the department for this, but I hope the department will co-operate with the Department of National Defence in an effort to find a solution something like that mentioned by the hon. member for Calgary North so that in future we will not be faced with cases of this kind.
Another problem concerns the farmer settler. I am not going to go into detail about this matter because I have already written to the minister and he has kindly promised to look into it. Last year several farmers in the Cawston area of British Columbia suffered severe frost damage to their young orchards. They lost most of their trees which had to be replaced or replanted and they will have to wait for five or six years before they get a crop. It seems to me that the local V. L. A. authorities should be given full power to go into that area to assess the damage and what it would cost the Department of Veterans Affairs to replace these trees in order that these young farmers may be rehabilitated. If that is not done, I am afraid many of them will abandon their farms. They have been there two or three years struggling along and waiting for the time when they would have a crop. That time has now been deferred for another four, five or six years. I hope the minister will pay special attention to this group.
Another problem arises from legal interpretation. This concerns a case of young men who have gone out to work while their farms were coming into production. The case I have in mind is typical of two or three other cases that I know of. This young man was told on his return from service that he had to go on a farm for at least two years to qualify as a full-time farmer. He did so and qualified. He returned to the board, and they accepted his qualifications. On the strength of that, he went and purchased 35 acres of land; I presume it was part fruit and part stock, but whether it is fruit or stock the

Supply-Veterans Affairs same applies: he would have no income for at least three years. With that in mind he thought he would get help and that he would work in his spare time, taking a job outside. As soon as he said he was going to work outside for three years until the farm would support him, he was refused the ordinary assistance under the act. The interpretation in this case, I claim, again was too narrow. True, the board in Vancouver is going to re-hear the case. In this case the local office, who know the man, who know the land and who know the conditions fully approved but somewhere-I call them "armchair farmers" -some administrators decided on the case. No armchair farmer can tell as much as local people what a young man is capable of doing or what the land is capable of producing.
Finally, I would suggest to the minister that the time has now arrived when those veterans of the first world war who are still struggling with the remains of a mortgage should have that mortgage cleared and a clear title given to them. It would not cost too much. I know the policy of taking care of them year after year has been carried out, but many of these people are now getting to an age where it is worrying them. They are too old to stand the strain, and that strain should be removed by giving a clear title to a veteran who has been on his land for 20, 30 or as in some cases, 40 years.


Mr. Hansell:: I should just like to say a word or two on this item and in doing so I think I shall have to follow what others have said in respect to my belief that the veterans' legislation that we have on the statute books of Canada ranks perhaps with some of the best veterans legislation of any country in the world. That has been said before, and I think it will stand repeating. I think we have all had a part in bringing about that legislation. Suggestions have been made in previous veterans affairs committees, and with an efficient staff and an interest in the returned man I think we have accomplished something along that line.
I wish also now to pay my respects to the minister and thank him for very courteously taking up any cases I have presented to him. I recognize that he is confined within the regulations and within the law, but I am happy with the attitude he takes when I present cases to him, passing them on to his officials, doing some little personal investigation and trying to solve those particular cases, if possible.
I have handled a good many veterans' cases over the years, and on the whole there seems to be one general type of case which I do not think is quite fairly treated. This


matter has been mentioned before over and over again, I fancy, and perhaps the veterans affairs committees have wrestled with this problem. That is the problem of the returned man's health at the time of enlistment, when he is given the category of an A1 condition and then, after he applies for a pension because in his mind and perhaps in the minds of many others he has a good case for a pension, somehow or other in the investigation by doctors and other interested officials they go back to a predetermined period and say, "This originates by reason of something that happened before you enlisted."
I think I can say that in most of the cases I have had to take up with the minister in respect to war veterans' pensions that seems to have been the main problem. I cannot let the estimates go by without adding my voice to the voices of others in making this strong plea that, if a veteran is taken into the defence forces and given an A1 category as his condition at the time, then that should remain the category of the veteran, unless of course the veteran at the time of recruitment purposely falsified the record or perhaps evaded certain questions or refused to give the full information. Unless this can be proved, then I think that the condition at enlistment should be regarded as his actual physical condition. If through his war services something happens to him, then I think he is reasonable enough in asking for a pension and should be given it regardless of pre-enlistment condition.
This is not a new thing. The minister knows all about it, and I wish he would make some pronouncement as to why this is so. I have never been able to satisfy myself that a reasonable explanation has ever been given as to why they should search into preenlistment causes when at the time of enlistment the man was given a clean bill of health. The recruiting officials seem to take the attitude, "We will try to put the man in the army if we can possibly get him through." That may not be so but that is how it seems to me. If he is thoroughly examined according to the regulations of recruitment, then I claim that that examination should be sufficient, unless it is found later, as I said before, that the recruit is purposely falsifying the record or purposely withholding some information. I wish the minister would once again give his pronouncement on that.
There is one other matter: a permanent veterans affairs committee. That has been mentioned before, and I do not wish to take up the time of the house on it now. I am sure our group would agree to having this committee made a permanent committee, and if it is not recognized as a standing committee

it should be set up every year anyway. I cannot see any reason why it should not be because it is not going to cost much money. The committee is run by the House of Commons. Those members who sit on the committee are not paid any extra stipend for that work. Of course a clerk is required and some printing is required, but apart from that it does not cost very much. The small expense is absorbed in the general appropriation that we give for the work of the House of Commons. I think the minister could also comment on that and say just why he thinks it is not reasonable to set up a veterans affairs committee every year.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to repeat any of the arguments that have been advanced but there are one or two matters that I think I should bring to the attention of the committee, especially as no hon. member from Saskatchewan has spoken since these estimates have been before the committee. So far as the province of Saskatchewan is concerned, the records show that 66,614 Saskatchewan residents wore a uniform in either or both wars, 16,002 in world war I, 48,263 in world war II and 2,349 in both wars. I also do so because over the years, too many years for one to be willing to admit, I have been a member of the Canadian Legion in Prince Albert and I wish to place before the minister and the committee some of the ideas and suggestions that Saskatchewan branch No. 2 and other branches have brought to my attention.
I want to say at once that so far as the pension commission is concerned my experience has been that Brigadier Melville and those associated with him have given to each individual case that has come within my knowledge and cognizance the very fullest of considerate attention. That is as it should be, for after all the commission should not permit itself to be shackled by a too close interpretation of the letter of the law and by a denial in consequence of the spirit of the law. The only criticisms that one hears from time to time arise out of individual cases. I can think of no better description of the pension commission than the words used by a cadet sergeant named Dwight Eisenhower who contributed an article in 1915 to his West Point class paper which began in this way: "True merit is like a river. The deeper it is the less noise it makes." This organization has not made any noise over the contribution that it has made, but that does not mean that individual cases have not arisen that deserve the serious reconsideration of the board of pension commissioners. Mention was made by the member for Calgary North of the Stanley Hepworth case. I am going to refer to it for a moment because in my 67509-3744
Supply-Veterans Affairs opinion the widow is legally entitled to a pension on behalf of herself and her children. The decision of the commission, as recorded in a letter I have before me, is as follows:
Death incurred during military service in peacetime, but not pensionable under section 13 (2) as on the evidence presently available there is nothing to indicate death arose out of or was directly connected with such service.
I find it difficult to understand the legal basis upon which that conclusion is based. According to this record Hepworth at the time of his death was returning from a parade in a car driven by Sergeant Major Rea. Army transport had been ordered for the purpose of taking personnel to and from the armistice day parade at Strathmore. Certain army transport had not turned up and the second in command of the regiment instructed the personnel to travel by their own transport. It is because of this instruction that Hepworth was riding in a civilian car at the time of his death.
I make this submission. This man had done everything that he was required to do. He had answered the directions of his superior officer and his death followed in consequence of acting on those directions. If that is not a death arising out of or directly connected with service, I do not know the meaning of those terms.


Mr. Bennett:: Were the facts properly adduced?


John George Diefenbaker: I am taking these facts
to be the facts. I am submitting them on the basis of the statement before me. If one takes the interpretation on the words of the workmen's compensation act, which the hon. member for Grey North will know so well, injuries arising out of or in the course of employment, even so restricted an interpretation as is given to those words would make it possible, as I see it, for this lady to succeed in any court. However, she has no recourse in the courts. Section 5, subsection 5 of the Pension Act reads as follows:
The commission shall determine any question of interpretation ol this act and the decision of the commission on any such question is final.
I realize that no one wants to extend the pension legislation so that it would become a scramble in the courts, but I believe that in such a case as this consideration should be given to the amendment of the Pension Act so far as interpretation of the law is concerned so that recourse to the courts will be available to any aggrieved person to ascertain in the courts whether or not that person comes within the ambit of the legal definitions provided in the Pension Act. That would not open the whole Pension Act to

Supply-Veterans Affairs the courts. It would simply make available to the courts the interpretation of legal principles, and certainly this government has not been above submitting questions-


Hugues Lapointe: It is not a question of law;
it is a question of facts. In the case the hon. member has referred to it is a question of facts.


John George Diefenbaker: I am taking the facts
on the basis of what has been presented. It is for the minister to say in what particular they are not correct, and I understand that they have not been challenged. There has been correspondence or conversations between the member for Calgary North and the department. From what he has stated as to the facts of the case, I cannot see how the department can deny the claim. When I was interrupted I was about to say that this government has not been above submitting questions of law to the Supreme Court of Canada. There is an important question, one that the Minister of Justice could submit for a general determination as to the meaning of the terms and words of section 5 (5). If that were done, I think this widow would not be denied justice but indeed would receive consideration.


Hugues Lapointe: You are completely wrong and you know it. It is a question of facts and of evidence brought before the commission, and you know it.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, Mr. Chairman, the minister treats this matter so frivolously.


Hugues Lapointe: I do not treat it frivolously.


John George Diefenbaker: He is laughing about it. What is there to laugh about?


Hugues Lapointe: Read the wording of the decision.


John George Diefenbaker: I have read the wording of it.


Hugues Lapointe: It refers to evidence presented before the commission.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister should not become so excited over a case of injustice.


Hugues Lapointe: Who is excited?


John George Diefenbaker: He should not be laughing. I cannot at all understand the minister's attitude at this moment and his laughing, over a serious matter.


Hugues Lapointe: Mr. Chairman, I object.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, you are laughing.


Hugues Lapointe: Mr. Chairman, I have never laughed at any case that is brought before the pension commission with regard to any veteran, I object to having the hon. member
rMr. Diefenbaker.]

make statements as to the manner in which the Pension Act is handled by the commission when he knows that is not exactly what took place.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, Mr. Chairman,-


Hugues Lapointe: My hon. friend knows it. It is not a question of my getting excited. It is a question of sticking to the facts.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not know what my hon. friend is getting excited about. I said that the pension commission has done a good job.


Hugues Lapointe: Butter will not melt in the hon. member's mouth.


John George Diefenbaker: Of course, that is the kind of attitude the minister sometimes adopts. He has adopted it in his other department. Apparently the trouble is-and I had not thought of this until now-that the minister has too many departments.


Mr. Lapoinie:: Stick to veterans affairs.


John George Diefenbaker: He has just now shown that it is one department too many for him.


Hugues Lapointe: You are showing that this is one piece of legislation you know nothing about.


John George Diefenbaker: That is all right. With two departments, possibly it is two too many.
Mr. Chairman, I was submitting a serious argument about the facts and the law.


Hugues Lapointe: Be correct about the facts.


John George Diefenbaker: Just because an order or direction has been given to the contrary, it demands and merits more serious consideration than the minister is apparently giving to this case. I say that on the facts of it. We, as lawyers, know that courts make mistakes and that for that reason there are appeals on questions of law. It was in the course of making that submission that possibly this is indeed the type of case in respect of which there should be a right for the termination of the courts on a question of law that I made the statement I made a moment ago. I have covered that submission in detail. I suggest that a legal interpretation of those words, if the facts as set out by the hon. member for Calgary North are correct, -and he always keeps his argument within the facts-should be obtained. On that basis I submit that serious reconsideration should and must be given to such cases, and in particular to this one.
I come now to one or two representations that have been made. One has to do with the general level of disability pensions today. The minister has been told of this before and I am not going to cover any of the ground

that was covered by the hon. member for Royal and those who followed him. What I believe is this. In view of the devaluation of the dollar or the decrease in the purchasing power of the dollar, if t.he standard of living of pensioners is to be properly maintained, the most serious early attention will have to be given to a general increase in the amount of the pensions. Somebody suggested that possibly some legislative enactment might be made whereby pensions would be attached to the cost of living index. I believe that objective would be rather difficult to attain. However, I believe this. In consequence of a continuing rise in the cost of living and also in the expansion of monetary instability having regard to purchasing power, I believe we can take it for granted that the present level of prices is a plateau from which we will not expect any retrogression in the days ahead. If that be so, then having regard to the purchasing power of money, I believe there will have to come at an early date a reconsideration of the Pension Act in so far as the amount of pension is concerned, to the end that the standards of living of those who served will not be reduced.
I should now like to say a word or two with reference to a matter that has been discussed on previous occasions, namely, war veterans allowances. As the situation is at the present time, the ceiling on income for single veterans is $840 and for married veterans $1,440. I find it hard to understand why the amount should not be increased to the level of that amount which, under the Income Tax Act, becomes exempt from income taxation. This question has been asked the minister before: where is the sense of fairness in this situation? Everyone is entitled to the old age pension, whether it is the Prime Minister who receives it or somebody else. Every citizen in our country is entitled to it at 70 years of age. Why should those in receipt of war veterans allowance find the amount of their old age pensions in effect reduced on the achievement of the age of 70 years? That is something that one hears universally complained about. It is something that is unjust for, by reason of the present ceilings, it places those who served and their dependents in a second-class position with respect to others who did not serve. It brings about a state of affairs that is unfair and unjust and it constitutes a discrimination that cannot be justified. I ask the minister once more-as he has been asked on previous occasions

this question: Why should such a state of affairs be permitted to continue?
I mention also another source of objection to the War Veterans Allowance Act and it
Supply-Veterans Affairs is that those who served in the first war and who did not get beyond England are denied the war veterans allowance. At the present moment I know of at least three who served for a long period of time in England during the first war and who are now in hospitals, who have no source of income and who find themselves faced by a situation that is dire and dark. Why has not the War Veterans Allowance Act been amended so as to provide for payment of war veterans .allowance to those who served in England during the first war? Those who served and did not leave England served as required and were in a position where they were liable to go to the front but, for reasons over which they had no control, were denied that opportunity. Over and over again one receives communications from those who served, who today are aged from 60 to 68 or thereabouts, asking why it is that some change in this connection could not be made to the end that a measure of justice that is denied to them here would be secured.
I am not going to refer to what has been said regarding dependent parents. I would point out that the case for dependent parents does demand consideration. When the Canadian pension rates were revised in 1951 the dependent parents of war veterans received very little consideration or improvement in their position. Although the widow of a war veteran was given an increase from $75 to $100 per month, so far as dependent parents were concerned the amount remained at $75. The Canadian Legionary had this to say about that:
The Legion pointed this out at the time and asked that the dependent parents pensions be increased to $100 for one parent and $125 when both parents are dependent. But the government continues to discriminate against this group of pensioners and, despite continuing representations by the Canadian Legion for an increase, no change in rates has been granted so far.
I am quoting from the April issue of that magazine.
Finally, in connection with war veterans allowances, I bring to the attention of the minister and the committee the representations of one of the other soldier organizations which are as follows:
That in view of the fact that less than 10 per cent of world war II exservice women were given the opportunity to serve in an active theatre of war, and all volunteered for such service, that the War Veterans Allowance Act be amended to read, that world war II exservice women shall be eligible who saw at least 270 days of active service upon reaching the age of 55, who are no longer employable, or below the age of 55 where, due to illness the veteran becomes unemployable-
-provided, however, that in the latter case there should be provisions that the payment
5898	HOUSE OF
Supply-Veterans Affairs should only be made in the event of need. Those are the one or two representations-


Hugues Lapointe: May I ask from what body that resolution comes?


John George Diefenbaker: That was forwarded by the Canadian Corps Association. I am glad the minister asked that. It is dated November 18, 1955.
Summing up, the submissions that I make are as follows:
1.	That having paid as warm a tribute as possible to the commission in their administration, on the question of interpretation of legal qualifications, there is no reason whatever why their decisions should be final. Finality could be the case in their decision on the facts, but on the question of eligibility within the law, my submission is that consideration should be given by the department to the interpretation of legal expressions and qualifications by the courts. I think that could be done simply by the Department of Justice, in a particular case, making a submission to the Supreme Court of Canada for the interpretation of any qualifications under the act which may appear ambiguous or in respect of which there may be two opinions as to the meaning thereof.
2.	That the ceiling on earnings should be materially increased, and that the discrimination against those who served and their dependents, in so far as the application of the old age pension legislation is concerned, should be removed.
3.	In so far as war veterans allowance is concerned, it should be made applicable to that very considerable group of men who today find themselves in a position where they are no longer able to earn their living and with the statute in its present form denying them the opportunity of receiving an allowance because they did not serve in an active theatre in world war I.
4.	Finally, the whole question of the present level of pensions should be reconsidered, for in my opinion we have arrived at a point where the inflationary results on the purchasing power of the dollar will be basic; we are on plateau now and therefore, on the basis of that plateau, those who served are more and more being placed in a position where their standard of living must inevitably be reduced. This whole problem should be brought before a pensions committee of the house, and such a pensions committee, because of the vastness of the problem of veterans administration, should be a standing committee and should be set up at each session rather than a committee which sits from


time to time, and only when the government feels that a committee should review the situation.


Mr. Regier:: I understand, Mr. Chairman, that on item 1 of the minister's estimates we are expected more or less to discuss only the general policies of the department rather than individual items. I intend to do that, and therefore my remarks will be very brief.
I regret, as have other members before me, that the minister has to be the Minister of Veterans Affairs and at the same time the Postmaster General. At this time I should like to express my admiration for the minister's ability, as shown at the time the estimates of the Post Office Department were before the estimates committee. He demonstrated a unique ability to grasp, within a short period of time, the many details attached to the office of Postmaster General. I think it was remarkable, considering the way he had this additional burden put on him, that he was able to display such a unique ability to understand the workings of that other department of government, a major department. However, I think it is imposing an undue burden on the minister. No man, no matter how able he may be, is able to administer, in the degree that is expected of him, the department that he now holds as well as another department. I hope the day is not too far away when the Minister of Veterans Affairs will again be only the Minister of Veterans Affairs. I am sure the minister is also looking forward to the day when he can shed his additional responsibilities. However, I hope that the view expressed in this house sometime ago will not be realized. I hope the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration will not be saddled with the Post Office Department. If there is any minister who has shown his inadequacy in this house it has been the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, and the Post Office Department is one of the last departments for which I would like to see him made responsible.
We are not supposed to mention the details of the minister's department at this time and I do not intend to do so. I intend to confine myself to the generalities of his department. When I look at the net earnings of Canadian corporations for the first three months of this year and realize they are in excess of $750 million, and when I look at the estimates of this department and see that the minister is asking for approximately $250 million, I think I can fairly say the needs of the returned men of Canada are very modest indeed. My only regret is that the government is unwilling to grant in their entirety

the requests of the Canadian Legion. After all, these men were willing to sacrifice all in defence of democracy.
The Liberal party was not willing to sacrifice all in defence of democracy. I well remember that when the last war was at its height the C.C.F. party was advocating that we risk all in defence of democracy including not only the lives of these men but also the possessions of the people of Canada. However, the Liberal party saw fit at that time to risk only the lives of Canadian citizens. The time has come for us to pay tribute to those who risked all at that time.
I see that we are prepared to spend 5 per cent of the income of this government in order to help those who were willing to risk all. We are prepared to spend 40 per cent of our income on possible future wars. The Department of National Defence is asking for 40 cents out of our dollar whereas the Department of Veterans Affairs is asking for only 5 cents out of our dollar. I feel the balance is rather out of line, Mr. Chairman. I feel that if we want the Canadian people to be sincere in their effort in any future war-and I hope it will not occur- the relationship of the 5 per cent and 40 per cent will have to be brought into line. The government of Canada and our economy generally can well afford to grant the demands of the Canadian Legion which always have been modest and reasonable.
I can understand some of the hesitancy on the part of the government to grant a larger measure of welfare to our veterans when I think of the attitude of the government to the cause of democracy. These people-most of them at least-were willing to sacrifice their lives for our way of life and for our system of government which is exemplified by the parliament of Canada, and yet the Liberal party has been able to accomplish what Kaiser Wilhelm and Adolf Hitler were unable to accomplish. The Kaiser of Germany went all out to destroy democracy and Adolf Hitler made a supreme effort to rid the world of democracy and yet the Liberal government through actions recently displayed revealed that it was able to accomplish what the Kaiser and Adolf Hitler were unable to accomplish, the destruction of parliamentary democracy in this country.
There were hundreds of thousands of Canadian citizens who were willing to lay down their lives for the sake of parliamentary democracy. May I remind the house that Hitler also had a parliament where the majority ruled, Mussolini had a parliament where the majority ruled and I understand that in Moscow there are approximately 1,600 members in their parliament where the
Supply-Veterans Affairs majority also* rules. We had hundreds of thousands of Canadian citizens who were willing to sacrifice their lives and say they would die if necessary for our own British system of government and yet this government utilized the lives of Canadians in a cause that I have reason to suspect was most insincere. I have reason to think the government was more concerned about the welfare of the profit-making institutions who would make money on war than the lives of Canadians who were willing to die for a cause they thought was the cause of freedom but which has now been decidedly proven to have been the interest of the Liberal party of Canada alone.
I return to the point concerning which I am supposed to speak at this time. In the over-all picture the veterans' interests are insignificant in the eyes of the Liberal party of Canada. The interests of parliament and of democracy are insignificant. The interests of the Liberal party and the so-called overwhelming majority in the House of Commons-although not in the nation as a whole *-have to take second place to the Liberal party itself.


Mr. Richardson:: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. gentleman a question? Is the hon. member prepared to throw away the constitution of the British North America Act including section 49 or has he the courage to go and present a bill to this house amending that section?


Erhart Regier: Mr. Chairman I do not have to throw away the constitution of Canada and the traditions of parliament because the Liberal party has already done that.


Mr. MacLean:: Mr. Chairman, I want to take a few minutes at this time to speak about the three benevolent funds of the services. It is true there is an item, No. 512, which grants $8,000 to the army benevolent fund, but my remarks are of a rather more general nature and I feel I am more in order in expressing them now than I would be in expressing them on that particular item.
The general public may not realize the need for these various funds and the excellent work they are doing. The general public may perhaps feel that the various pieces of veterans' legislation should cover all cases and therefore that no veteran should be in need of aid from other sources. But of course that is not the case, and in order to illustrate the point I should like to refer briefly to the annual report of the army benevolent fund for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1955, where they give illustrations of cases where benefits have been given to veterans under certain circumstances.

Supply-Veterans Affairs
For example, one case was the training for employment of a widow. In this case the man was killed in a non-pensionable accident leaving a widow and three children. The widow was given a training course in dressmaking which offered possible earnings of $2,400 a year and the children were placed with the widow's sister for day-time care.
Then there was another case where a man signed up for overseas service and assigned $30 monthly to be applied against four finance company loans totalling $1,300. His assigned pay barely covered the interest and as the family had obtained the loans originally to pay medical debts the fund made a grant which together with $200 realized by the serviceman from the sale of radio equipment was sufficient to retire the outstanding loan.
There are many cases of this sort where veterans find themselves in difficulty, where they cannot obtain benefits under any veterans' legislation but where they receive worth while benefits from the benevolent fund of the service in which they serve. I have no general criticism at this time of the army benevolent fund, but I am concerned with the situation that exists with regard to the air force benevolent fund. One objection I have is that although public moneys are paid into that fund, perhaps in an indirect way, it does not seem to be answerable to parliament through any minister that I know of. I do not think that is a reasonable state of affairs. I suppose the minister is going to rise to say that I am not in order in discussing this.


Hugues Lapointe: That was not my purpose in interrupting the hon. gentleman. I simply wanted to point out that the air force benevolent fund has its own incorporation, whereas the army benevolent fund was created by a statute of parliament and by virtue of that statute, is responsible to parliament through the Minister of Veterans Affairs. The department as such has no responsibility in connection with the air force benevolent fund nor in connection with the navy benevolent fund, which was set up in a similar manner.


John Angus MacLean: I want to thank the minister for very succinctly summing up the nub of my complaint. I feel that this is an unsatisfactory state of affairs. I believe that the air force benevolent fund, and I think the same applies to the navy benevolent fund, receives certain benefits from the taxpayers, perhaps in an indirect way. I stand subject to correction, but I believe quarters are provided.


Arthur-Joseph Lapointe: No, not for the air force or navy.
[Mr. MacLean.1


John Angus MacLean: I grant, not by the minister's department.


Hugues Lapointe: It may be possible, but I am not aware of it.


John Angus MacLean: I am under the impression that that is the case. I notice in the annual report of the air force benevolent fund they do not show any expense for headquarters rental, as they do in the case of the outlying areas. Then I notice also that the air force benevolent fund is audited by the Auditor General, even though it comes under the Companies Act.
I feel that there should be a more direct responsibility to the parliament on the part of this fund. I am not saying that because I feel there has been any maladministration on the part of those administering the fund, because I believe they are doing a good job by their own standards, but I do not think their objectives are absolutely correct.
As I said before, the army benevolent fund is in a different situation. As I understand it, the purpose of that fund is to give grants, loans and other benefits to veterans who served in the army during the war. The army has a separate army welfare fund to look after servicemen who are presently serving, while in the case of the air force the one fund looks after both classes of men.
We have a situation where a fund is not responsible directly to parliament, yet is receiving certain benefits from public moneys, even though indirectly. This is something which bears a close relationship to problems which arise in the Department of Veterans Affairs, and I think there should be a closer contact between these two funds. I should like to think that the minister or his parliamentary assistant, who may be more directly interested in this, would look carefully into this situation.
As the minister knows, during the war large sums of money accumulated in the nonpublic funds accounts in messes and canteens of the air force, and toward the end of the war these were turned over to the air force benevolent fund. Contributions continue to be made to that fund from similar sources in the air force. There is a strong feeling growing up among veterans who served in the air force that they do not have the same opportunity of benefiting from the air force benevolent fund as do the men who are presently serving. In the case of a man presently serving there are officers immediately at hand who are well acquainted with the benefits which are available and applications can be made and recommendations sent forward if the case is a good one, and a grant or loan is usually made. The air force veteran

who is now a civilian feels that he is denied the services of such qualified men, that therefore his case is not so well presented, and as a result the benefits which he receives are not in proportion to the contributions which veterans as a group made during the war.
I think the system adopted in the case of the army benevolent fund is a good one. In that case field services are provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs. I would recommend that the minister look carefully into the situation with regard to the air force benevolent fund to see if a similar arrangement could not be made. I think it is most important that it should be made in the case of the air force, because the proportion of men now serving in the air force as compared with those who served during the war is much greater than in the case of the army. Therefore it is more important, not less, that two separate funds should be set up; an air force welfare fund for serving members of that service, and an air force benevolent fund which would apply only to veterans of the air force.
After all, it was the veterans who in the first case contributed through their nonpublic fund accounts very large amounts of money to the benevolent fund. Toward the end of the war they lost complete control of that as individuals. The non-public funds were turned over to the air force benevolent fund, and in most cases canteens, messes and so on had no alternative but to turn over the profits that had accumulated during the war. I know from experience that in many cases messes operated at a higher profit than they would have if they had anticipated what was going to happen.
It may be said that I have just expressed an opinion or that several veterans of the air force, who tend to grouse anyway, are just complaining because they do not feel they are getting a fair break, but I see a paragraph in the eleventh annual report of the Royal Canadian Air Force benevolent fund which substantiates what I have to say. They condemn themselves with their own words, in my way of thinking, in this regard. Please do not misunderstand me. Mr. Chairman. All three benevolent funds, I feel, are serving an excellent purpose and doing a vast amount of good, but there is always room for improvement, and it is on that basis that I make my remarks. In that connection, they say on page 13 of that report:
The majority of R.C.A.F. veterans are established in peacetime careers but a surprisingly large number who have re-enlisted in the regular air force have, on returning from civilian life, required financial assistance. In general the applications examined presented a diversity of problems, mostly the result of sickness or accident, large 67509-375
Supply-Veterans Affairs
families, low income, injudicious use of credit and some unemployment especially in the older groups.
My contention is that if these veterans required attention from the benevolent fund on rejoining the service they required it when they were civilians, and their claims should have been made and considered on their merits. I bring that to the minister's attention because I think it is important. It is something that will probably become worse as the years go by. If justice were to be done, I feel that part of the benefit fund which was accumulated during the war should be disbursed to the benefit of men who served during the war in such a way that the fund would be expended entirely by the time the veterans of that war had disappeared. At the present time there is a strong feeling among veterans that they contributed substantial amounts to this fund which is being held as a continuing investment fund and as a continuing benefit to people who may serve in the air force in the future. To my way of thinking that is not a fair state of affairs. If the fund were divided and an air force welfare fund established, it could be self-sustaining from the profits which accrue to it from the peacetime canteens and other non-public fund profits.
I should think, too, that the annual report of the air force benevolent fund and the navy fund should be more readily available. I was amazed to find that even the library of parliament does not have copies of these reports. I know that the minister has no direct responsibility in this matter, but I think it is something that is worth the attention of the welfare officers of his department.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, before the minister replies I should refer very briefly to the Stanley Hepworth case, which I raised this afternoon and on which the hon. member for Prince Albert also spoke subsequently. I do so because during the course of that discussion some doubt was raised as to the accuracy of the facts I presented; at least that doubt was cast by implication. I should like to assure the committee through you, Mr. Chairman, that I think there is absolutely no doubt in regard to the facts; I have never heard any expressed by anyone. I have discussed this matter with the commanding officer and with other members of the regiment; I have discussed it with a number of other people concerned in the matter, and I think there is absolutely no question in regard to the facts as I presented them.
The difficulty, as I have indicated before, I think is that there is too narrow an interpretation of section 13 (2). I think the difficulty really stems from the fact that during

Supply-Veterans Affairs the war there was undoubtedly a considerable abuse of military transport, in that it was used for personal purposes of all kinds. Those abuses inevitably continued after the war, and therefore the general position taken by the government has been that people who take military transport and use it in an unauthorized way, if they are injured or killed, are not going to be rewarded, as it were, by the grant of pensions and things of that sort. It is too literal and too strong an application of that general idea. I think it causes the difficulties in these motor accident cases.
In every one of these motor accident cases where injury or death has resulted, that I have known about, it has been extremely difficult to get a pension granted. As I say, I think it stems from that position of contempt for military transport, and of not paying pensions unless it can be proved definitely that it was military transport authorized for use, that it was being used for military duty and so on. It was a correction of what I consider this unjust application of these ideas that I was requesting the minister to look into, particularly as far as this case was concerned.


Hugues Lapointe: Mr. Chairman, I wish to assure the hon. member for Calgary North that, in my remarks addressed to the hon. member for Prince Albert, I was not questioning for one minute the accuracy of the facts which he stated to this house, but simply questioning whether those facts had been properly put before the commission.
I should like, at the beginning of my remarks, to thank all hon. members who have participated in this debate on the first item of the estimates of the Department of Veterans Affairs. As is usual and proper, there have been praises for the officials of the department and criticism of the minister and of the policy of the government, and I suppose that is as it should be. However, I might say that I readily accept on behalf of the officials of my department the praises which were expressed of them, because I feel that the veterans' charter is administered and implemented not only with efficiency but in a humanitarian and understanding way. That is done both at headquarters and in the field by officers of the department who are veterans themselves in almost all cases, and I think that might be an explanation of their attitude of mind.
I must say I was particularly glad to hear the hon. member for Cape Breton South emphasize the fact that the department does act, that it does things without any special urging or pressure, because as I said in my opening remarks and have said on other


occasions, it is the aim of the government, and it is certainly the aim of the Department of Veterans Affairs, to keep the veterans' charter constantly under review to ensure that it is always up to date and that it is meeting as much as possible the changing needs of veterans and their dependents.
I do not propose to deal at this stage with all the points that have been raised. I think I can do so better on the specific votes as they are called. I think it will be agreed that most of the points raised by way of criticism are matters that have been discussed before in the house, outside the house and before the special committee on veterans affairs. I think that all hon. members will agree that in many instances it is most difficult to draw the line for qualification for benefits under legislation such as that which comprises the veterans' charter. It is difficult, whether the line be one regarding a means test, or service qualification, or one concerning a time limit. In acts such as the War Veterans Allowance Act, the Pension Act and the Veterans' Land Act, no matter where the line is drawn there will always be borderline ones which just fail to qualify and may in fact well be cases of hardship. I think that is true of all legislation of a social character, what might be termed social legislation. It is one of the difficulties that governments meet, whether at the federal, provincial or municipal level.
Most of the hon. members who have spoken up to now on this item have referred at length to the ceilings on permissible income in the War Veterans Allowance Act. I think in the debate on second reading of the bill amending the War Veterans Allowance Act last session I submitted at quite some length and to the best of my ability the reasoning of the government in fixing the ceilings at their present levels, that is $840 for a single man and $1,440 for a recipient at the married rate. I pointed out, at the time, that if the ceilings had been established at $1,200 single and $2,000 married, the War Veterans Allowance Act could and would, in a number of cases, be a supplement to normal income.
I also pointed out the necessity of keeping all benefits available to veterans in balance, and that when fixing the ceilings under the War Veterans Allowance Act cognizance must be taken of the disability pensioner under the Pension Act. I also pointed out that this had always been done throughout the history of veterans' legislation in this country. The present ceiling of $70 a month for a single recipient is equivalent to slightly more than a 55 per cent disability pension, that is, a pension paid for injury incurred in service,

while the ceiling of $120 a month for a married recipient is equivalent to approximately a 70 per cent pension under the Pension Act.
As I said at that time, if the ceiling on the single rate were raised to $1,200 that would be the equivalent of an 80 per cent disability pension. It would be in fact $25 less a month than a 100 per cent disability pension. A ceiling of $2,000 on permissible income at the married rate would be just $40 a year less than a 100 per cent disability pension at married rate. A 100 per cent disability married pensioner gets $2,040 or $170 a month.
The hon. member for Royal said that a disability pensioner with a small pension or a small superannuation allowance is prejudiced because of these permissible ceilings. I am afraid, Mr. Chairman, that, regardless of where you set the ceiling, a case could be made showing that the ceiling was not fair to certain people. That is what I was pointing out in the earlier part of my remarks when I referred to the difficulties that exist in dealing with such legislation.
For instance, let us say that the ceiling was raised to $1,200 a year for a single man. A war veterans allowance recipient at age 70 would receive $40 by way of old age security payment and $60 war veterans allowance, or the maximum permitted under this $1,200 ceiling. But let us consider the case of a 45 per cent disability pensioner under such circumstances. That the case, for instance, of a man who has lost an eye. I believe that, according to the table of disabilities, the loss of one eye creates a right to a 40 per cent disability pension. Let us say this man is a 45 per cent pensioner, that he has lost one eye and has some gunshot wounds. At age 70 this man would receive $675 under the Pension Act, he would receive $480 under the Old Age Security Act and roughly about $5 a month by way of war veterans allowance, making in all a total of $1,200. I think that this 45 per cent disability pensioner might say, to use the terminology of the hon. member for Royal, that he was prejudiced in that he would be getting very little benefit from his disability pension.
I dealt at much greater length with this question last year and I did note that although hon. members have again made the same representations-I know they do so with the greatest sincerity-no one dealt with the side of the case that I put up last year.
In the course of his remarks one hon. member said this: "It would not cost the government very much more just to raise the ceiling to $1,200 for the single recipient and $2,000 for the married recipient." I wish that were so, Mr. Chairman. However, it 67509-375i
Supply-Veterans Affairs has been estimated-and these estimates are fairly accurate-that to raise the ceiling to those levels, with the present rates being paid, would increase the liability for war veterans allowance which appears in the estimates as $41,192,000 by $13,900,000, which would be, I believe, a little more than a 30 per cent increase in the present liability.


Mr. Brooks:: Might I ask the minister a question there?


Hugues Lapointe: Yes.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Would that be in the event that all war veterans were unemployable it would reach that amount?


Hugues Lapointe: No. It would mean present recipients plus additional recipients. As my hon. friend well knows, every time the ceiling is raised on legislation such as this a new group of recipients come in under the act, veterans who were barred from the act because of the existing ceiling and who with a higher ceiling may be permitted to come under the act for part of the allowance. That is the estimate we have. I say these estimates are fairly accurate. The last time we raised the ceilings and the rates, I gave the house an estimate of the increased liability, and I think the experience of the following year showed that our estimate, if anything, had been too conservative.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: My point is this, Mr. Chairman. The war veterans allowance is giver, under two headings, namely to those who are employable and those who are unemployable. I know that while the department have not boasted they have spoken quite eloquently of the casual earnings and so on, and have shown to us that a war veteran who was receiving the benefits of casual earnings receives more than $1,200 a year while the war veteran who is married and receives casual earnings obtains over $2,000. I was wondering whether they were being included in this amount of $13 million which the minister is now quoting. Frankly I may say that I think his estimate is much too high. I do not think the amount would be anywhere near that.


Hugues Lapointe: These estimates are based on the same figures we gave previously, when I told the house what would be the estimated cost of the increase in rates and increase in ceiling which we implemented when we last amended the legislation. I might further add that casual earnings do not come into the picture at all because, as my hon. friend knows, they are exempted. This would be straight income.

Supply-Veterans Affairs


Alfred Johnson Brooks: They would come into the picture in this way-


Hugues Lapointe: Not into this calculation.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: -if a man were earning $600 or $700 a year and asked for war veterans allowance, it would only be the $600 a year that he could receive even though the ceiling were $1,200. That is the point I wish to make.


Hugues Lapointe: I might read briefly what the estimated cost is based on. Taking into account all other income which the present recipients had and the additional amount of allowance that would be paid to them if the ceiling were increased, it is estimated that an additional sum of $9,050,000 per annum would be paid out. It is also estimated that the increase in ceilings would make eligible for allowance 8,260 other veterans at an annual cost of $4,850,000. Thus the total cost of this proposal is estimated to be $13,900,000 per annum.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Does that also include the extra amount that would be paid out in old age pensions?


Arthur-Joseph Lapointe: No, this would be a straight vote for war veterans allowance.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I think it needs checking up again.


Mr. Pickersgill:: It was right the last time.


Hugues Lapointe: My hon. friend says it needs checking up again. May I say that I have noticed one thing, and it is this. Every time I have given estimates they have been challenged. Hon. members opposite always say, "Of course that is exaggerating". However, when we implement the changes those estimates always prove to be either accurate or, if anything, too conservative. I therefore think the hon. member may rely on the figures I have given him.


Mr. Knowles:: Why not try being liberal once in a while?


Arthur-Joseph Lapointe: I may say that is about the only occasion on which the department is too conservative.
While speaking on this question of raising the allowance may I say there is one point which seems to be forgotten. It has been admitted by hon. members and certainly by veterans' organizations across the country that the changes which were made last year in the formula used for casual earnings had been of considerable help to the veterans under war veterans allowance, and that the

more generous approach which the department had taken in the handling of this legislation had certainly brought about great benefits. But there is one group, and I think they are the ones to whom our attention should be directed particularly, who constitute what might be described as the difficult cases.
I refer to the war veterans allowance recipient who has absolutely no other source of income; who is totally unemployable; who cannot benefit from casual earnings because he is incapable of doing so; who has no disability pension; who has no superannuation. Regardless of the level to which you raise the ceiling on permissible income I submit that you cannot help this man directly, because he has no other source of income. That is where the assistance fund comes in.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Would there not be one exception, namely the man who is 70 years of age and who would receive old age pension?


Hugues Lapointe: I shall deal with that matter. My hon. friend knows that an unemployable veteran might come in long before he is 60. He might come in under the war veterans allowance if he is totally disabled physically or mentally, and nothing can be done; no matter how high you raise the ceiling, you do not help that man. That is why we created the assistance fund a few years ago.
There is one thing I have noticed, and it is this. Whereas the creation of that fund was discussed at the time, in any representations that are now made to increase the ceilings under the War Veterans Allowance Act, there is no longer any demand that this assistance fund should disappear. All who are familiar with the operation of the act realize the necessity for it.
I think the hon. member for New Westminster mentioned the rigidity of the formula used in granting assistance under this fund. I did refer to that in my opening remarks. Last year we did broaden the formula used to qualify under the fund, and we did follow very closely its operation during the year. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, in my own estimation there are cases in which the formula now is not flexible enough, and it is the intention of the department and the war veterans allowance board to go into this and be able to deal with those individual cases of hardship which remain even with the existence of the fund.
Then, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Royal asked me if the war veterans allowance recipients reaching the age of 70 would not be able to benefit by the full amount of the old age security payment if the ceilings were raised to the levels that have been

suggested. Well, that is quite true. This matter was raised by other members. On other occasions, I have given the government's view on the matter. I know I have been questioned in this house and outside. The tact of the matter is, whether or not one wishes to admit it, that one has to go back some years to the origin of the war veterans allowance to realize just what was behind that legislation. I have said this before the Canadian Legion at their dominion convention, and nobody contradicted me. Nobody has contradicted me so far. I should like, if I may, to quote exactly what I did say at that time, because it explains why certain things that are requested under the War Veterans Allowance Act, in the view of the government cannot be done. These remarks were made in 1954 at Toronto:
War veterans allowances have been based, since their inception in 1930, on the premise that service in a theatre of war preaged a veteran and placed him in a more unfavourable position in the labour market than would have been the case if he had not had such service. Because of this accelerated aging, the allowances were introduced to provide for veterans who needed at age 60, a form of social security not available to their non-veteran contemporaries until they reached the age of 70.
In effect, it was an old age security scheme designed especially to meet conditions peculiar to veterans who had seen combat service.
Now-some of you may object to that assimilation of the war veterans allowance to other social security measures. But the fact remains that a perusal of the debates in the house and the deliberations of the parliamentary committee of 1930 will bear me out on this point.
This being the case, any major changes in the War Veterans Allowance Act-particularly some which have been suggested-cannot help but have serious financial implications in other fields of governmental activities.
Mr. Chairman, that basically is why, when a recipient of war veterans allowance reaches the age of 70, the amount of his allowance is reduced by the amount of the old age security payment he receives. Otherwise, for all practical purposes, he would be receiving the equivalent of two old age pensions coming from two different sources. Unfortunately that is the position and no one has ever denied it. It is impossible to do so if you go back and study the origin of the legislation and the debates that took place at that time.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Does he not receive it now? He is receiving one and a part of the other. He receives both.


Hugues Lapointe: Because the balance of the war veterans allowance within the ceiling is paid to him as assistance on account of his war service. The same reasoning applies to some of the other representations which were made. I do not think it can be ignored.
Supply-Veterans Affairs
There was much said about service in England during the first war being recognized for the purpose-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Before the minister leaves the matter he was just discussing I wonder if he would permit another question. If the minister is going to claim that there is a relationship between the war veterans allowance and the old age pension because of the origin of the war veterans allowance, should the government not now take cognizance of the fact that whereas the old age pension in 1930 had a means test, the old age security pension that is now paid at age 70 has no means test. Does that not make it necessary, if the government is going to draw this parallel, to do something about the means test on the war veterans allowance, which the minister says is the civilian old age pension which the civilian receives at age 70, paid to the veteran at an earlier age?


Hugues Lapointe: I think my hon. friend will admit that if the means test were taken away from the war veterans allowance the result would be that this legislation would become nothing less than pensions legislation for nonservice incurred disability paid to veterans automatically on reaching a certain age. It would amount to that. I have never heard of any organized veterans' body in this country endorsing such a policy.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If the minister is not prepared to take that move, is he fair then in saying that the parallel still exists between the war veterans allowance and the old age pension? My point is that he is correct historically in referring to the parallel in 1930, but surely cognizance has to be taken of the change that has been made with respect to old age pensions. I think the Legion and others who have made representations are being responsible and fair in suggesting as a compromise made necessary by the change not necessarily the removal of the means test from the war veterans allowance but a raising of the ceiling itself.


Hugues Lapointe: There has been a certain amount of compromise, because the ceiling was raised and certainly our regulations concerning casual earnings, farm earnings and earnings from keeping boarders and so on, if my hon. friend is familiar with them, are very generous.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The ceiling was raised, for the single recipient, only by the amount of the increase; the margin was not raised.


Hugues Lapointe: It was raised from $60 to $70.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The allowance was raised from $50 a month to $60 a month, but the margin was not changed from $10 a month.

Supply-Veterans Affairs


Hugues Lapointe: I do not think that comes into it at all.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We think it does.


Hugues Lapointe: This is one case where my hon. friend and I differ in our views. However, to return to what I was saying concerning service in England during the first war, it was suggested that it should be recognized as a qualification for war veterans allowance. I think if we go to the origin of this legislation, Mr. Chairman, we have to recognize that eligibility for war veterans allowance is based on service in an actual theatre of war. I know the hon. member for Royal in the course of his remarks the other day said that it used to be like that but it does not exist any more. I would like him to get together with his colleague the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, because in the course of his remarks concerning war veterans allowance recipients he referred to them as "those fighting front line soldiers".


Alfred Johnson Brooks: That was the original idea. I would like to ask the minister this question in order to see if he and I agree. Is it not true that we give war veterans allowance to men who have dual service, and that a man who only had service in England in the first war and only had service in Canada in the second war without ever being near the front line receives war veterans allowance?


Hugues Lapointe: That is right.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I also referred to the man who was in the back lines in France and never got near the front. That is my argument on behalf of the men who had service in England. I think we have come a long way from the original idea.


Hugues Lapointe: I do not fully agree with the hon. member for Royal, Mr. Chairman, with regard to the dual service veteran. I think the hon. member is as familiar as I am with the history of that particular section of the War Veterans Allowance Act. This change was brought in originally in 1944, and it was an order in council passed under the authority of the War Measures Act. It was known as the "veterans' dual service pension order". The hon. member will recall that, when we sat in the veterans affairs committee in the years that followed the war and were asked to put in statutory form the various orders that had been passed, something had to be done about that particular pension order and it was added to the War Veterans Allowance Act at that time as part III of the act.
Finally when we reviewed and consolidated the act in 1952-my hon. friend sat as a member of that committee-it was decided that rather than have a separate part of the War Veterans Allowance Act to deal with


the dual service pension order, it would be simply included in the act as a section and it became, I think, section 30. These veterans were described in section 30 of the War Veterans Allowance Act.
I say we cannot overlook the fact that the war veterans allowance was originally created and has always been looked upon as legislation designed to deal with the needy veteran who served in an actual theatre of war. It has been said that many of these men stayed in England not because of their own choice. They may have been kept there because they were cn the administrative staff or for some other reason, and mention has been made of the fact that they would have liked to serve in an actual theatre of war. I point out, Mr. Chairman, that is the case with every man who enlists. If service in England during world war I is recognized as a qualification for war veterans allowance I do not see how we could eventually avoid recognizing service in Canada.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: That is not a logical conclusion.


Hugues Lapointe: My hon. friend shakes his
head, but I would point out to him that particularly during the second world war many men stayed in Canada because they were kept here for some reason or another. I would cite, for example, the case of a flying instructor. I know some of them per-sonnally who because they enlisted at the beginning of the war were considered too old to fly, because the air force was pretty choosey concerning age in those days at the beginning of the war. Those men were put on the instruction staff and remained there. They flew in Canada in that capacity throughout the war, and certainly they underwent as great a risk to their lives as anybody who served in England during the first war. If we were to consider preaging and the fact of having undergone hardship being likely to bring about preaging, I know my hon. friend is familiar with some of the training the army, for instance, was put through particularly during the final years of the war. I suggest that at the present time disability pensions are being paid to people who suffered disability on battle drill courses or assault courses where undoubtedly they were put through a very hard type of training.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: They were in the first war,
too.


Hugues Lapointe: 
Alfred Johnson Brooks: In that connection may I ask
the minister if it is not true that the figure he quoted includes several thousand veterans who arrived in England in 1918, at about the time the war ended, and all the real service they had in England was training in some of the reserve camps?


Hugues Lapointe: I am afraid it would include all service in England; that is right. It is impossible for me to give the figure concerning those who came in at such a date and so on, but I am giving the figure for 1955. It is estimated that the probable number of veterans living in 1955 who had seen service only in England was 52,000. In arriving at this estimate we assumed that the same proportion would apply for war veterans allowance as in the case of other veterans who qualify, and that would be approximately 23 per cent. This refers to world war I, of course.


Mr. Churchill:: These figures were given
last year in the committee on estimates, and I quoted them last year when I was speaking. A total of 52,000 served in England, and the official who gave these figures estimated that 11,500 would be eligible for war veterans allowance, or 22 per cent-the minister makes it 23 per cent-with the cost being $9,650,000. I want to point out that on the basis of the total number of survivors of world war I and taking the number drawing war veterans allowance as being 10 per cent, the figure for the United Kingdom would be reduced greatly, and I estimate it would be only $4,200,000.


Hugues Lapointe: My hon. friend is quite an expert on figures and the interpretation of statistics, but I can only give to the committee the views which my officials and the financial members of my staff give to me. Those are based on our past experience with other veterans.
There is another point which was mentioned by some hon. members and to which I should like to refer briefly. This concerns the payment of war veterans allowance to recipients who were living outside of Canada for reasons of health. Last year the hon. member for Kootenay West spoke at some length on this subject and I told him that we
Supply-Veterans Affairs would be looking into these particular cases, which would call for an amendment to the act. Since that time I have had discussions with officials of my department, and I asked them to investigate this situation thoroughly.
I regret to say that, after a great deal of discussion and thought we find it is not feasible to amend section 14 (1) as was suggested. Under the present legislation a recipient may absent himself from Canada for a period of up to three months in any calendar year without affecting the payment of his war veterans allowance, and he may dovetail his stay outside of Canada from one calendar year into another and thus be able to absent himself for six months without having his allowance reduced. However, he can do this only once every two years.
There are serious obstacles to making the suggested change in the legislation, one being the provision of treatment for recipients of war veterans allowance who are living outside of Canada. A great proportion of them need medical treatment from time to time, and this would involve the extension of the provisions of section 12 of the veterans' treatment regulations. It would be most difficult indeed to implement such provisions.
Then there would be the difficulty of arranging for periodical medical examinations of veterans who have not reached the age of 60 years but who are in receipt of war veterans allowance because they are totally unemployable. Such examinations would be most difficult indeed under the circumstances. There would also be the matter of administering the means test in connection with people living outside of Canada. Of course if we followed the suggestion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and eliminated the means test that obstacle would disappear, but I am afraid I cannot agree to that suggestion.
Complicated administrative problems would be created where the wife of a recipient of war veterans allowance did not accompany him when he left Canada but remained in Canada. It would be most difficult to amend this section of the act to permit a war veterans allowance recipient to go outside Canada to only one or two specific countries. During the course of the debate last year reference was made to the veteran who might wish to go to the southern part of the United States or Mexico. If the act were opened up to permit the payment of allowances in other parts of the world, the administrative problems thus created would be most complicated.
The hon. member for Kootenay West mentioned the specific case of a veteran who wanted to go to Mexico. Frankly I do not

Supply-Veterans Affairs know how we could deal administratively with veterans in that country. As I understand it, the facilities for looking after veterans in that country certainly are not such as would meet the necessities created by our act. For that reason we have not found it feasible to agree to this change at this time.
I realize that I have taken longer than I had intended. There are many other matters on which I wish to answer hon. members, but I suggest that possibly it would be more useful to deal with specific items as they come up.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
500. Veterans' welfare services, $3,155,735.
Alfred Johnson Brooks: I should like to ask a question having to do with veterans' preference in the civil service, and I do not know under what item this would come. No doubt the minister has received many complaints from veterans and veterans' organizations that the veterans' preference is not being observed as it should be in the civil service. Whether or not that is correct is not for me to say.
Recently I saw a letter from an officer of the Canadian war disability pensioners association in which he complained that there was apathy with regard to the employment of veterans in the House of Commons, and he then went on to quote specific instances. He mentioned the fact that out of 33 appointments at Kingston penitentiary in recent years only 11 were veterans, and he mentioned also that two recent appointments at Stony Mountain penitentiary were nonveterans.
I should like to ask the minister if there is any check by the Department of Veterans Affairs as to whether veterans are receiving the preference they should in connection with appointments to the civil service. The Department of Veterans Affairs is considered by the veterans to be their champion.


Hugues Lapointe: Veterans' preference in the civil service is statutory, as my hon. friend knows. It is part of the Civil Service Act and, to my knowledge and certainly to the knowledge of my officials, has always been observed. There have been drawn to our notice cases where in advertising for a position in the civil service the usual reference which always appears to the effect that preference would be awarded to veterans with overseas service had been omitted, but in actual fact, when the competition takes place, veterans' preference was observed because it is statutory. That was brought to our attention some time ago, and I think it

has beeen remedied since then. As I understand my hon. friend, he wanted to know whether it was still in force.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I wanted to know whether there was any branch of the department that checked up on the correctness of these complaints that preference was not being given.


Hugues Lapointe: When complaints of that nature are brought to our attention the welfare branch of the department investigates the case to find out whether or not they are accurate.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Have there been any reports of inaccuracies after investigation?


Hugues Lapointe: Yes. The only report from our investigation was what I mentioned before. In some cases, the advertisement did not mention veterans' preference, but it had been applied in the actual competition.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Treatment services-
501. Operation of hospitals and administration, $39,347,750.
Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like the Minister of Veterans Affairs to say something further regarding the matter of the five-day 40 hour week for employees in the hospitals that come under his department. I know that the last two or three times he has been asked questions on this matter on the orders of the day, including the occasion yesterday when I put a question to him, he has contented himself with the reply that he has already dealt with this matter.	I must
assure him, however, that that contentment is something he alone enjoys, for the employees of the hospitals where the five-day 40 hour week is not yet in effect feel that they are the victims of discrimination. In connection with this matter I should like to read to the minister a telegram which, I understand, is similar, if not identical, to telegrams received by all of us-


An hon. Member:: It was already read.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -from the Winnipeg area. This one is addressed to me. It reads as follows:
Strongly protest the statement that appears to have been made by the Minister of Veterans Affairs to the effect that cabinet has not considered our representation for a five-day 40 hour week for hospital employees made last October.
L. J. Perry, President,
D.V.A. employees national association, Winnipeg.
Yesterday I asked the minister about the situation at Deer Lodge hospital, and it was one of those occasions on which he simply said that he had dealt with the matter on an earlier occasion and had nothing to add. On

other occasions when we have pressed the government for an extension of the five-day 40 hour week we have been told-and this minister has told us-that it is the government's policy to institute the five-day 40 hour week only in those areas where it is the general practice. I hasten to assure him that the five-day 40 hour week is quite general in the Winnipeg area. Indeed, in recent weeks it has been extended in the case of employees of rather large firms or establishments where it was not previously enjoyed. On that account it seems to me that employees of Deer Lodge hospital should not have to wait further for the five-day 40 hour week.
Another argument which, it seems to me, is of equal force and should carry some weight with the government is that, as I understand it, some 90 per cent of the government's employees, taking all of them into consideration, classified civil servants and prevailing rates employees and others, are now on the five-day 40 hour week, and in that case it seems all the more ridiculous that the other 10 per cent should have to wait.
The other day the Leader of the Opposition asked the Minister of Veterans Affairs whether it was true that employees of D.V.A. hospitals get the same rate of pay whether they work the longer or the shorter week. The Minister of Veterans Affairs said that was something he would want to look into before commenting on it. Perhaps he has done so in the meantime. Certainly it is my understanding that members of the operating staffs at D.V.A. hospitals get the same rate of pay whether they are at a hospital that is on the five-day 40 hour week or a hospital where they work 44 hours a week.
I speak particularly of Deer Lodge hospital because it is in the Winnipeg area, but I join with those who have made similar representations for employees of hospitals in other parts of the country. I hope that this time the minister will not just say he has dealt with this before, but that he will either indicate to us that action will be taken on this matter at a very early date or that he will give us some better reason than we have yet had for such action not being taken. Naturally I hope that what he will do now is to indicate to us that the five-day 40 hour week will very soon be extended to the operating staffs of all hospitals coming under his department.


Hugues Lapointe: I am sorry that my hon.
friend took my answer to his question yesterday in that way. I am sure I did not want to offend him in any manner, but I find that I had actually answered the question the day before.
Supply-Veterans Affairs


Stanley Howard Knowles: To the minister's satisfaction, but-


Hugues Lapointe: Whether or not my hon.
friend finds the answer satisfactory is another matter altogether.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There are also the telegrams that have been coming in since.


Hugues Lapointe: Yes, but my hon. friend did not mention the telegram when he put the question. If he looks at Hansard for yesterday he will find-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, because the telegram came later. That is the point. The grievance still exists.


Hugues Lapointe: If my hon. friend looks at Hansard of yesterday he will find that the telegram was read in this house by the hon. member for Quebec West, and I answered the question on this particular telegram. However, I do not think any discussion between the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and myself is going to settle the question of the 40-hour week or satisfy the employees of D.V.A. hospitals. At this stage I can say that the matter is being looked into by the government, and it there is any change in policy it will be announced as a matter of government policy.


Douglas Scott Harkness: In speaking earlier I expressed the hope that the minister might say something about the hospitalization of non-pensioned veterans, and particularly whether any changes might be under contemplation easing the regulations in that regard so that elderly veterans on comparatively low incomes might receive hospitalization without payment.


Hugues Lapointe: I referred in my opening remarks to the application of section 13 of the veterans' treatment regulations. I do not know exactly what my hon. friend wants by way of information beyond what I mentioned in my opening remarks. I believe I stated the amount that had been spent and the number of veterans who had taken advantage of that section and had benefited from it. I should like my hon. friend to restate his question.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I read a resolution which had been passed by a local branch of the Legion in Calgary requesting that veterans above the age of 55 and with incomes below $1,800 for a single man and $3,500 for a married man should be able to take advantage of this hospitalization without payment rather than having to pay the sums they have to pay at the present time. I do not know how much these particular people have to pay, but in any event the rate is $14 a day for the non-pensioned veteran.

Supply-Veterans Affairs


Hugues Lapointe: I may say that to my knowledge the resolution to which the hon. member refers was never presented to the dominion convention and as such was never presented to the government by the Canadian Legion. As my hon. friend knows, the section provides for a sliding scale having regard to income, in order that a veteran may not become financially embarrassed because of hospitalization if he is in the low income group. The sliding scale starts at $840 and goes up to $2,500 under what is called adjusted income. I could explain it at great length but I could not say anything more by way of explanation than appears in the pamphlets that were issued by the department and which I believe my hon. friend received, and which explain how this particular clause involving the sliding scale works.
In the last year 6,359 patients were treated under section 13, and that was done at a cost of $2,356,563. Of this amount only $546,726 was charged to the patients, which I think indicates the effectiveness of the sliding scale plan and how it operates in helping veterans to get treatment at a very low cost. Of course the indigent veteran is treated free in our veterans hospitals.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Treatment services-
503. Hospital construction, improvements, equipment and acquisition of land, $4,534,825.
Gordon Minto Churchill: This item deals with hospital construction, etc., and involves an expenditure of $4J million. Would the minister give us, as he did last year, a breakdown of that expenditure by provinces?


Arthur-Joseph Lapointe: I think the figures I gave last year had to do with major projects then in progress. The information this year for major projects now in progress is as follows: Saint John, New Brunswick, Lancaster hospital, land purchase and construction of laundry, $184,925; Winnipeg, Deer Lodge hospital, replacement, 300 bed hospital, $900,000; Calgary, Colonel Belcher hospital, new wing and facilities, $900,000; Vancouver, Shaughnessy hospital, prosthetic and maintenance building and central heating plant, $650,000, and new wings and facilities, $225,000. I would think that would be the first payment at the commencement. That covers the major projects.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have one other comment with regard to the construction of hospitals. I have been in some of these veterans hospitals and I think they are a credit to our country. At the Lancaster military hospital in New Brunswick I saw an inscription on
[Mr. Harkness.l
a bronze plaque which I thought was very much to the point and well chosen. These were the words:
To the gallant men and women of the armed forces of Canada who have fought and suffered in her wars for freedom this hospital is dedicated by a grateful people.
When I read it I thought that was a fine inscription to be placed on a plaque in a veterans hospital and that it or a similar inscription might suitably be placed in other veterans hospitals. I wish my commendation could go further than that, but I regret to say that I must now raise an objection, and I want to give a warning to the minister. I take quite an interest in the Minister of Veterans Affairs, and I try to give him advice from time to time.


Arthur-Joseph Lapointe: I am very grateful.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Therefore I am going to give him some advice on this occasion. He is concerned with other hospitals throughout the country. I am very much interested in the addition to the Deer Lodge hospital, and what I have to say about putting bronze plaques in military hospitals will also apply to other public buildings in which the minister might be interested so perhaps he might pass this word on to the Postmaster General. A new post office is going up in the city of Winnipeg and I do not want him to make the error there to which I am now going to refer.
The bronze plaque in the Lancaster military hospital is a very large plaque. I have given the inscription. The plaque measures 36 inches across and is 18 inches in depth. It is very large. One-third of the bronze plaque is taken up with the inscription I have read and to which I have given approval. Two-thirds of the plaque, the larger portion, is taken up with the names of the gentlemen who opened that hospital, a hospital erected by the people of Canada for the veterans of this country. It is to that practice that I raise objection. These hospitals as well as other public buildings have to be opened but those who open them are serving in a temporary capacity and their names do not need to be recorded for all time.
I recognize the fact that the minister is a representative of the new ruling class of Canada, the pseudo-aristocracy, the descendants of the family compact, foreshadowed in section 49 of the British North America Act; nevertheless I do not think it is correct that their names should be recorded for all time on public buildings in Canada. Consequently I draw attention to the fact that this plaque, which may be satisfactory to the people of Lancaster would not be satisfactory,

I think, in the city of Winnipeg, records the fact that the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Veterans Affairs and the then deputy minister of veterans affairs opened that hospital and their names and titles are recorded in bronze, occupying two-thirds of that large plaque and dwarfing the one-third devoted to the inscription recording the fact that the people of Canada erected the hospital for their veterans. The type used for the Minister of Labour is one inch in size for each letter, and for the Minister of Veterans Affairs and his deputy the type is three-quarters of an inch in size for each letter.
If you look at the plaques which were set up just outside the library, on the occasion of the opening of the renovated building, you will see that they are much more modest in character and in the size of the type that is used. But at this veterans hospital erected by the people of Canada for disabled veterans and those in trouble, in great blazing letters three-quarters of an inch in height, we have recorded for all time the names of these temporary occupants of office, two of whom happen to be present here in the House of Commons and the other serving as a deputy minister. The three gentlemen are all deserving of recognition in some way or another for their services to their country, but I think it should not be done in this way. In so far as any new buildings are concerned out in the area in which I dwell, I suggest to the minister that this practice should not be followed.


Harry Oliver White: Mr. Chairman, I regret that I was out of the chamber for a few moments and did not hear what the minister had to say with regard to new construction. What is in the books for Westminster and London?


Hugues Lapointe: As far as Westminster hospital is concerned, the situation is this. It is at the head of the priority list, if I might use that expression. As soon as the major projects which are now under construction-like Colonel Belcher hospital in Calgary, which will soon be finished, and the others I have mentioned-are completed, Westminster hospital will be the first one on which work will start thereafter. I would think that in next year's estimates there will be an item for the start of construction. At the present time we are working on the plans and specifications.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Supply-Veterans Affairs
War veterans allowances and other benefits-
508. War veterans allowances, $41,192,000.
Mr. Nowlan:: Mr. Chairman, this matter might have been raised on item 507 but I thought the minister would like to get away from the block of figures with which he has been tied up and move on to another heading.
I have one question to raise with respect to the war veterans allowance. I am raising it now because, as a matter of fact, this morning I had another letter about this case which reminded me of it. It raises a problem on which I should like the minister to make a brief statement. We know that the war veterans allowance is paid under various categories, over 60 and so on and so forth, permanently unemployable, and then you come down to one who, because of physical or mental disability or insufficiency combined with economic handicaps, is incapable of maintaining himself.
The situation which was brought rather forcibly to my mind this morning by a rather pathetic letter-a situation with which the minister or his departmental officials dealt two years ago and which has now been revised-is one such as this. You have a veteran who has been receiving war veterans allowance. He had a kidney disability, as a result of which one kidney was removed by operation. He had tuberculosis of the other. He had been receiving war veterans allowance up to two years ago, when somebody decided that he was then capable of earning a living. An appeal was taken and as a result the war veterans allowance was restored. Since then he has had two more operations on that kidney, so his condition apparently was not too good two years ago. Now he has been in Camp Hill hospital for examination, and he received a letter last week saying that, according to the doctors, he was now capable of earning a living. So his war veterans allowance has been cancelled as of July 31 this year.
I can understand the position of the department. Apparently, the section is mandatory and provides that if the medical officer says that he is capable of earning a living, there is no alternative. Frankly, I do not know what the minister can do about it. I think there should be some elasticity brought into the picture somewhere. Obviously there has been such elasticity or else he could not have got around the appeal two years ago. When you go on to the next section, you find that it is much more elastic, where provision is made for payment of benefits to employable veterans because there the requirement is that he is unable to maintain himself or is capable of taking only light employment.
5912	HOUSE OF
Supply-Veterans Affairs
At the same time, I know this is not the place to amend the act, and I quite appreciate the fact that some departmental officials have taken it upon themselves to view that section very leniently in restoring war veterans allowance, and they will have the same responsibility on their shoulders within the next few days. But I would think there should be another section in there which would give some discretion.
The situation is this. This particular man is a labourer with a grade VI education and living away out in the country. I know he was told at one time, "Perhaps you can operate an elevator". He never saw an elevator in his life, and he would be scared to death if he got into one; or if he got into one and operated it, he would probably kill whoever was in it. If he had training as a bookkeeper or as a school teacher, possibly he would be able to earn a living. But as a labourer, living in a rural community where, frankly, the only employment open to a labourer would be that of digging ditches, it is practically impossible for him to earn his living, though from a medical standpoint he might be capable of earning a living if he had employment categories open to him.
I am bringing the matter to the attention of the minister. As I said, I appreciate the fact that on an earlier occasion there was elasticity in the interpretation given to the section, and that was helpful. On many occasions there must be need for such elasticity. But I would think it would be a matter worthy of an amendment of some kind, so the minister or his departmental officials would have discretion there. When you get shall we say a hard-boiled doctor- and some of them are hard-boiled because, I suppose, they are obliged to be so in order to carry out their profession-who says, "You are capable of earning a living, in my opinion", then what does the department do about it?


Arthur-Joseph Lapointe: Mr. Chairman, of course it is extremely hard for me to make any comment on the specific case mentioned by my hon, friend because I do not know the details. With him, I will admit that the man concerned does not sound like a very healthy type. I shall be glad to look into the case again and see what can be done.


George Clyde Nowlan: Of course that is the whole point. He does not have to be healthy. He just has to be capable of earning a living. That is the wording of the section.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Despite what the Minister of Veterans Affairs said today in reply to


what I thought were excellent representations made by many members for raising the ceiling on the war veterans allowance, I hope he will give this matter still further consideration. It seems to me that the Legion is most responsible in the figures it has suggested, namely a $1,200 ceiling for single recipients and $2,000 for married recipients. Because those figures are fair and responsible, we on this side of the house naturally do not like to suggest anything less.
However, it seems to me that the minister took advantage of that situation and was satisfied to take the view that there were only two choices; either the present ceiling or the figure advocated by the Canadian Legion and suggested in this house. If the minister and the government have not yet seen the light and are not prepared to go as far as the Legion has suggested I would hope that at least they would realize the force of the argument that has been made in the house and would start moving upward the ceilings on the total incomes of war veterans allowance recipients.
I listened with interest to the arguments the minister advanced today, and I confess that he did not convince me as well as he appears to have convinced himself. He pointed out, for example, that to establish a ceiling of $1,200 on the income of war veterans allowance recipients would be to set a figure equal to about 80 per cent of the disability pension. I point out to him, however, what all of us realize, that to establish a ceiling of $1,200 for single war veterans allowance recipients does not give them $1,200 a year. It merely permits them to supplement their war veterans allowance up to that figure.
May I also point out the other difference that would still obtain between the war veterans allowance recipient, if the ceiling were set at $1,200, and the disability pensioner, namely that there is no ceiling on the income of a disability pensioner. It seems to me that these same answers apply to the other examples the minister gave, and that in fact to establish a higher ceiling on war veterans allowances would not be as unfair-I am not sure if that is the word he used but that is the spirit I caught from what he said-as he suggested it would be to the disability pensioner. I do not hear any disability pensioners complaining about the suggestion that something better be done for war veterans allowance recipients. As a matter of fact those ceilings in the War Veterans Allowance Act have a limiting effect on the income of many recipients of the disability pension.

As the minister and all of us know, where a disability pensioner is receiving an amount as a disability pension which is equal to or higher than the ceiling set in the War Veterans Allowance Act he is denied the possibility of any supplement under the War Veterans Allowance Act. On the other hand, if the ceiling were raised under the War Veterans Allowance Act it would be of assistance not only to those who receive only the war veterans allowance, not only to the others who might come in, but it would be of assistance as well to many who receive disability pensions in the lower percentage brackets.
The minister also gave the example of a war veterans allowance recipient now drawing $60 a month. He said that if the ceiling were raised to $1,200 a year or $100 a month, that would permit him, when he reached 70 years of age, to draw the $40 old age pension in full and still keep the full amount of his war veterans allowance, bringing him up to $100 per month. Against that the minister set the case of a 45 per cent disability pensioner drawing $675 a year disability pension and $480 old age security or a total of $1,155 a year. He said further that that person, if the ceiling were raised to $1,200, would be able to draw only another $45 a year as war veterans allowance.
As I took it from the minister, he seemed to suggest that there was something of an imbalance between the treatment accorded the disability pensioner and the war veterans allowance recipient in that situation. May I point out that so far as the war veterans allowance recipient to whom he referred is concerned, prior to reaching age 70, at $60 a month he is already receiving $720 a year which, of course, is more than the 45 per cent disability pensioner is receiving under that legislation. The 45 per cent disability pensioner does not complain about that so long as there is a margin that permits him to get a supplement by way of war veterans allowance if his income is not adequate.
All told, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that these comparisons the minister sought to make between the position of the disability pensioner and the war veterans allowance recipient are not valid. For these, and for the other excellent reasons that have been advanced in the discussion of these estimates, I hope that further consideration will be given by the government to raising these ceilings. I wish the government would start making some upward move at this session. Certainly the ceilings should be set at nothing less than the figures suggested by the Legion of $1,200 single or $2,000 married, but surely it is possible to make a start in that upward direction at this session.
Supply-Veterans Affairs


Mr. Argue:: I wish to support the request of the Canadian Legion that the allowable income ceilings on war veterans allowance recipients be increased. I think over the years the Canadian Legion have taken a very responsible attitude so far as government legislation is concerned. Their proposals have always been moderate and responsible. I think their proposals today in relation to the war veterans allowance are very modest indeed. They are not asking, though I think they might have reason to ask, that the basic pension itself be increased above the $60 for a single person or $108 for a married couple. The new income ceiling they suggest of $1,200 per year single or $2,000 a year for a person who is married I think is quite low enough.
Today the cost of living is at an all-time high. If such a person could obtain the extra allowable income to reach the $100 a month, that would be little enough to meet the current cost of living. The Legion is asking for only a $30 per month increase for a single person and $46.66 increase in the allowable income per month for married veterans.
I would like to see, as others have said, a veterans affairs committee established again. I believe that in the past members of that committee have taken a very sympathetic attitude towards the veterans. I believe that if a representative committee of this house were to discuss this question they would bring in a recommendation that would, in large measure, meet the requests of the Canadian Legion.
I have only a few more remarks to make, Mr. Chairman.


The Deputy Chairman:: Has the hon. member consent to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hazen Robert Argue: I have just one other remark. I cannot understand why persons on war veterans allowance who become 70 years of age are not allowed to have the old age security pension without a reduction being made in the war veterans allowance. I have had persons say to me, one living across the road from another, that it seems an anomaly that a person who is quite capable of taking care of himself in his old age, quite wealthy, reaches the age of 70 and gets an additional $40 per month, but a person on war veterans allowance will have his allowance decreased by $30 per month, if he is a single veteran without additional income, or by $58 per month for a veteran and his wife on old age security if they have no additional income. I would suggest that the minister take a look

Supply-Veterans Affairs at this question and place the veterans who are on war veterans allowance in the same position as other Canadians.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Edward Turney Applewhaite: If the committee will permit me, may I say it has been indicated to me that there is a desire to make a change or two in the personnel of the standing committees, and under those circumstances would the committee agree to reporting the resolutions and asking leave to sit again later this day?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.



RESEARCH


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Is
there unanimous consent to revert to motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. W. G. Weir (Porlage-Neepawa) moved:: That the name of Mr. Hahn be substituted for that of Mr. Low on the special committee on research.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS War veterans allowances and other benefits-
509. Assistance fund (war veterans allowances), $650,000.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Harry Oliver White: I notice reference in this item to the erection of headstones. Would the cost of a headstone and its erection be provided for in the case of a veteran who died and was buried in other than a military cemetery?


Hugues Lapointe: A headstone is provided by the department in every case where a veteran dies while under treatment in a veterans' hospital and the department has contributed toward the cost of burial, and in the case of the death of a disability pensioner discretion is given to the commission to pay for a headstone if the financial circumstances of the deceased warrant such a decision. Similarly,


headstones are provided by the Last Post fund in the case of veterans who are buried by that fund, and of course they are provided for all veterans in our war cemeteries overseas. The latter is handled through the imperial war graves commission.


Harry Oliver White: I presume that would apply also to Indians who were war veterans.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The hon. member for Royal is not able to be here this evening because of the activities of the research committee, and he asked me to bring up the matter of assistance provided under the war veterans allowance. I note that the amount spent under this vote last year was about $375,000 less than the amount voted. The act provides for fhe payment of $10 per month or $120 per year to completely unemployable old veterans who are receiving war veterans assistance, but it would appear that the average payment is considerably under that amount. I should like to know the average amount paid to these unemployable old veterans. My information is that instead of $120 per year being paid the average is between $60 and $70, or about one-half.
It would appear from the fact that the amount voted last year was considerably underspent that the regulations have been rigorously applied. I submit that this is one group who are probably in about as bad a situation as any group in the Dominion of Canada. These old veterans are completely unemployable and it is impossible for them to supplement their war veterans allowances. In spite of that fact, if my information is correct on the average they get only a little more than half what the legislation provides.
I should like the minister to tell us what was the average amount paid and why the vote was underspent by more than one-third last year?


Hugues Lapointe: The hon. member will remember that last year we amended the act to increase the ceilings and the rates, and in so doing we brought in additional veterans. It turned out that we had overestimated the number who might qualify for assistance from the fund. Furthermore, by raising the rates some people who might have applied for assistance under the fund did not do so.
In making our estimate this year we went by our experience last year, but from what has happened in April, May and June it would appear that we may have underestimated. As compared with the same months last year the number of applications received in April, May and June this year were 40 per cent higher.
As of March 31, 1956, there were 6,256 recipients who were receiving assistance

from the fund, and of that number 3,070 represented new applications made during the year, the balance being carried over from the previous year. Of the 2,072 veterans receiving allowances on the basis of married rates, 1,574 received $10 per month or more. Out of a total of 272 widows, 232 received $10 per month or more. Of those two groups, 311 received single payments averaging $58 per year.
In the case of those on single rates, out of 1,501 veterans, 756 received $8 per month or more; out of 1,467 widows, 1,158 received $8 per month or more. In that group 560 received average single payments of $42. Out of a total of 2,348 married rate recipients, 2,117 received assistance at the rate of 85 per cent or more. Out of 2,968 recipients, 2,474 received assistance at the rate of 80 per cent or more.


Douglas Scott Harkness: A rapid bit of mental arithmetic would indicate that the figures the minister has given indicate that the average payment was around $7 per month instead of $10. It would seem to me that as the amount involved here is almost negligible considering our general revenues, being $100,000 or something less than that, this is a case where the legislation and the regulations should be applied in the most liberal manner possible.
I see the minister nodding his head in agreement. I hope that in future years these people will be given the maximum amount the law allows, the $10 per month, without too much question being asked; because, as I say, the total amount of money involved is very small. For people who are getting say $60 per month total income plus the amount of this allowance, if they get $10 per month perhaps they can just get by, whereas if they get only $66 or $67 per month it may mean a terrific amount of hardship. It is a question of people on an extraordinarily low total income where every dollar makes a great deal of difference as to whether they merely exist or perhaps exist with one, two or three of the simple pleasures of life.


Hugues Lapointe: I think the hon. member will recall that in my opening statement I did mention that, basing ourselves on last year's experience, although the formula used for the assistance fund had been broadened last year, there were cases where we did not think it met the problem, and members of my department were looking into this to try to find a solution to those problems.


Mr. Thomas:: I could ask this question either on item 508 or item 509. What will be the relationship between the new unemployment assistance act and the war veterans allowance
Supply-Veterans Affairs and war veterans' assistance? Is there any agreement between the two departments as to which will look after the borderline cases? Has the Department of Veterans Affairs agreed more or less to look after the borderline cases of those who might be veterans, or will they be dealt with under the unemployment assistance act? Where are they going to draw the line?


Hugues Lapointe: I should not like to make any definite pronouncement on the matter. I should think that any assistance received under the new act would, as the present War Veterans Allowance Act stands, have to be considered as income for the purpose of this act. The problem has not arisen as yet, and I can assure my hon. friend that we shall study this situation.


Ray Thomas: What worries me about this is the fact that it could be quite convenient for the Department of Veterans Affairs to disclaim any responsibility in many of these cases and put the onus on the unemployment assistance act, under which the cost would be shared by the provincial government.


Hugues Lapointe: At the present time, payments for unemployment under the Unemployment Insurance Act are considered as income under the War Veterans Allowance Act, and they have to be taken into consideration when computing the permissible income of the recipient of war veterans allowance. I should think that principle would apply to the new act but, as I said, the matter has not been studied as yet.


Ray Thomas: It is not exactly a parallel comparison, because the new act, the unemployment assistance act, is drawn up in such a way as to supplement the Unemployment Insurance Act; and there would not be much overlap between the Unemployment Insurance Act and the war veterans allowance or assistance, but there might be between the unemployment assistance and the war veterans allowance. It appears to me that there might possibly be a tendency to take many of these borderline cases who are applying for war veterans allowance or war veterans assistance and place them under the unemployment assistance act, in which case the province would be responsible for carrying a part of the burden.


Hugues Lapointe: It will be looked into, but I might say that in the past the situation has been that where there are borderline cases we get them under the war veterans allowance.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
5916	HOUSE OF
Supply-Veterans Affairs
Miscellaneous payments-
511.	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, $1,393,713.
Douglas Scott Harkness: I note in the details on page 613 of the estimates that the grant to the imperial war graves commission is $467,000 this year, whereas it was $518,000 last year. Could the minister tell us the reason for that decrease? As I stated this afternoon, I was extraordinarily impressed with the work the war graves commission is doing and the care it is giving to the cemeteries where our Canadian war dead are buried in Europe. My understanding was that our payment to the imperial war graves commission was on a per capita basis; in other words, that we paid so much per grave. I wondered whether this decrease meant that we had decreased the amount we were paying per grave, which I should think, in view of what I saw in several score of cemeteries last summer, would not be a good move.


Hugues Lapointe: No, the amount we pay is set by the commission. It is on a pro rata basis on the number of Canadian graves in those cemeteries. At the present time the imperial war graves commission is completing the construction stage of its work in our cemeteries, and in many of them, as my hon. friend knows, their work consists in maintenance of the cemeteries. Hence their budget has gone down, and our share of that budget has decreased accordingly. However, the commission set the amount. They bill us for the work they do for Canadian graves over there.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
512.	Grant to army benevolent fund, $8,000.
Mr. Quelch:: Could the minister say who administers the benevolent fund and just what veterans benefit under that fund?


Hugues Lapointe: The army benevolent fund, as my hon. friend knows, is set up under statute. It is administered by a board headed by General Murchie. The members of that board are: Lieutenant General Murchie, chairman; Brigadier Gauvreau, Montreal; Captain Peck, Vancouver; Lieutenant General San-som, of Fredericton, I believe, but representing the Canadian Legion; and Major Wickens, representing the national council of veterans' associations. They do their work through the officers of provincial committees. There is a committee for each province of people who


in a benevolent fashion do that work for the fund. They have a central office, and every year they make their annual report to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, and that report is tabled in the house.


Victor Quelch: What kind of cases would be looked after?


Hugues Lapointe: They are all world war II veterans who can benefit from the fund, because it was made up of regimental funds, mess funds and so on accumulated in the second world war. Their work involves a welfare program, financial assistance and vocational training of children of veterans. They will endeavour as much as possible to help in the rehabilitation of veterans and in meeting major emergencies with which the veteran cannot cope because of the high financial cost that might be involved. They will also help in re-establishing a veteran who is in bad financial circumstances by advancing money, possibly getting agreement among his creditors to accept certain sums, and set him back on his feet.


Victor Quelch: What is the total amount of the fund at this time?


Hugues Lapointe: The balance in the fund as of March 31, 1956, was $8,088,045. The program of expenditure is laid out in such a way as to endeavour to keep the fund going for 50 years from the date of the end of the war. That was the recommendation made by the veterans affairs committee when that statute was studied.


Victor Quelch: Is it supposed to be in the form of a revolving fund?


Hugues Lapointe: Oh, no. The money is held as a special account in the consolidated revenue fund, and the expenditures are actually made out of the fund so that 50 years after the end of the war the fund will have been totally expended.


Ray Thomas: Could the minister tell us what the expenditures were for each of the last five years, and how much was for administration?


Hugues Lapointe: The figures I have here show the total disbursements since the inception of the fund. The figures cover the last three years, and by figuring the difference between these amounts I would be able to tell how much was actually expended. In 1953-54 total disbursements had reached $2,354,473. In 1954-55 they had reached $2,901,984, and for 1955-56 that figure had reached $3,368,373. It works out, I think, that slightly over $400,000 a year is expended from the fund.


Ray Thomas: Is there any way of telling what were the administrative expenses?

Supply-Veterans Affairs


Hugues Lapointe: For the year ended March 31, Canadian Legion service bureau are con-1956, the administrative expenses were siderably higher than the grant which is $70,068.	made by the department.


Erhart Regier: Did I understand the minister to say that tor an expenditure of some $400,000 odd the administrative costs were some $70,000 odd? I should like to be sure on that point.


Hugues Lapointe: I am sorry; I did not quite catch the question.


Erhart Regier: Did I understand the minister correctly that last year for a total disbursement of $400,000 odd the costs of administration were $70,000 odd?


Hugues Lapointe: The actual amount spent by way of grants to veterans during the year was $465,155. However, the benevolent fund also does the service work for the army welfare fund, which is a national defence organization or project. The personnel of the army benevolent fund organization do that work for them, and in that particular field they made loans to servicemen amounting to $277,754 and grants to servicemen amounting to $100,573. In their yearly operation, therefore, they gave direct financial assistance totalling $843,482; that is, they had operations involving that amount. I find that the figure I gave as to the cost of operation was not correct. It was $67,793.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
513.	Grant to Canadian Legion, $9,000.
Erhart Regier: What is the annual income of the organization called the Canadian Legion to which we pay a grant of $9,000 a year? What I should like to know is how much is the annual income of the Canadian Legion, to which we pay a grant of $9,000.


Hugues Lapointe: The Canadian Legion, as my hon. friend knows, is definitely not a part of the Department of Veterans Affairs, and we have no way of knowing just what their financial statement is. It is given yearly to the members of the Legion and is studied at their conventions. I have seen it at times but I have just not got it. It is not part of my business to do so. The grant to the Legion is paid in order to help defray the cost of their service bureau, which was started some years ago. The original grant was $10,000, and it was reduced to $9,000 in the thirties. The purpose of the grant is to help the Legion to defray the cost of the service bureau where they do considerable work which otherwise might have to be done by the Department of Veterans Affairs. That part of their operation is audited by our department treasury officers, and I can assure my hon. friend that the expenses of the


Erhart Regier: I wonder whether the minister could give us some more details as to what services the service bureau offers. I listened carefully to the minister, and I am not exactly sure as to whether this grant should be $9,000, $900 or $900,000. If it is for a justifiable cause I am sure this house would be willing to endorse $900,000. I feel that the minister's explanation is a little inadequate. I do not know why the grant should be $9,000 rather than $900 or $900,000. Exactly what does the bureau offer?


Hugues Lapointe: Mr. Chairman, the service bureau of the Canadian Legion handles many cases of veterans before the pension commission, and before the war veterans allowance board; it also brings to our notice welfare cases which exist in the various regions of the country and of which they are aware but of which we might not be aware.
As to the specific amount of $9,000, as I mentioned earlier, it was originally $10,000. It was reduced to $9,000 and the Legion has never asked for more. We audit their books and find that the cost of operation of the service bureau is much higher than our grant. I would think possibly one of the reasons they do not want more is that they do not want to be too dependent on the Department of Veterans Affairs.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canadian pension commission-
524. Administration expenses, $2,298,111.
Mr. Blair:: I have some questions to ask of the minister with regard to this estimate. The first one applies to the Hong Kong veterans. It is not a very large group. I will go over these questions slowly so that the minister will have time to take them down. It will be recalled that this group had a rather, as I might describe it, different form of service and that they did suffer-if I might use the word-peculiar forms of disability in comparison with those suffered by other servicemen. We have been assured that this group was being closely watched with regard to eye trouble and various other disabilities. If the minister will jot these questions down as I go along, I should be obliged to him.
My first question is this, if the information is obtainable. How many of this group are pensioned at the present time? It is not a very large group. It was a brigade, so it should not be very difficult to get this information in a rough way. My second question will be this. How many of those formerly

Supply-Veterans Affairs pensioned are now deceased? I am trying to get some idea of the mortality of that group. My third question will be-


Hugues Lapointe: I am sorry, but I did not hear my hon. friend's first question.


William Gourlay Blair: How many of those formerly pensioned are now deceased? My third question is this. How many of those at present living have had increases in their pensions? My fourth question is, how many have had their pensions decreased? While the minister is going over those questions, I have another one to ask. While it may not apply directly to the Department of Veterans Affairs, nevertheless I think some information could be derived which would be useful.
I refer to coronary disease. I am aware that coronary disease is not regarded as pensionable by the Canadian pension commission or by the British commission, though I think there is a pension for aggravation. If this information that I am trying to bring out were available, I think it should be made available to the medical people in general. Are there any statistics available on the number of veterans who have suffered this disability? In a rough way, what has been your experience with it as to the effect of long service or difficult service, undergoing the stress and strain of service, particularly in the first war where men had four years in the trenches under a rather arduous type of service? Has it been shown from the statistics of the Department of Veterans Affairs that this service had any effect on the percentage of coronary disease?
Probably that is not quite a fair question to throw at the minister. On the other hand, I think it would be valuable information to have. If it could be worked out even later it would be satisfactory. If a study could be made of the matter it might help out in an attempt to solve the problem of the effect of stress as far as this disease is concerned. If that latter information is not available, possibly the minister could give me information on the first four questions with respect to the Hong Kong group, so far as ne is able to do so from the statistics at hand.


Hugues Lapointe: I very much regret to say this but I am afraid I cannot give any detailed information on this matter.


William Gourlay Blair: What has been the experience?


Hugues Lapointe: I refer to the Hong Kong veterans. We have not here any figures which would sort out the Hong Kong pensioners as compared with other veterans. I can tell my hon. friend that about 95 per cent of them are pensioned or have entitlement. Of that fact I am aware. Most of them

are high disability pensioners. We have followed very closely that type of pensioner in our hospitals and treatment services. I refer to the Hong Kong veterans. Because of the particular maltreatment they underwent over there, a Hong Kong veteran will come into a hospital and it is understood he can be examined at any time for his condition. He receives what you might practically call special treatment because of the particular circumstances of the service performed. I shall endeavour to get those figures.


William Gourlay Blair: I thank the minister.


Hugues Lapointe: I shall be pleased to let my hon. friend have them. As to the other questions he asked, I think the matter would more properly come under treatment services. I know that at the present time some research work is being done on coronary disease in connection with veterans, particularly older veterans. I am afraid I am not an expert in the medical field, and I could not give any details about that matter. However, I shall certainly see to it that the hon. member is made familiar with any developments that we have found in that field.


William Gourlay Blair: I thank the minister.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
515. 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, $132,769,300.
Douglas Scott Harkness: So far the minister has not said anything with regard to the case of Stanley Hepworth to which I referred this afternoon. I think it is important, from two points of view, that something definite be done with regard to this case and others of the same nature. I think it is important first of all from the point of view of the reputation of the Department of Veterans Affairs itself, and second from the point of view of the general morale of the Canadian militia and the matter of getting recruits. When you have the situation of a man who served five years overseas and proved his mettle by winning the Military Medal; who served six years in the militia and had an extraordinarily good record; who obeyed the orders of his commanding officer to turn out on a parade and who, as a result of turning out on the parade, lost his life; and when really because of a technicality based on a mischance when he lost his life his widow has been turned down for pension, I think you have a situation which calls into question in the minds of a large number of people the claims which we have heard that our veterans' legislation is

the best in the world. It also discourages people from joining the militia or continuing in the militia.
It seems to me it is just not good enough to leave the situation as it is. This one case which I have mentioned happens to illustrate the matter particularly well, but there have been other cases of the same kind. It is not good enough to leave the situation where it stands. I think the minister owes it to his own department and to the defence department as well as to this house to make some kind of statement in regard to this particular section 13 (2), I believe it is, of the Pension Act, as to what can be done in order to correct what I think is a very unfortunate state of affairs in regard to this particular case as well as cases generally along this line.


Arthur-Joseph Lapointe: This case which my hon. friend mentioned, Mr. Chairman, is one which would come under section 13 (2) of the Pension Act. This is the section which makes provision in respect of military service in peacetime, whether in the regular service or in the militia. It differs in certain respects from service in wartime, but I do not think I need to go into that; he is quite familiar with it.
In the case which the hon. member mentioned this afternoon, I did have a few heated words with the hon. member for Prince Albert, but I think that was mostly the result of a misunderstanding on both our parts. The facts have to be put before the commission. Now, the facts as they were put before the members of the committee by the hon. member I would say were very well put forward. It is impossible for me to pass any judgment on the decision that was rendered without being able to see whether those facts were actually put before the commission. It does happen quite often that on the initial hearing all the facts which would justify the commission in making an award are not put forward. I take it from what my hon. friend said this afternoon that this was the first hearing.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The second hearing is over.


Hugues Lapointe: At any rate, I think he will understand how difficult it is for me to pass any judgment on the case without being able to see the facts that were put forward. In any event, it would be out of order for me to make any remarks about a decision rendered by the pension commission, which is a completely autonomous body where the minister has no discretion whatever to interfere.
Supply-Veterans Affairs
But it does present a problem. I have been informed by the commission that fortunately most of these cases that are brought forward are quite clear-cut. But there are some that are marginal cases, and it is very difficult for people to decide whether a man was or was not on duty. I know of a couple of such cases that have come to my knowledge. As a matter of fact in these cases, the services, particularly in the last year or two, have been most helpful. The chairman and members of the commission have explained to the services how they must protect the interests of their own men by making it clear whether or not the man was on duty. I have known of cases myself in which the adjutant general or the A.A.G., have come up and explained the circumstances of service under which the accident took place, and favourable decisions have been rendered.
Following the consideration of the estimates last year I looked into this particular section. I do not know how the section can be changed unless the principle which exists now is departed from altogether. I do not know how the mere wording of the section could be changed to achieve the purpose which my hon. friend has in mind, because it is a question of the interpretation of the facts by the commission. We may think at times they are wrongly interpreted. Of course one is free to form one's judgment on the matter, but the wording of the section is correct so far as I can see and does afford the protection it was intended to give to those serving members. I would think that the case which my hon. friend has mentioned is possibly a marginal case, and I think it would be very proper for the person concerned to appeal the case.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I do not believe this is a case, as the minister has indicated, where the facts have not been put forward. I think the facts have been put forward. The difficulty is, as I said, that the decision has been made really on a technicality. It was founded on a mischance. In other words the army transport which was supposed to be provided for the members of this unit to go to this parade had a breakdown. As a result it did not appear and the senior officer on the spot gave instructions or orders that the men who were there would then go in private cars. There happened to be a sufficient number of private cars there owned by these people. They went in those private cars and this man was killed in a private car returning from the parade. Because it was a private car and not a military vehicle and was not on a per diem or mileage basis, the application for pension has been turned down. Really it amounts to that.

Supply-Veterans Affairs
In other words, as I say, it is a technicality based on a mischance. I believe that is the sort of thing that it should be within our capability and within the capability of the department to overcome, to ensure that an injustice is not done. This unfortunate set of circumstances technically left the case outside the provisions of the Pension Act. Really all I am asking is that the minister and the government look into this and if it is necessary pass an order in council or do something else to overcome that particular difficulty.


Gordon Minto Churchill: This is the section 13, subsection 2 which has been causing so much difficulty for a number of years. The answer the minister gives is that the pension commission is an independent body. We accept that. When an inquiry is made of the pension commission they say they have to conduct their proceedings and make their decisions in accordance with the act. The act can be changed only by parliament, and the person who should introduce such a change is the minister. Last year in the estimates committee he told us that this section 13 subsection 2 was under consideration. He has now reported that it has been considered and he sees no way in which it can be altered.
The hon. member for Calgary North has raised now a very good example of the weakness of the act as it is interpreted by the pension commission. It is only about four years ago that I raised in this house a somewhat similar case affecting a member of the regular forces who lost his life. Again it was section 13, subsection 2 under which the decision was rendered. When the hon. member for Calgary North was talking about this particular instance, naturally my mind went back to the McAulay case that I raised before the appeal board of the pension commission and spoke about in the House of Commons. The people who suffer under these decisions which the pension commission finds it has to make in accordance with the act are the widows and children. Surely that is not the intention of parliament or the Canadian people.
In both these instances, the one raised by the hon. member for Calgary North and the one I raised four years ago, the men had given first class service overseas. In the case to which I referred the man continued in the regular army back home, and in the case referred to by the hon. member for Calgary North the man continued in the militia. Both men gave continuous service in the interests of the Canadian armed forces. In both cases the widows are now left without assistance; in both cases the men were acting under orders, as we see it, and both the hon. member for Calgary North and I have had some


military experience. In both cases the pension commission found that these accidents were not directly connected with military service. It just does not make sense to us.
I recall in the McAulay case I was informed by a member of the pension commission that the corporal who later was killed should have refused to obey the order of the sergeant who put in his possession the jeep which he drove. When the hon. member for Prince Albert was talking about the Hepworth case that was mentioned earlier I thought the answer might have been given by some member of the commission to the effect that the men should have refused to obey the order of the major, the second in command of the battalion; that they should have said to him, "Sir, we cannot travel to our destination in civilian cars because if we do that we will not be obeying the rules and regulations".
Subordinate ranks simply cannot take stands like that. They have to obey orders, whether the order is given by a sergeant to a corporal, by a major to a lieutenant or by men of other ranks. To people who have served it is just nonsense to suggest that junior ranks can resist orders given by people senior to them.
I think, Mr. Chairman, that section 13(2) will have to be reconsidered by the minister. As the hon. member for Prince Albert mentioned, the Department of Justice might very well be called in to give some advice on the matter, which is becoming a serious problem.
Last year in the estimates committee I asked the chairman of the pensions commission for some figures with regard to the number of applications to the pension commission by former members of the regular forces under section 13(2). He gave figures for a 5-year period from January, 1950, to March, 1955, and these appear at page 578 of the proceedings of the special committee on estimates of last year. In that 5-year period 6,952 cases came before the commission either on first or second hearing or on appeal, and 89 per cent were rejected. That is a very high rejection figure, and all those rejections were under section 13(2).
I submit, Mr. Chairman, that much more serious consideration must be given to this matter. It is intolerable that the burden of these accidental deaths should fall upon the completely innocent widows and children. It must be remembered that the wives permit their husbands to take part in these military activities, and the army and other service authorities urge the married women to permit their husbands to spend two or three nights a week in militia training of this sort. In the regular forces there is a considerable

amount of encouragement given to the married women in order to have their husbands remain in the services.
There is quite a bit of attention paid to the attitude of the women in this connection until the husband is killed in what those of us who have served and others think is the course of his duty; then the Department of National Defence and the Department of Veterans Affairs say, "There is nothing we can do about it under section 13(2). This accident did not arise out of service". They say to the widow, "Although for several years your husband served his country gallantly in war and in peace, we are sorry but we cannot do anything for you now. You may have children. Well, that is not our responsibility, and you must go somewhere else."
I do not think we can much longer tolerate that state of affairs under legislation which is so frequently described here as the best veterans' charter in the world, and so on. If things of this nature continue to be permitted it must certainly be revised if it is to become the best in the world.


Ernest George Hansell: Mr. Chairman, the minister was in his seat when I spoke this afternoon, and I believe he gave his usual attention to what I had to say. I wonder if now that this particular item is before us he would care to comment on whether or not we can expect pensions to be awarded regardless of preenlistment disabilities?
I pointed out this afternoon that any cases I had taken up with the department showed that a substantial number of pension applications were turned down by reason of the department discovering that whatever was wrong was caused by a pre-enlistment condition. At the same time, when the veteran was recruited and joined the forces he was given an A-l classification. I wish the minister would comment on that. I realize there has been some improvement in the act over the years, but I believe that when one is taken into the forces and given an A-l classification it should stand for all time.
Perhaps when the minister speaks he will not be able to give us the statistical answer to this question, but I would like to add a question to those which have been asked by the hon. member for Lanark. How many pension applications, let us say during the last year, were turned down on account of a condition of pre-enlistment origin, and what percentage would that be of the total number of applications that were turned down?


Hugues Lapointe: Well, Mr. Chairman, I am afraid I could not give the hon. member at this time the exact number of applications that were turned down on that specific basis. The question of pre-enlistment condition is
Supply-Veterans Affairs dealt with in section 13, subsection 1 (c) of the act. The principle is that no deduction is ever made in the award because of a preenlistment condition where there has been service in a theatre of war, unless prior to enlistment the condition was obvious or recorded on medical examination.
The meaning of the words "recorded on medical examination" appears in section 2, subsection (u) of the Pension Act. That is a definition that was inserted in 1948 at the suggestion of the members of the veterans affairs committee. In order to understand this section properly, one should read the definition of the words "recorded on medical examination prior to enlistment". Subsection (u) reads as follows:
(u)	"recorded on medical examination prior to enlistment'' includes recorded symptoms or findings in,
(i)	medical proceedings for enlistment,
(ii)	official documentation covering any former period of service,
(iii)	the files of the department,
(iv)	compensation board or insurance company records, and
(v)	the records of a hospital, private physician or other medical authority,
where such record refers to the injury or disease resulting in the disability in respect of which the application for pension is made;
As my hon. friend says, this covers considerable ground. It is quite true that some members of the forces-I understand that this occurred more often during the first war than during the second war-were accepted as being in good physical condition and after being discharged from the service developed certain conditions for which a claim for pension was made. When the commission goes back into the army records, it might be found that a man had been hospitalized in 1942 or 1943 for a certain condition. Then going back into hospital records, they might find that, on being questioned as to his medical history upon entering hospital, he had said that when 10 or 15 years of age he had been hospitalized for a certain condition. The commission might get in touch with the doctor who had looked after him at that particular time. The man might not be familiar with what had happened, but when the doctor was contacted it might be discovered that the condition for which the man was claiming was pre-enlistment. This information would not be withheld wilfully by the man when enlisting, as he might not be aware of this condition, but the commission would find that as part of his medical record, and under the statute it could do nothing but take it into consideration.


Ernest George Hansell: Is the examination covered by the section to which the minister has referred the examination given on enlistment, or is that the examination given after
5922	HOUSE OF
Supply-Veterans Affairs it is discovered that something is wrong with the man? I cannot quite understand how that section could apply to an enlistment. A man might get a clean bill of health upon enlistment. As the minister has said, this is a pretty definite section. If the medical examiners followed the provisions of that section they would surely find that something was wrong.


Hugues Lapointe: 1 can assure my hon. friend that if the examinations made prior to enlistment were as thorough as we would like to believe they were, the commission would be saved a lot of trouble. The medical examination referred to is the one prior to enlistment. The man is examined before enlistment and is not enlisted until that examination has been held. As I mentioned, the definition in the act permits the commission to examine any medical records relating to the period before enlistment. If the commission does find evidence of a medical character which is related to the condition for which the man is applying for pension, then the commission is obliged to take that into consideration in rendering its decision.


Erhart Regier: Further to what the hon. member for Macleod has said, I should like to pursue this matter a little. I have in my hands the particulars of a case where a man claims that upon enlistment he was found to be in category A. After enlistment he was re-examined four times and always found to be in category A. The man enlisted on May 19, 1941, and left the service on June 3, 1942. He was discharged at that time for medical reasons but was denied full pension benefits because it was claimed that the medical reasons for his discharge had existed prior to enlistment.
I find this a little hard to swallow. We are willing to send a man over the hill, as it were, upon the basis of one medical examination, provided he is declared to be in category A. If we are willing to risk a man's life on the basis of one physical examination he should receive the proper consideration. Former students of mine lost their lives after having had only one medical examination, yet here is a case where a man was declared five times to be in category A.
I notice that in replying to the hon. member for Macleod the minister qualified his statement by saying that a pension decision was partly dependent upon where the service had been. I think that is a most despicable arrangement if such an arrangement exists. Once a man volunteers his life on behalf of the nation he should receive equal treatment regardless of the disposition that is made of that man by the armed forces.


I should like to read from the report of the pensions advocate concerning this man, as follows:
Service documents record treatment for the above noted condition during service. During treatment he stated he had had many colds in his head and pleurisy at eight or nine years of age.
May I just interrupt here. I wonder if this man had asked for exemption from military service on the basis of having had this condition when eight or nine years of age how far he would have got. He would not have got to first base, especially after having five medical examinations which listed him as being in category A. I continue:
According to specialist's report, on 14-4-42, man gave a history that he saw Dr. Campbell Brown in Vernon, B.C., because of frequent colds in chest with cough. On the record this condition existed pre-enlistment with some aggravation during service, but there is no evidence to show that such aggravation arose out of or was directly connected with military service.
I must interrupt to say again that this man was found to be in category A in five examinations. I continue with the report:
The commission rules chronic bronchitis and bronchiectasis pre-enlistment condition, aggravated during service in Canada but not pensionable under section 11 (2) as the aggravation did not arise out of nor was it directly connected with military service.
I feel the minister must agree that this is a most niggardly attitude to take when we are willing to shove men over the hill upon the basis of one report which lists them in category A; yet when after five listings in A category these men are thrown out of the service, even against their will, and declared medically unfit and they apply for a pension, we say, "We have now discovered, because of the statement the man made in all honesty at the time of his enlistment, that he had a cold when he was a child, and we therefore find that the disability is of pre-enlistment origin." I think that is disgraceful.


Mr. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: I feel I must rise to join with others who are discussing the situation of veterans who, after entering military service and getting a clean bill of health, then have disabilities and find, perhaps after demobilization or discharge, that they are not eligible for pension. It is not my intention at this time to go fully into the case I have had before the department for some three years, but I feel that since other hon. members have spoken on this very issue, I too must make mention of it.
In the case of the veteran of whom I am speaking, he was examined by six specialists of the department on enlistment. He was a first war veteran, having served some three and a half years, and he enlisted for second war service. His category on enlistment for

second war service was Al; he came out P5. He was not demobilized but discharged with the lowest possible category. As I understand it, the terms of the veterans' act are that a veteran is entitled on discharge to be boarded for a medical examination. This man was not boarded for a medical examination, and the determination of his disabilities was not made until 1949. When they were found it was established that he had a heart condition. I have a letter, which is before the department, confirming that he at least feels that his disability was due to service, and the symptoms were those he was boarded for health reasons during his service.
In spite of the fact that many of us bring veterans' cases before the department in which we obtain good consideration and fair and just settlements, it seems to me that in this particular case, where a veteran has served with distinction and has come out with such a low category and there is an establishment of a severe disability, it is up to the pension commission to grant such a veteran some reasonable pension. I want to say to the minister that I intend to fight this case until I get some pension for him that will be in conformity with his service and his disability.
I do not think we can be satisfied with a situation in which a man, having served his country for 10J- years, should be treated in such a way. He was not demobilized but was discharged. As a matter of fact this particular veteran was kept on the staff here in Ottawa for six months after demobilization because the department could not do without his services. To turn him out and to leave the onus of proof on him is completely incompatible with the act, I think, and certainly with simple justice. So I just want to inform the minister that I hope in the near future there will be an easement on the part of the pension commission so the veterans in these cases coming before them will not have the onus of proof put on their shoulders when they cannot establish the exact date when their disabilities occurred. If the veteran has five or six medicals on enlistment, comes out in a P5 category, and is discharged on that account, surely he should be entitled to a decent pension.
So I hope we members of the opposition will not have to get up again and plead with the minister of this department for an easement and an adjustment on behalf of these servicemen. I hope we shall have some justice and that they will receive pensions when they come out with such a low category.


William Gourlay Blair: I remember very well when the clause the minister read to the house was
Supply-Veterans Affairs before the veterans committee, and I think I took some part on the debate on that clause. It was a very difficult thing to decide at that time on account of the medical records that were kept during the first world war. Even with the better records and conditions in the second world war, in so far as medical examinations were concerned, it is still a cause of worry in many cases. We have had two specimen cases described tonight.
There is another clause in the pensions act dealing with the benefit of the doubt. I wonder whether that clause would not apply to the case mentioned by the previous speaker. This states that the onus is not on the man to prove his condition; he is given the benefit of the doubt. I do not know anything about the case cited by the second last speaker, concerning the boy with colds.


Erhart Regier: He should be given the benefit of the doubt.


William Gourlay Blair: It seems to me that it would be flimsy evidence for the board to accept, that at eight years of age he was subject to colds. Surely the man should receive the benefit of the doubt. I do not think any medical man could ascribe a condition where a man of say 21 was passed fit, as this man was four times, as the hon. member said, and then go away back into his childhood days and make a statement, as he made, that at eight years of age he was subject to colds. There must be something more than that. I would be most surprised if such a condition existed, and I would be further surprised if that situation existed, bearing in mind this clause of the act which was very carefully gone over by the veterans committee that wrote the veterans' charter. That committee did the very best it could with the matter of preenlistment disability.
Then there was the second clause brought in some time later, the clause which states that the man must receive the benefit of the doubt. I do not know anything about the case cited concerning the boy who got the colds, but I think the benefit of the doubt clause would apply. I do not see how the commission could arrive at their decision on evidence that the boy got a cold when he was eight years old; it is positively ridiculous.
What concerns me, having had some part in framing the first part of the legislation, is that that should be fitted in with the other clause in the Pension Act known as the benefit of the doubt clause. I think that should be carefully watched. There may be a tendency to go by that benefit of the doubt clause without looking properly into the history of the matter.

Supply-Veterans Affairs


Erhart Regier: Might I assure the hon. member for Lanark that what I read was from the official record, and every word of it was taken from the official record, the report in which it was clearly stated that they accepted the man's statement he had made as to his condition when he was eight or nine years old. This was a man who enlisted in good faith as a result of some of our advertising.


Victor Quelch: I suppose the question of disabilities of pre-enlistment origin has received more consideration by veterans committees in the past than any other single question, and various changes have been made. I recall that when we struck out the words "wilfully concealed" we hoped that would take care of many of the cases that had been disallowed. It has been emphasized time and again in veterans committees that the full benefit of the doubt should be given the veteran. I remember that the last time a change was made we were told that a very careful watch would be kept of all cases, and that if it were found that the amendments to the act were not giving general satisfaction consideration would then be given to further changes.
In view of the fact that the Legion is once again bringing up this question quite strongly, and in view of the cases they put before the committee two years ago, I think it was, it does look as though further consideration should be given to this question.
Personally I do not believe there will ever be general satisfaction until such time as the government recognizes that a soldier's condition as recorded on his medical sheet at the time of enlistment is his true condition, and that therefore any deterioration from that condition should be pensionable.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Soldier Settlement and Veterans' Land Act-
SI 7. To provide for the cost of administration of Veterans' Land Act; soldier settlement and British family settlement, $4,852,880.
Ray Thomas: Mr. Chairman, I believe it
was two years ago that the Minister of Veterans Affairs gave us quite a detailed report on the Veterans' Land Act, at which time he said that payments on loans to veterans under the act were going ahead very well, that there was very little delinquency, and that as a whole the act was working out very well. In view of the general decline in the position of farmers in the west and the decline in farm income over the last two or three years, I wonder whether the minister would give us a report on the condition of the accounts, whether or not there is any increase in delinquency with respect to those accounts, how many of the soldier


settlers are in arrears, and the total amount of arrears. At the same time maybe he would check and let us know how many of the old soldier settler accounts are still outstanding and by how much, and how many have had to give up their land as the result of the debt.


Hugues Lapointe: With regard to my hon.
friend's first question, I can assure him that the collection picture under the Veterans' Land Act continues to be very good indeed. As of July 1, 1956, out of 30,891 full-time farmers and commercial fishermen only 908 were in arrears of over $200, and out of 31,824 small holders settled under the Veterans' Land Act only 40 were in arrears of more than $100. Therefore the collection picture has continued to be very good indeed.
With regard to soldier settlers' accounts which have been subject to debt reduction the picture is as follows. As of October 31, 1948, there were 2,637 active soldier settler accounts with a total debt of $2,842,534.30. As of today there are 69 active accounts left with a total debt of $41,818.26, the average debt being $606.06. Of those 69 accounts 35 have not been adjusted at this date and the remainder are repaying the reduced indebtedness on a time basis.


Erhart Regier: How many accounts are there altogether?


Hugues Lapointe: There are 69 active accounts left. The first figure I gave was the number of active accounts when we started the debt reduction program in 1948. At that time there were 2,637 active accounts. Now there are only 69 left.


Victor Quelch: Can the minister say whether any full-time farmers under the Veterans' Land Act have had to give up their land on account of failure to repay?


Hugues Lapointe: There have been 140 full-time farmers and small holders who have given up their lands because of the impossibility of meeting payments, out of a total of 70,237 settled.


Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo):: There is a matter with regard to V.L.A. small holdings which I should like to take up. I have written to the minister about it in the past. I am speaking now of my own district on Vancouver island, and I refer to the position in which small holders find themselves due to the very rapid expansion of the urban areas of towns such as Nanaimo. At the close of the war quite a number of settlers were settled under the Veterans' Land Act on the outskirts of Nanaimo. Since that time the municipal boundaries have been extended and the provincial government has put a new highway

through one area in which a number of these holdings are situated. In one instance I know that the provincial government in putting the new highway through expropriated part of the V.L.A. holding of one man, rendering it of no great value for the purpose for which it was originally intended, but as a matter of fact adding value to it for another purpose which would have been, if he had been able, to subdivide the property and sell it. He could have done very well out of it.
In another case I know of the man has no ambition at all to do that with his property, but he would like to move into the sort of low taxation area in which he had originally been established but which has now become a high taxation area; and with the rapid expansion there the element of taxation is going to be increasingly important. Many of these men are finding themselves on properties that are now assessed so high and taxed so high that they are moved out of the category of the original intent of the V.L.A. small holding.
I wonder whether the minister can tell us what provisions are being made by the department to enable men in such cases to dispose of their property or part of it, or turn it back to the department with a return of what they have invested and the retention of their rights to areas outside. There may have been some change in the administrative practice or the regulations. I should like the minister to tell me if he has had to do anything about these cases.


Hugues Lapointe: Yes, Mr. Chairman. We have had some of these cases, and where it has been possible we have permitted the veteran who was settled to sell his property and we have settled him again on another property m a lower taxation area. That has been done m my hon. friend's part of the country. If the settler has not earned his conditional grant already; that is, if he has not been on his property for 10 years, he cannot do it; of course, if he has been on the property for 10 years he has earned his conditional grant and can obtain title and sell out.
. Mr- Cameron (Nanaimo): Is it not true that if they sell they must be able to find a cash customer?


Arthur-Joseph Lapointe: That is correct; they must find a cash customer. But if the property has really increased in value and is in an area where because of this increase in value, the taxation rate has become too high, our experience has been that the settler does not meet great difficulty in finding someone who will pay cash for the property.


Colin Cameron: I do not know that I agree with the minister, because the 67509-376
Supply-Veterans Affairs very fact that it has increased in value in many instances makes it more difficult to find a cash customer, whereas there are opportunities to sell it on terms.


Arthur-Joseph Lapointe: As a rule the purchaser can finance. He will pay cash and, of course, he will have to finance with a mortgage of his own afterwards. That is easily arranged.


Erhart Regier: I am very pleased indeed to hear from the minister that the veterans are the most reliable credit customers we have in Canada. I think he would agree that in relation to the vast number concerned, almost all of them are meeting their commitments on the due dates. I believe he mentioned some 40 or so out of 31,000 who were in arrears. I think that is something really worthy of note in Canada and even in Canadian credit circles.
I also noticed that in reply to the hon. member for Acadia he mentioned that even today there were some veterans of the first world war who were owing money on their properties. I think 99-9 per cent of the people of Canada would be most happy to see the minister this year, not next year, introduce a bill into this House of Commons that would wipe out this balance owing by these senior citizens and senior veterans of our country. However, my main reason for rising at this time is to ask the minister whether any consideration has been given to raising the amount of the loan that it is permissible to be granted to the veterans of the recent world war on the purchase of small holdings.
In my riding the cost of small holdings consists mainly of the cost of the home. Whereas several years ago $8,400 may have supplied the veteran with an adequate home, that is not the situation today. I might at this time pay my compliments to the civil servants in this branch of the minister's department. I think many of the finest homes were built by veterans at that time for that money. However, has any consideration been given to the greatly increased cost of the land and also of the buildings since that time? I hate to see these two by four buildings going up. For $8,400 nowadays in my riding you cannot put up a home that is worthy of erection, one that will be a credit to Canada and that will be in line with what the veteran deserves. It costs us at least $10 a square foot to put up even the most modest of homes. I feel that we have had enough of these small homes built in Canada. Most of these veterans' families have now reached an age where they need larger homes.
I am wondering whether any consideration has been given, during the last year or so,
5926	HOUSE OF
Supply-Veterans Affairs to raising this ceiling from $8,400 to, say, $12,000, $13,000 or $14,000? If a veteran wants to take advantage of the veterans' legislation I see no reason why he should be obliged to build an $8,000 home when other Canadian citizens, taking advantage of the provisions of the National Housing Act guaranteed loans, can move into $13,000, $14,000 and $15,000 homes. Has any consideration been given to raising the ceiling?


Hugues Lapointe: The ceiling was raised last year when the act was amended, and part III was introduced to permit an additional loan which brought the figure to what my hon. friend has mentioned. That was done last session.


Erhart Regier: Might I ask the minister this question. Does that apply to the veteran in the urban areas? Is he now able to obtain a $12,000 loan for the building of a home?


Hugues Lapointe: I do not know where my hon. friend gets the figure of $12,000. There is no such figure under the Veterans' Land Act, either for full-time farming or for small holdings.


Erhart Regier: May I ask the minister what the ceiling now is for an urban veteran with respect to building a home?


Hugues Lapointe: If he builds under part I of the act, which has to do with settling on a small holding, and if he takes advantage of part III which was brought in last year and which gives him an additional loan, the amount is $8,100 all told. If he takes advantage of part II of the act, which was also introduced last year and which is to permit a veteran contractor to build his own house and finance through the facilities of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the revolving fund which we hold, he must provide himself with a lot valued at $800 or more and then he can get up to $8,000 in the way of assistance.


Erhart Regier: In that case I was in error only on the wrong side of the fence. The maximum that the veteran can obtain apparently is $8,100. I must again emphasize the fact that in an urban area in British Columbia $8,100 is most inadequate and is most out of line with present day building costs, even though the lot were given to the veteran.
I feel it is high time that the veteran was able to take advantage of the veterans' legislation. In the lower mainland of British Columbia we have thousands of veterans who are buying N.H.A. guaranteed homes simply because they find themselves unable to build homes that meet their needs under the veterans' legislation. I feel that all veterans


should receive some help out of this legislation, and that it should not be limited only to the rural veteran who wants to buy a farm.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
DEPARTMENT OF NORTHERN AFFAIRS AND NATIONAL RESOURCES 209. Departmental administration, $510,190.
Hon. Jean Lesage (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Chairman, the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources includes five branches that deal with widely divergent subjects. The national parks branch administers the national parks of Canada, the national historic parks and historic sites, the Canadian wildlife service and the national museum. The water resources branch is responsible for the federal aspects of water resource questions in Canada. The northern administration and lands branch handles the administration of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory in all its aspects. It is responsible for the administration of Eskimo affairs and also for a great many land problems including the natural resources of the two territories. The forestry branch deals with forest research, forest products research, and forestry management, including agreements with the provinces on forest inventories and reforestation. The Canadian government travel bureau deals with travel promotion and the tourist industry in so far as they are of concern to the federal government.
With this great variety of operations I do not think it would be desirable for me to try to give a comprehensive survey of the work of the department in detail at this time. Such a survey was given when the estimates of my department were before the committee on estimates during last session, and many hon. members will be familiar with the discussion at that time. In all the circumstances I think it may be more satisfactory to deal with a few of the highlights of departmental operations as reflected in the estimates for the coming year. I would wish also to outline in some detail the policy of the department with regard to national parks. When each individual branch is under consideration I shall, of course, be very happy to deal in detail with particular aspects of the work in which any hon. members might be interested.
A principal point of interest in the estimates of any department is always the extent of and the reasons for any major changes from the preceding year. For 1956-57 the estimates of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources show an increase of $5,918,662 in the main estimates, plus an additional $3,084,078 in the supplementary

estimates. This makes a total increase of $9,002,740. The increase, as a percentage of the estimates for 1955-56 is quite substantial, approximately 30 per cent. It is my hope that the house will feel that this increase is entirely justified, in fact I would venture to say more than justified, because of the reasons that lie behind the increases where they occur. The actual increases are in fact concentrated in a very few major aspects of operation, and these aspects reflect the places in which the government feels that substantial increases in activity are necessary.
The largest single increase is in the appropriation for the construction of trunk highways and bridges in the national parks. This increase amounts to $4,687,450, including the main and supplementary estimates. There are over 500 miles of main highways in the various national parks. This does not include those portions of the trans-Canada highway that are in the parks, nor does it include minor roads and trails.
These main highways include such important roads as the Banff-Jasper highway; the Banff-Windermere highway; the highways north and south through Prince Albert national park and Riding Mountain national park; the highway connecting with the provincial highways in Fundy national park; the Cabot trail in Cape Breton Highlands national park; and the Ocean View highway in Prince Edward Island national park.
The traffic on these roads has been increasing very markedly in the last few years. The extent and rate of the increase in traffic has now gone far beyond the standards to which most of these highways were built. In virtually all cases extensive or complete reconstruction is becoming necessary. I might also mention that we have found, particularly in the mountain parks, that it is very poor economy to build roads that are below the standard that is required for the wear and tear that the traffic imposes on them. The government, accordingly, has approved a six-year program for the reconstruction of the major park roads.
The total program over the six years will, it is presently estimated, amount to over $60 million. The increase in 1956-57 represents the first instalment of this new program. It includes major construction activity on the Banff-Windermere highway; the Banff-Jasper highway, the Cabot trail, and the Ocean View highway. The program in succeeding years will, on the average, be somewhat greater than the level indicated in this year's estimates.
Other capital items in the parks constitute an increase of $849,118. Accordingly, of
67509-376i
Supply-Northern Affairs the total departmental increase I have mentioned, no less than $5,529,568 is made up by construction and other capital items in the national parks.
The next largest item of increase also reflects an expansion of activity as a result of decisions of policy. This increase is in capital items in the north. One of the major requirements in the Northwest Territories is to provide the kind of educational facilities that will equip the Indian and Eskimo children there for the change that is now taking place at an increasingly rapid rate from their native hunting and trapping economy to an economy based on our way of life. This is not a change, at least in the rate it is taking place, that has been particularly sought or worked for at this time. I dealt in more detail with this matter in the statement on education policy that I made before the committee on estimates last year and I do not propose, Mr. Chairman, to go into it at length now.
I might say, however, that the present change is a change that is inevitable because of two interrelated forces. One is the very great increase in economic, defence and other activity in the north that is bringing our way of life inevitably into contact with the native way of life. The other is the fact that the hunting and trapping economy is rapidly becoming less capable of supporting the increasing population. Unless a very serious human problem is to be faced in a few years, extensive education and training of the native people to face a new form of life is urgently required. The largest single increase in northern administration is to provide educational facilities, housing and related administrative facilities in the Northwest Territories. It amounts to $1,821,565, of which educational facilities alone form by far the largest part.
The other substantial aspect of increase in northern administration reflects the policy of the government to stimulate and encourage economic development in the north. The increase for the construction of roads and bridges amounts to $441,830. The increase in funds provided for the construction of the new Aklavik as a centre for administration, education, and welfare in the far north amounts to $1,013,650. These three capital figures are subject to an adjustment downward of $1 million, which was the original estimate of likely short-fall in northern operations, and which has been partly restored in the supplementary estimates. The net result is that the increase of a capital character in our northern administration amounts in total, including the main and supplementary estimates, to $2,277,045.
As hon. members will see from what I have said, the total departmental increase is made
5928	HOUSE OF
Supply-Northern Affairs up to the extent of $7,806,613 by capital items in the national parks and the two northern territories.
The other substantial increase in the departmental appropriations again reflects a capital item. For a number of years the government has been providing an annual grant to the pulp and paper research institute to assist in the financing of research that is of value to this very important part of the Canadian forest industry. As was announced some months ago, it has now been agreed with the institute that it would be preferable for the government to provide a building of the most modern and efficient character in which research can be carried on and to discontinue the annual grants. There is, therefore, in the estimates an amount of $1,075,000 for a new laboratory to be constructed in Montreal. The total costs of the lab with equipment, to be financed by the federal government, will amount to $2,250,000 over a two-year period.
I think the above summary sets forth virtually all the substantial increases in the appropriations that are now being sought. The capital figures I have mentioned account for increases of $8,881,613. There are minor increases and some decreases in other places which bring the total departmental increase to the figure I gave at the beginning of my remarks, $9,002,740.
There is one other highlight of departmental activity that I should like to mention. As hon. members are aware, water problems have for some time been of concern in the province of Manitoba. As a result of discussions with Premier Campbell, I signed an agreement with him on July 5 for the establishment of a lakes Winnipeg and Manitoba

board. The board will consist of representatives of the province and of the federal government, and its duties will be to-and I quote from the agreement-
. . . plan, supervise and carry out a study of lakes Winnipeg and Manitoba and the resources of water within Manitoba flowing into and from those lakes.
It is to report on:
. . . what further developments and controls of these water resources in its judgment would appear to be physically practicable with particular reference to (a) flood control; and (b) hydroelectric power.
The federal government and the province are sharing equally in the cost of the survey and report.
Mr. Chairman, as I said at the beginning of my remarks I had intended to go on for some time in outlining the policy of the department regarding national parks, but since it is two minutes before ten o'clock I might call it ten o'clock at this time.
Item stands.
Progress reported.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, we are going to take agriculture tomorrow.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Is the minister in a position to announce the program for Monday and Tuesday?


Walter Edward Harris: I thought I had it settled earlier today, sir, but I received indications late this afternoon that it might not be possible to follow the plans we had in mind.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

[Stage Direction]
The following answers, deposited with the Clerk of the house, are printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:

Mr. Wylie: 1. What is the total amount of principal and interest outstanding on the old dominion-provincial
Federal liens
Principal
Manitoba	 Nil
Saskatchewan	 $202,668.17
Alberta	 36,680.67
Questions
seed grain liens in each of the following provinces: Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba?
2. What is the amount of principal and interest, by provinces, that has been collected from November 1, 1935, to the present?
Answer by: Hon. Jean Lesage (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):
1. The amounts of principal and interest
outstanding on June 29, 1956, are as follows: Interest	Total
Nil

Nil

Total	 $239,348.84	$492,480.14
Federal share of joint provincial and federal liens
Manitoba	
Nil	NilSaskatchewan	
$263,980.96	$497,083.67Alberta	
94,647.21	167,512.08

Nil

Total
358,628.17
$664,595.75	$1,023,223.92
2. The following amounts of principal and interest collected from November 1, 1935, to June 29, 1956, are as follows:
Federal liens	Principal	Interest	TotalManitoba	
Nil	Nil	NilSaskatchewan	
$541,555.83	$249,581.26	$791,137.09Alberta	
108,705.27	37,637.71	146,342.98Total	
$650,261.10	$287,218.97	$937,480.07
Federal share of joint provincial and federal liens
Manitoba	
Nil	Nil	NilSaskatchewan	
$ 47,393.04	$13,798.64	$ 61,191.68Alberta	
63,694.57	11,467.71	75,162.28Total	
$111,087.61	$25,266.35	$136,353.96


LOBSTER CATCH, HALIFAX EAST
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 549[DOT]-Mr. Balcom:
What has been the landed value and weight of the lobster catch in Halifax east, January 1 to July 1, 1956?
Answer by: Hon. James Sinclair (Minister of Fisheries):
The landed value and weight of the lobster catch in Halifax east, January 1 to May 31,* 1956, are as follows: Landed value, $221,700; weight, 5,610 cwt.
* Figures for June are not yet available.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:

[Stage Direction]
498.	Departmental administration, $2,215,472.
499.	District services-administration, $2,821,316.
500.	Veterans' welfare services, $3,155,735.
Treatment services-
501.	Operation of hospitals and administration, $39,347,750.
502.	Medical research and education, $375,000.
503.	Hospital construction, improvements, equipment and acquisition of land, $4,534,825.
504.	Prosthetic services-supply, manufacture and administration, $1,044,899.
505.	Veterans' bureau, $536,714.
506.	War veterans allowance board-administration, $142,554.
507.	Veterans insurance, $70,650.
War veterans allowances and other benefits-
508.	War veterans allowances, $41,192,000.
509.	Assistance fund (war veterans allowances), $650,000
510.	Treatment and other allowances, $2,782,500. Miscellaneous payments-
511.	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
5930	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Supply-Veterans Affairs
Belgium and for Canada's share of the expenditures of the imperial war graves commission, $1,393,713.
512.	Grant to army benevolent fund, $8,000.
513.	Grant to Canadian Legion, $9,000.
Canadian pension commission-
514.	Administration expenses, $2,298,111.
515.	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, $132,769,300.
516.	Gallantry awards-world war 2 and special force, $21,000.
Soldier Settlement and Veterans' Land Act-
517.	To provide for the cost of administration of Veterans' Land Act; soldier settlement and British family settlement, $4,852,880.
518.	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.
519. 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, $250,000.
520. To provide for the payment of grants to Indian veterans settled on Indian reserve lands under section 39 of the Veterans' Land Act, $100,000.
521.	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, $10,000.
522.	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 veteran 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, $12,000.
Terminable services-
523.	Veterans benefits, including assistance and the training of certain pensioners under regulations approved by the governor in council, $1,912,900.
Soldier Settlement and Veterans' Land Act-
536.	To provide for protection of security- soldier settlement, and refunds of surplus to veterans, $9,200.
537.	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, $22,584,000.
Miscellaneous payments-
729.	To provide for the cost of transportation from their homes to London, England, and return of Victoria Cross holders and certain eligible relatives attending the Victoria Cross centenary in June, 1956, and administrative expenses, $85,000.
Terminable services-
730.	To provide for the repayment in such amounts as the Minister of Veterans Affairs determines, not exceeding the whole of an amount equivalent to the compensating adjustment made under subsection (1) of section 13 of the War Service Grants Act or the payment made pursuant to paragraph (c) of subsection (2) of section 12 of the Veterans Rehabilitation Act, where the person who made the compensating adjustment or payment does not receive benefits under the Veterans' Land Act or where, having had financial assistance under that act, he is deemed by the minister on termination of his contract or agreement under that act to have derived thereunder either no benefit or a benefit that is less than the amount of the compensating adjustment or payment made, $190,000.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, July 13, 1956

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Finance if he is now prepared to tell the house definitely whether it is his intention to proceed with or to abandon the proposed 20 per cent tax on advertising matter of certain magazines?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I think I said the last time I mentioned this I would make any announcement that should be made when the resolution was called.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I ask the minister if the resolution will be called this session?


Walter Edward Harris: Certainly.



BANK OF CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Earl Rowe: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance if, in view of the depressing effect on Canadian business of the present credit restrictions placed by the Bank of Canada on Canadian commercial banks, he will review the serious situation with the governor of the Bank of Canada in an effort to restore more normal credit conditions in this country.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, this is one of several questions of this kind that have been addressed to me lately, and I think I have always answered that I expect to make a statement on them when my estimates are reached.



PIPE LINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harry Oliver White: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. My question arises out of a letter from Hon.
Dana Porter to the minister dated May 14 and tabled. Will the province of Ontario continue to participate in the financing of the northern Ontario section of the pipe line?
My second question is this. Did not the Hon. Mr. Porter in that same letter stipulate that construction of the western section must commence not later than July 1 this year?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, the letter from Hon. Dana Porter stated that if the construction of the western side was started on or before July 1 the province would participate in the northern Ontario section. Construction was started well before July 1 and I have every reason to believe it is the intention of the government of Ontario to participate in financing the northern Ontario section.



TRANS-CANADA PIPE LINES    INQUIRY AS TO TABLING OF AGREEMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Daniel Roland Michener: May I
ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether the proposed agreements which were submitted to the house at the time of the northern Ontario pipe-line bill were completed in fact and if they were not or if other agreements have been completed since will the minister make copies available to the house?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, all agreements with Trans-Canada Pipe Lines were completed prior to the 7th of June and all were tabled in the house. There have been no new agreements or anything purporting to be new agreements.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Has the minister received communications from the united automobile workers' union contending that the increasing number of United States-made motor vehicles and parts being imported into Canada is becoming a threat to the livelihood of workers in Canada's automotive and parte

Inquiries of the Ministry industries? If so, what action does the government intend to take to meet the situation?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. gentleman for giving me notice of his question. I have received a number of postcards from individual members of the united automobile workers' union in connection with the importation into Canada of motor vehicles and parts from the United States. The matter is being looked into.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. While I realize, Mr. Speaker, that the minister's estimates are before the house at the present time, nevertheless this question refers to a question asked and answer made on last Monday, July 9, 1956. This is my question. Does the minister recall receiving any representations from the employees of Westminster veterans hospital, London, last October?


Hugues Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, I do not specifically recall receiving representations from the Westminster hospital employees. I did receive representations from the employees of all D.V.A. hospitals at that time.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Solon Earl Low: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. A United Press release today from the United Nations states that "Andrei A. Gromyko told the 12-nation commission that the Kremlin was ready to accept the western proposed manpower levels of 2J million men for the United States, Russia and China, 750,000 for Britain and France and not more than 200,000 for other countries." Will the Prime Minister inform the house whether Canada was a party to this proposal to Russia or if there is any ground for such a statement on Mr. Gromyko's part?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, there was a general statement made which was published and which I think was tabled in the house. It was transmitted to us with a letter from Mr. Bulganin. The matter is being considered and is being dealt with, but I do not

remember that there was any specific number of men with respect to the armed forces for Canada referred to in that communication.


ISRAEL-REASON FOR WITHHOLDING EXPORT PERMIT FOR SABRE AIRCRAFT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs in connection with the matter of an export permit for aircraft to Israel. Has the minister or the government received any communications from the governments of the United Kingdom, the United States and France since he gave evidence before the external affairs committee on April 17, as recorded at page 40, repudiating or in any way altering the statements they had made or indicating that there would be no opposition on their part to the shipment by Canada of such aircraft? Has there been any change since, or have there been any further communications since the minister gave evidence as I stated a moment ago?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I do not recall any communications from the countries in question on this subject since the date mentioned by my hon. friend, but I shall be glad to look into it.


John George Diefenbaker: Since April 17?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I do not recall any such communications.


ATOMIC ENERGY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Has the minister had an opportunity to consider the statement made by the British delegation to the fifth world power conference at Vienna to the effect that developments which have now taken place assure the cost of production of atomic-generated electricity being below the cost of that produced by other fuels?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I am aware that it is the consensus of opinion, including the opinion of our own scientists, that for large-scale power plants electricity can be produced from atomic energy at a lower price than power produced by coal, but I think no one claims atomic power can be produced at a cost lower than an economic hydro development.


The house in committee of supply, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 498. Departmental administration, $2,215,472.


Harry Oliver White: Mr. Chairman,
I listened with a great deal of interest yesterday to the many members who took part in the discussion of the estimates of this department. There is no doubt that all members are interested in the problems of the veterans. It is not my intention to review all that was said yesterday, but there are a few comments that I wish to bring to the minister's attention, and I hope that they will be useful and that good will come out of them.
There is in my constituency one of the finest, if not the finest, veterans' hospitals in Canada. I have watched its growth from the very day when the property was acquired and the original buildings were built at the close of the first world war up until this day. I am acquainted with many of the doctors and members of the staff of the hospital, and I want to pay a word of tribute and praise to the work of the doctors, the nurses and the staff at the hospital. It is understandable that, where there are such a large number of patients in a hospital covering such a wide area, there naturally will be some complaints and perhaps some injustices, but in most cases these complaints are taken care of in a very efficient way, and I think most of the people are well satisfied with the services they are given.
While I am mentioning Westminster hospital I might say that in 1953 I also referred to the old buildings that were erected there at the close of the first world war, and the minister at that time indicated that some new buildings were proposed. Some additions have been made, and I hope the minister will indicate to the house that the rest of the old buildings will very shortly be removed and new buildings erected in their place. I should be glad if he would later indicate such to the house. I should just say, too, that I am glad that the minister and his department have taken into consideration those pensions between 40 per cent and 45 per cent. I think that action will meet with general approval. I think it is advisable to establish a plan or system of periodic reviews of all pensions and pension cases because the conditions of health change from time to time, as we all know. But there are many pensioners who hesitate to ask for a review of their particular case and there are others who do not hesitate. Sometimes there are many worthy cases that do not get the attention to which they are probably entitled.
Supply-Veterans Affairs
I speak for those pensioners who sometimes are denied a pension because their particular illness or complaint is alleged to have been attributable to causes arising before they enlisted or to post-discharge causes. I have in mind one or two of those particular cases in which it is alleged that the disability is so attributable. Yet these men served in the armed forces for several years. They were passed as being A-l, were accepted and were able to discharge their duties overseas. Yet, when they come back it is said that their disability arises because there was some illness prior to their enlistment.
There is no doubt-and this is well known to the department and to everyone here- that the earning capacity of many veterans has been reduced because of war service in one way or another. Some of them were not able to complete their education. Through disabilities some could not carry on their intended life work. The increase in the rate of pension that was granted a short time ago is still inadequate, in my opinion, in view of the inflation and the present cost of living. Also, the ceilings of earnings are too low considering living costs and the pension level.
I would just say that the grant that was given a short time ago certainly could not be considered to be extravagant. I do not think it would even be considered to be liberal.
Back in 1951 and prior to that time I mentioned in this house the suggestion that the pensions-not only those for war service but also old age pensions-should be hooked to the cost of living index. I am still of that opinion. If that were done, if you once establish what is a fair and right pension level, then as the cost of living goes up the pension would go up; and if sometime in the future the cost of living goes down, the pension could also go down. In that way the income from the pension would bear some relation to its purchasing power and there would not always be these questions arising: it being said that the pension is not high enough and that the cost of living has gone up, and then, after two or three years have elapsed, an amendment being introduced with a view to increasing the pension. This suggestion would eliminate all this problem. Also I had in my constituency four V.L.A. small holding areas, one in London township and two or three in Westminster. I am very well acquainted with the officials there, and at this point I should say that I believe they are doing a very fine job. There are very few complaints. While I am doing that, I should also pay tribute to the young veterans who have taken up these holdings. They

Supply-Veterans Affairs have taken great pride in their homes, improved their properties and they are not only taking an interest but taking part in the community in which they live, in the public life of the community through municipal affairs and church affairs. I might say that it was my privilege to have as a guest in Middlesex East the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare, who addressed the veterans there some time ago. I believe that he also was greatly impressed with the community spirit and the work that they are doing.
Now, I come to the question I asked on Monday regarding the five-day 40-hour week for Westminster hospital employees and the employees of veterans hospitals in other parts of the country, who are asking that they be given the same hours of work as the employees of other departmental hospitals. I listened to the minister's explanation, and then I read the translation of his answer to the hon. member for Quebec West. While the minister has not denied to these employees the five-day 40-hour week, I think that regardless of what employment conditions may be in other industries or in other hospitals in any particular city, all the employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs should be treated similarly, whether they be in London, Halifax, Calgary or any other place. I believe it has been amply demonstrated that the employees of these hospitals can give efficient and continuous service, day and night, on the five-day 40-hour week. Consequently I am asking the minister to seriously consider the representations that have been made to him here and by the employees association last October. I ask him not to let this session go by without granting equality to all employees of the veterans hospitals across Canada.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I regret, Mr. Chairman, that the government has not seen fit at this session to introduce any legislation to improve the position of the recipients of war veterans allowance. The hon. member for Royal and the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra went into this matter in considerable detail, so I am not going to take the time of the house to give reasons why action along that line should be taken. However, I would say I have never been able to understand why the government was not willing at least to raise the amount of the permissive income. For many years past I have urged, as have others, that the limit on the permissive income should be increased to at least the amount of the income tax exemptions. I would urge the government to bring in legislation at the next session to put that into effect, as well as 
to increase the actual amounts paid to recipients of war veterans allowances.
There is another matter on which perhaps I can get some information from the minister when we come to the details, but I should like to mention it at this time. I refer to the amounts paid by veterans who are not receiving disability pensions for medical attention and hospitalization. A resolution was passed by Calgary branch No. 1, my own branch of the Canadian Legion, in regard to this matter which reads as follows:
Free medical treatment for all veterans over 55 years of age with meritorious service with annual incomes in the case of single men of less than $1,800 and in the case of married men of less than $3,500.
The amount charged veterans who are not entitled to hospitalization has been increased I believe twice in the last few years, and is now in the neighbourhood of $14 per day. A married man with an income of less than $3,500 or a single man with an income of less than $1,800 finds it most difficult to pay that amount, especially when they are over 55 years of age. I should mention that they would not have to pay the full $14 per day as the amount is reduced according to income received. I submit that veterans in those income tax brackets should be given the benefits of hospitalization without payment. I should like the minister to say something about this matter of hospitalization and take under advisement the question of liberalizing the hospitalization policy in order to protect older veterans on comparatively small incomes.
I should like next to say something about the work of the imperial war graves commission. I had the opportunity last summer of seeing Canadian war cemeteries in northwestern Europe and Italy where Canadians who fought in both world wars are buried. I think I can say that without doubt they constitute the finest group of cemeteries to be found anywhere in the world. The care which they are given and the architecture which has been used to fit them into their backgrounds are of an extremely high order. I wish that every person who has a relative buried in one of those cemeteries had the opportunity to go to see it. I am glad that a grant is given to the imperial war graves commission under this department and I should like to take advantage of this opportunity to commend them upon the work they have done in maintaining the graves of our men who are buried overseas.
There is one other matter I should like to take up at this time, the question of compensation to members of the non-permanent militia, and to some extent the members of the permanent forces, when accidents occur which disable them or which result in death.

I bring this up particularly because of a case which occurred in Calgary last year. In outlining this case and referring to some of the difficulties that exist with regard to the legislation I want to make it quite clear that I am in no way reflecting upon the members of the pension commission. The chairman of the pension commission has done an outstanding job and I think he and the other members have carried on their activities with a very high sense of duty. The difficulty concerning cases of this sort, I think, primarily lies in the way the legislation reads and I think an amendment to the legislation in this regard is long overdue. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre mentioned the matter briefly yesterday and referred to the section of the act which deals with pensions to people who come under this classification. He indicated there had been considerable discussion of the matter when the estimates of this department were before the estimates committee last year but that no action had been taken concerning it. I would hope that some definite action would be taken in the near future.
The particular case I wish to give as an illustration of what happens concerns a squadron sergeant major in the South Alberta Light Horse. This man had a good record; he served overseas for five years and was awarded the military medal and he served six years in the militia. The unit is quite widely spread with one detachment at Strathmore some 40 miles from Calgary. They were in Calgary having an Armistice day celebration parade and so forth. The commanding officer of the unit got permission from western command headquarters in Edmonton to send a detachment down to take part in this anniversary day service and parade. Apparently the military transport in the form of a bus or busses had not arrived when the men gathered at the armoury in Calgary. They received a message to the effect that the bus had broken down or had been delayed in some way. The 2/IC of the regiment who was present told the men to take their own private cars. There happened to be a sufficient number of the men who had private cars to provide transportation for all of them, the presumption being that these men would eventually be reimbursed for their gasoline and expenses. In any event they proceeded to Strathmore and on the way back this particular sergeant major and another man were killed in the automobile which was driven by the other man. There was apparently no question of guilt or negligence so far as the driver was concerned and the widow of the
Supply-Veterans Affairs sergeant major was not able to take action against the driver or his estate as the result of the death of her husband.
She applied for the pension and her application was turned down at the first hearing. The decision of the commission was as follows:
Death incurred during military service in peacetime, but not pensionable under section 13 (2) as on the evidence presently available there is nothing to indicate death arose out of or was directly connected with such service.
A second hearing was held in this case and again her application was denied. I do not know whether it will be appealed but I presume it will be. The decision arises because section 13 (2) as it reads and has been interpreted makes it obligatory on the part of the person requesting the pension to prove in a case of this sort that the man was riding in a military vehicle, as I understand it, or a vehicle which had definitely been taken on strength for the time being and for which the man was being paid a mileage allowance.
In this particular case the man was on military duty and it happened through circumstances beyond his control that the military transportation did not turn up. The men were authorized by the senior officer there to use their private cars and it was in those circumstances that this man was killed. His widow's pension was denied but she would have received it if he had been killed in the military bus. It seems to me the interpretation of the act is much too narrow. The act is drawn in such a way as to cause an injustice of this sort.
I would ask the minister and the pensions commission to take this particular case under consideration again. It seems to me it might be possible by ministerial direction or by order in council that something could be done without its being necessary to change the act. I realize there probably is not time during this session to change the act but I think it would be possible by the means I have indicated to give direction to the commission to interpret this particular clause more liberally than is the case now; in other words, to interpret it in the spirit it was conceived to have when it was passed by this House of Commons. I am certain there was never any intention on the part of parliament that the widow of a man who was killed on military duty should be denied a pension because of an accident of the type I have mentioned where a military vehicle was not supplied although it was supposed to have been supplied and a private vehicle was authorized instead.
The same sort of thing applies to some extent to permanent force personnel. I was
5892	HOUSE OF
Supply-Veterans Affairs interested in a case which had an unfavourable first and second hearing and I believe was eventually settled satisfactorily on appeal. This case involved a man who was killed overseas. Only with great difficulty was it established that he was on military duty and his widow was able to get a pension. This occurred some two or three years ago. Eventually she was able to establish the fact and was granted a pension. The circumstances were much the same as in the previous case I mentioned except that in this instance a military jeep was used. There was some difficulty in establishing that the trip it was on had been properly authorized and that the man was properly on duty, as I recall the circumstances. In any event, however, it was finally settled satisfactorily.
It seems to me that in the cases I have mentioned a little more attention should be paid to the spirit of the legislation. If this were done I believe the first case could be settled in a way that would be satisfactory to the widow and other dependents of this soldier. I certainly hope the minister will give some personal attention to this matter and will see what can be done without its being necessary to change the legislation; as I indicated before, it is perhaps too late in the session for that to be done.


Owen Lewis Jones: First of all, Mr. Chairman, I would like to compliment the minister on the keen interest he has shown in the affairs of veterans especially during the last two or three years. I wish to thank him personally for the courtesy he has always shown me when I have brought personal cases to his attention-and this applies also to his staff in general.
I suppose I should compliment the staff because they carry out the letter of the law, but at the same time I also complain that the letter of the law is predominant in the administration of the veterans legislation and I think the spirit of the law and not the legal interpretation should prevail. It is on that subject that I wish to say a few words at this time.
In order to overcome the difficulty I have mentioned it seems to me a little more leeway should be given to the local administrators, those people who know the local problems and the persons involved. They are far more conversant with the individual cases and are better equipped to find solutions to the various problems than is someone in Ottawa or possibly in Vancouver or Calgary. I think that if a little more power were given to them to interpret the law according to the spirit of the act, many of the problems about which we are now worrying would be solved.
[Mr. Harkness.l

In many instances cases which are recommended to be dealt with in a certain way by local officials who know the circumstances have been turned down by senior administrators who have given a narrow interpretation to the wording of the act. The justice of the case did not enter into it, the morality of the case did not enter into it, the spirit of the case did not enter into it; there was simply a pure, logical reasoning as to the legality of the act.
I was a member of the veterans committee when it sat and I know the attention that was given to any question that came up. I know the feeling of all hon. members that the veteran should be given the benefit of any doubt, yet in practice this is not always done. I could outline the details quite quickly, but I shall not do so at this time. This is my main reason for advocating the setting up of a permanent veterans committee. I think it would be a far more important committee than many of those that now go on year after year, sometimes going through a session without meeting. Such a committee would carry out most important functions of great value to the minister and to the veterans.
Without such a committee we are in danger of gradually building up a legal bureaucracy, a group without a heart, a legal entity ready to carry out only, the letter of the law. If we had a veterans committee dealing with cases, that atmosphere would be changed when a veteran had to appear before a board or other group. I am sure that neither parliament nor the people of Canada wish this condition to continue.
It is true that we have made progress equal to that made in any other country, but there are many problems still unsolved affecting the veteran. I would mention those veterans who served in England during the first world war. Their number is getting smaller each year but they are still denied the right of pension. The hon. member for Kootenay West referred yesterday to two men who had joined up and who served as clerks, one in England and one in France. The one man is receiving a pension while the other is denied a pension. Such discrepancies should be removed and all veterans treated on a fair basis.
I still think that we should make the permissive income under the War Veterans Allowance Act more in keeping with the cost of living today, and the widows of veterans who have resided in Canada for some years should be recognized as being pensionable. I shall not go into the details of these cases, as the minister knows them better than I do.

Another problem which could be dealt with by a committee sitting year after year is one such as has cropped up recently in British Columbia, and this may be true also of other parts of Canada. British Columbia has recently made a reassessment of properties for school tax purposes. I have here a resolution which I should like to place on the record so the minister may know what I am talking about. It reads:
Whereas the reassessment of property in British Columbia which has recently taken place, grave concern is felt for veterans occupying small holdings under the Veterans Land Act, having their holdings of one acre, reclassified from agricultural into residential districts resulting in an increased assessment of at least double the original amount and a good chance of increased taxes due to present tendency of real estate speculation, which surround the V.L.A. project. This particularly' applies to about 60 veterans located in the BankHead district near Kelowna, B.C. These veterans were rehabilitated on these acre lots with a view of their being able to supplement their earnings, now the reassessment will defeat the government's original intention and following the pattern of the first world war veteran, will force the veteran to vacate his holding as was the case of very many of our older veterans, who had taken up land under the Soldier Settlement Land Act and who were forced to quit, because of economic conditions.
Therefore, be it resolved that this north Okanagan zone request the provincial command to make strong representations to the provincial government protesting the reassessment of V.L.A. small holdings into residential areas and thus enable them to derive the benefit which has been granted to them under the veterans charter.
I appreciate that this is probably a provincial problem, but nevertheless the Department of Veterans Affairs has a responsibility to look after the interests of these veterans. In my opinion the least they can do is to protest to the provincial or municipal authorities this reassessment-in this case it is the province-on the ground that the veteran is entitled to special benefits. These men went on these small holdings with the understanding that benefits would accrue to them as long as they occupied the land.
The hon. member for Calgary North referred to the problem of the man who is killed while technically not on duty. Whether or not a man is on duty, I submit he is still a soldier. One or two cases have occurred recently in my riding. A young fellow who had served three years in Germany took a ride in a civilian car and was killed. This case is similar to the one mentioned by the hon. member for Calgary North. This man leaves a widow and two children and so far they have not received a cent from any department of government. They cannot qualify under this act; they cannot qualify under the army or in any other way that I can find out.
Supply-Veterans Affairs
It seems to me that any man who joins the forces should be granted protection at all times for accident and death in order that the widow and orphans he may leave behind shall be protected. In this case the widow and the two orphans are living on charity. It seems to me that every soldier on joining the forces should be given the protection of an insurance policy to cover everything that may happen, with provision for the payment of at least $20,000 to his widow and family in the event of his death. There is a moral obligation to protect these young men in every way. They are depending entirely upon the army for their income and the welfare of their families should be protected.
We have not met this particular problem. I do not blame the department for this, but I hope the department will co-operate with the Department of National Defence in an effort to find a solution something like that mentioned by the hon. member for Calgary North so that in future we will not be faced with cases of this kind.
Another problem concerns the farmer settler. I am not going to go into detail about this matter because I have already written to the minister and he has kindly promised to look into it. Last year several farmers in the Cawston area of British Columbia suffered severe frost damage to their young orchards. They lost most of their trees which had to be replaced or replanted and they will have to wait for five or six years before they get a crop. It seems to me that the local V. L. A. authorities should be given full power to go into that area to assess the damage and what it would cost the Department of Veterans Affairs to replace these trees in order that these young farmers may be rehabilitated. If that is not done, I am afraid many of them will abandon their farms. They have been there two or three years struggling along and waiting for the time when they would have a crop. That time has now been deferred for another four, five or six years. I hope the minister will pay special attention to this group.
Another problem arises from legal interpretation. This concerns a case of young men who have gone out to work while their farms were coming into production. The case I have in mind is typical of two or three other cases that I know of. This young man was told on his return from service that he had to go on a farm for at least two years to qualify as a full-time farmer. He did so and qualified. He returned to the board, and they accepted his qualifications. On the strength of that, he went and purchased 35 acres of land; I presume it was part fruit and part stock, but whether it is fruit or stock the

Supply-Veterans Affairs same applies: he would have no income for at least three years. With that in mind he thought he would get help and that he would work in his spare time, taking a job outside. As soon as he said he was going to work outside for three years until the farm would support him, he was refused the ordinary assistance under the act. The interpretation in this case, I claim, again was too narrow. True, the board in Vancouver is going to re-hear the case. In this case the local office, who know the man, who know the land and who know the conditions fully approved but somewhere-I call them "armchair farmers" -some administrators decided on the case. No armchair farmer can tell as much as local people what a young man is capable of doing or what the land is capable of producing.
Finally, I would suggest to the minister that the time has now arrived when those veterans of the first world war who are still struggling with the remains of a mortgage should have that mortgage cleared and a clear title given to them. It would not cost too much. I know the policy of taking care of them year after year has been carried out, but many of these people are now getting to an age where it is worrying them. They are too old to stand the strain, and that strain should be removed by giving a clear title to a veteran who has been on his land for 20, 30 or as in some cases, 40 years.


Ernest George Hansell: I should just like to say a word or two on this item and in doing so I think I shall have to follow what others have said in respect to my belief that the veterans' legislation that we have on the statute books of Canada ranks perhaps with some of the best veterans legislation of any country in the world. That has been said before, and I think it will stand repeating. I think we have all had a part in bringing about that legislation. Suggestions have been made in previous veterans affairs committees, and with an efficient staff and an interest in the returned man I think we have accomplished something along that line.
I wish also now to pay my respects to the minister and thank him for very courteously taking up any cases I have presented to him. I recognize that he is confined within the regulations and within the law, but I am happy with the attitude he takes when I present cases to him, passing them on to his officials, doing some little personal investigation and trying to solve those particular cases, if possible.
I have handled a good many veterans' cases over the years, and on the whole there seems to be one general type of case which I do not think is quite fairly treated. This


matter has been mentioned before over and over again, I fancy, and perhaps the veterans affairs committees have wrestled with this problem. That is the problem of the returned man's health at the time of enlistment, when he is given the category of an A1 condition and then, after he applies for a pension because in his mind and perhaps in the minds of many others he has a good case for a pension, somehow or other in the investigation by doctors and other interested officials they go back to a predetermined period and say, "This originates by reason of something that happened before you enlisted."
I think I can say that in most of the cases I have had to take up with the minister in respect to war veterans' pensions that seems to have been the main problem. I cannot let the estimates go by without adding my voice to the voices of others in making this strong plea that, if a veteran is taken into the defence forces and given an A1 category as his condition at the time, then that should remain the category of the veteran, unless of course the veteran at the time of recruitment purposely falsified the record or perhaps evaded certain questions or refused to give the full information. Unless this can be proved, then I think that the condition at enlistment should be regarded as his actual physical condition. If through his war services something happens to him, then I think he is reasonable enough in asking for a pension and should be given it regardless of pre-enlistment condition.
This is not a new thing. The minister knows all about it, and I wish he would make some pronouncement as to why this is so. I have never been able to satisfy myself that a reasonable explanation has ever been given as to why they should search into preenlistment causes when at the time of enlistment the man was given a clean bill of health. The recruiting officials seem to take the attitude, "We will try to put the man in the army if we can possibly get him through." That may not be so but that is how it seems to me. If he is thoroughly examined according to the regulations of recruitment, then I claim that that examination should be sufficient, unless it is found later, as I said before, that the recruit is purposely falsifying the record or purposely withholding some information. I wish the minister would once again give his pronouncement on that.
There is one other matter: a permanent veterans affairs committee. That has been mentioned before, and I do not wish to take up the time of the house on it now. I am sure our group would agree to having this committee made a permanent committee, and if it is not recognized as a standing committee

it should be set up every year anyway. I cannot see any reason why it should not be because it is not going to cost much money. The committee is run by the House of Commons. Those members who sit on the committee are not paid any extra stipend for that work. Of course a clerk is required and some printing is required, but apart from that it does not cost very much. The small expense is absorbed in the general appropriation that we give for the work of the House of Commons. I think the minister could also comment on that and say just why he thinks it is not reasonable to set up a veterans affairs committee every year.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to repeat any of the arguments that have been advanced but there are one or two matters that I think I should bring to the attention of the committee, especially as no hon. member from Saskatchewan has spoken since these estimates have been before the committee. So far as the province of Saskatchewan is concerned, the records show that 66,614 Saskatchewan residents wore a uniform in either or both wars, 16,002 in world war I, 48,263 in world war II and 2,349 in both wars. I also do so because over the years, too many years for one to be willing to admit, I have been a member of the Canadian Legion in Prince Albert and I wish to place before the minister and the committee some of the ideas and suggestions that Saskatchewan branch No. 2 and other branches have brought to my attention.
I want to say at once that so far as the pension commission is concerned my experience has been that Brigadier Melville and those associated with him have given to each individual case that has come within my knowledge and cognizance the very fullest of considerate attention. That is as it should be, for after all the commission should not permit itself to be shackled by a too close interpretation of the letter of the law and by a denial in consequence of the spirit of the law. The only criticisms that one hears from time to time arise out of individual cases. I can think of no better description of the pension commission than the words used by a cadet sergeant named Dwight Eisenhower who contributed an article in 1915 to his West Point class paper which began in this way: "True merit is like a river. The deeper it is the less noise it makes." This organization has not made any noise over the contribution that it has made, but that does not mean that individual cases have not arisen that deserve the serious reconsideration of the board of pension commissioners. Mention was made by the member for Calgary North of the Stanley Hepworth case. I am going to refer to it for a moment because in my 67509-3744
Supply-Veterans Affairs opinion the widow is legally entitled to a pension on behalf of herself and her children. The decision of the commission, as recorded in a letter I have before me, is as follows:
Death incurred during military service in peacetime, but not pensionable under section 13 (2) as on the evidence presently available there is nothing to indicate death arose out of or was directly connected with such service.
I find it difficult to understand the legal basis upon which that conclusion is based. According to this record Hepworth at the time of his death was returning from a parade in a car driven by Sergeant Major Rea. Army transport had been ordered for the purpose of taking personnel to and from the armistice day parade at Strathmore. Certain army transport had not turned up and the second in command of the regiment instructed the personnel to travel by their own transport. It is because of this instruction that Hepworth was riding in a civilian car at the time of his death.
I make this submission. This man had done everything that he was required to do. He had answered the directions of his superior officer and his death followed in consequence of acting on those directions. If that is not a death arising out of or directly connected with service, I do not know the meaning of those terms.


Colin Emerson Bennett: Were the facts properly adduced?


John George Diefenbaker: I am taking these facts
to be the facts. I am submitting them on the basis of the statement before me. If one takes the interpretation on the words of the workmen's compensation act, which the hon. member for Grey North will know so well, injuries arising out of or in the course of employment, even so restricted an interpretation as is given to those words would make it possible, as I see it, for this lady to succeed in any court. However, she has no recourse in the courts. Section 5, subsection 5 of the Pension Act reads as follows:
The commission shall determine any question of interpretation ol this act and the decision of the commission on any such question is final.
I realize that no one wants to extend the pension legislation so that it would become a scramble in the courts, but I believe that in such a case as this consideration should be given to the amendment of the Pension Act so far as interpretation of the law is concerned so that recourse to the courts will be available to any aggrieved person to ascertain in the courts whether or not that person comes within the ambit of the legal definitions provided in the Pension Act. That would not open the whole Pension Act to

Supply-Veterans Affairs the courts. It would simply make available to the courts the interpretation of legal principles, and certainly this government has not been above submitting questions-


Hugues Lapointe: It is not a question of law;
it is a question of facts. In the case the hon. member has referred to it is a question of facts.


John George Diefenbaker: I am taking the facts
on the basis of what has been presented. It is for the minister to say in what particular they are not correct, and I understand that they have not been challenged. There has been correspondence or conversations between the member for Calgary North and the department. From what he has stated as to the facts of the case, I cannot see how the department can deny the claim. When I was interrupted I was about to say that this government has not been above submitting questions of law to the Supreme Court of Canada. There is an important question, one that the Minister of Justice could submit for a general determination as to the meaning of the terms and words of section 5 (5). If that were done, I think this widow would not be denied justice but indeed would receive consideration.


Hugues Lapointe: You are completely wrong and you know it. It is a question of facts and of evidence brought before the commission, and you know it.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, Mr. Chairman, the minister treats this matter so frivolously.


Hugues Lapointe: I do not treat it frivolously.


John George Diefenbaker: He is laughing about it. What is there to laugh about?


Hugues Lapointe: Read the wording of the decision.


John George Diefenbaker: I have read the wording of it.


Hugues Lapointe: It refers to evidence presented before the commission.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister should not become so excited over a case of injustice.


Hugues Lapointe: Who is excited?


John George Diefenbaker: He should not be laughing. I cannot at all understand the minister's attitude at this moment and his laughing, over a serious matter.


Hugues Lapointe: Mr. Chairman, I object.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, you are laughing.


Hugues Lapointe: Mr. Chairman, I have never laughed at any case that is brought before the pension commission with regard to any veteran, I object to having the hon. member
rMr. Diefenbaker.]

make statements as to the manner in which the Pension Act is handled by the commission when he knows that is not exactly what took place.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, Mr. Chairman,-


Hugues Lapointe: My hon. friend knows it. It is not a question of my getting excited. It is a question of sticking to the facts.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not know what my hon. friend is getting excited about. I said that the pension commission has done a good job.


Hugues Lapointe: Butter will not melt in the hon. member's mouth.


John George Diefenbaker: Of course, that is the kind of attitude the minister sometimes adopts. He has adopted it in his other department. Apparently the trouble is-and I had not thought of this until now-that the minister has too many departments.


Arthur-Joseph Lapointe: Stick to veterans affairs.


John George Diefenbaker: He has just now shown that it is one department too many for him.


Hugues Lapointe: You are showing that this is one piece of legislation you know nothing about.


John George Diefenbaker: That is all right. With two departments, possibly it is two too many.
Mr. Chairman, I was submitting a serious argument about the facts and the law.


Hugues Lapointe: Be correct about the facts.


John George Diefenbaker: Just because an order or direction has been given to the contrary, it demands and merits more serious consideration than the minister is apparently giving to this case. I say that on the facts of it. We, as lawyers, know that courts make mistakes and that for that reason there are appeals on questions of law. It was in the course of making that submission that possibly this is indeed the type of case in respect of which there should be a right for the termination of the courts on a question of law that I made the statement I made a moment ago. I have covered that submission in detail. I suggest that a legal interpretation of those words, if the facts as set out by the hon. member for Calgary North are correct, -and he always keeps his argument within the facts-should be obtained. On that basis I submit that serious reconsideration should and must be given to such cases, and in particular to this one.
I come now to one or two representations that have been made. One has to do with the general level of disability pensions today. The minister has been told of this before and I am not going to cover any of the ground

that was covered by the hon. member for Royal and those who followed him. What I believe is this. In view of the devaluation of the dollar or the decrease in the purchasing power of the dollar, if t.he standard of living of pensioners is to be properly maintained, the most serious early attention will have to be given to a general increase in the amount of the pensions. Somebody suggested that possibly some legislative enactment might be made whereby pensions would be attached to the cost of living index. I believe that objective would be rather difficult to attain. However, I believe this. In consequence of a continuing rise in the cost of living and also in the expansion of monetary instability having regard to purchasing power, I believe we can take it for granted that the present level of prices is a plateau from which we will not expect any retrogression in the days ahead. If that be so, then having regard to the purchasing power of money, I believe there will have to come at an early date a reconsideration of the Pension Act in so far as the amount of pension is concerned, to the end that the standards of living of those who served will not be reduced.
I should now like to say a word or two with reference to a matter that has been discussed on previous occasions, namely, war veterans allowances. As the situation is at the present time, the ceiling on income for single veterans is $840 and for married veterans $1,440. I find it hard to understand why the amount should not be increased to the level of that amount which, under the Income Tax Act, becomes exempt from income taxation. This question has been asked the minister before: where is the sense of fairness in this situation? Everyone is entitled to the old age pension, whether it is the Prime Minister who receives it or somebody else. Every citizen in our country is entitled to it at 70 years of age. Why should those in receipt of war veterans allowance find the amount of their old age pensions in effect reduced on the achievement of the age of 70 years? That is something that one hears universally complained about. It is something that is unjust for, by reason of the present ceilings, it places those who served and their dependents in a second-class position with respect to others who did not serve. It brings about a state of affairs that is unfair and unjust and it constitutes a discrimination that cannot be justified. I ask the minister once more-as he has been asked on previous occasions

this question: Why should such a state of affairs be permitted to continue?
I mention also another source of objection to the War Veterans Allowance Act and it
Supply-Veterans Affairs is that those who served in the first war and who did not get beyond England are denied the war veterans allowance. At the present moment I know of at least three who served for a long period of time in England during the first war and who are now in hospitals, who have no source of income and who find themselves faced by a situation that is dire and dark. Why has not the War Veterans Allowance Act been amended so as to provide for payment of war veterans .allowance to those who served in England during the first war? Those who served and did not leave England served as required and were in a position where they were liable to go to the front but, for reasons over which they had no control, were denied that opportunity. Over and over again one receives communications from those who served, who today are aged from 60 to 68 or thereabouts, asking why it is that some change in this connection could not be made to the end that a measure of justice that is denied to them here would be secured.
I am not going to refer to what has been said regarding dependent parents. I would point out that the case for dependent parents does demand consideration. When the Canadian pension rates were revised in 1951 the dependent parents of war veterans received very little consideration or improvement in their position. Although the widow of a war veteran was given an increase from $75 to $100 per month, so far as dependent parents were concerned the amount remained at $75. The Canadian Legionary had this to say about that:
The Legion pointed this out at the time and asked that the dependent parents pensions be increased to $100 for one parent and $125 when both parents are dependent. But the government continues to discriminate against this group of pensioners and, despite continuing representations by the Canadian Legion for an increase, no change in rates has been granted so far.
I am quoting from the April issue of that magazine.
Finally, in connection with war veterans allowances, I bring to the attention of the minister and the committee the representations of one of the other soldier organizations which are as follows:
That in view of the fact that less than 10 per cent of world war II exservice women were given the opportunity to serve in an active theatre of war, and all volunteered for such service, that the War Veterans Allowance Act be amended to read, that world war II exservice women shall be eligible who saw at least 270 days of active service upon reaching the age of 55, who are no longer employable, or below the age of 55 where, due to illness the veteran becomes unemployable-
-provided, however, that in the latter case there should be provisions that the payment
5898	HOUSE OF
Supply-Veterans Affairs should only be made in the event of need. Those are the one or two representations-


Hugues Lapointe: May I ask from what body that resolution comes?


John George Diefenbaker: That was forwarded by the Canadian Corps Association. I am glad the minister asked that. It is dated November 18, 1955.
Summing up, the submissions that I make are as follows:
1.	That having paid as warm a tribute as possible to the commission in their administration, on the question of interpretation of legal qualifications, there is no reason whatever why their decisions should be final. Finality could be the case in their decision on the facts, but on the question of eligibility within the law, my submission is that consideration should be given by the department to the interpretation of legal expressions and qualifications by the courts. I think that could be done simply by the Department of Justice, in a particular case, making a submission to the Supreme Court of Canada for the interpretation of any qualifications under the act which may appear ambiguous or in respect of which there may be two opinions as to the meaning thereof.
2.	That the ceiling on earnings should be materially increased, and that the discrimination against those who served and their dependents, in so far as the application of the old age pension legislation is concerned, should be removed.
3.	In so far as war veterans allowance is concerned, it should be made applicable to that very considerable group of men who today find themselves in a position where they are no longer able to earn their living and with the statute in its present form denying them the opportunity of receiving an allowance because they did not serve in an active theatre in world war I.
4.	Finally, the whole question of the present level of pensions should be reconsidered, for in my opinion we have arrived at a point where the inflationary results on the purchasing power of the dollar will be basic; we are on plateau now and therefore, on the basis of that plateau, those who served are more and more being placed in a position where their standard of living must inevitably be reduced. This whole problem should be brought before a pensions committee of the house, and such a pensions committee, because of the vastness of the problem of veterans administration, should be a standing committee and should be set up at each session rather than a committee which sits from


time to time, and only when the government feels that a committee should review the situation.


Erhart Regier: I understand, Mr. Chairman, that on item 1 of the minister's estimates we are expected more or less to discuss only the general policies of the department rather than individual items. I intend to do that, and therefore my remarks will be very brief.
I regret, as have other members before me, that the minister has to be the Minister of Veterans Affairs and at the same time the Postmaster General. At this time I should like to express my admiration for the minister's ability, as shown at the time the estimates of the Post Office Department were before the estimates committee. He demonstrated a unique ability to grasp, within a short period of time, the many details attached to the office of Postmaster General. I think it was remarkable, considering the way he had this additional burden put on him, that he was able to display such a unique ability to understand the workings of that other department of government, a major department. However, I think it is imposing an undue burden on the minister. No man, no matter how able he may be, is able to administer, in the degree that is expected of him, the department that he now holds as well as another department. I hope the day is not too far away when the Minister of Veterans Affairs will again be only the Minister of Veterans Affairs. I am sure the minister is also looking forward to the day when he can shed his additional responsibilities. However, I hope that the view expressed in this house sometime ago will not be realized. I hope the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration will not be saddled with the Post Office Department. If there is any minister who has shown his inadequacy in this house it has been the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, and the Post Office Department is one of the last departments for which I would like to see him made responsible.
We are not supposed to mention the details of the minister's department at this time and I do not intend to do so. I intend to confine myself to the generalities of his department. When I look at the net earnings of Canadian corporations for the first three months of this year and realize they are in excess of $750 million, and when I look at the estimates of this department and see that the minister is asking for approximately $250 million, I think I can fairly say the needs of the returned men of Canada are very modest indeed. My only regret is that the government is unwilling to grant in their entirety

the requests of the Canadian Legion. After all, these men were willing to sacrifice all in defence of democracy.
The Liberal party was not willing to sacrifice all in defence of democracy. I well remember that when the last war was at its height the C.C.F. party was advocating that we risk all in defence of democracy including not only the lives of these men but also the possessions of the people of Canada. However, the Liberal party saw fit at that time to risk only the lives of Canadian citizens. The time has come for us to pay tribute to those who risked all at that time.
I see that we are prepared to spend 5 per cent of the income of this government in order to help those who were willing to risk all. We are prepared to spend 40 per cent of our income on possible future wars. The Department of National Defence is asking for 40 cents out of our dollar whereas the Department of Veterans Affairs is asking for only 5 cents out of our dollar. I feel the balance is rather out of line, Mr. Chairman. I feel that if we want the Canadian people to be sincere in their effort in any future war-and I hope it will not occur- the relationship of the 5 per cent and 40 per cent will have to be brought into line. The government of Canada and our economy generally can well afford to grant the demands of the Canadian Legion which always have been modest and reasonable.
I can understand some of the hesitancy on the part of the government to grant a larger measure of welfare to our veterans when I think of the attitude of the government to the cause of democracy. These people-most of them at least-were willing to sacrifice their lives for our way of life and for our system of government which is exemplified by the parliament of Canada, and yet the Liberal party has been able to accomplish what Kaiser Wilhelm and Adolf Hitler were unable to accomplish. The Kaiser of Germany went all out to destroy democracy and Adolf Hitler made a supreme effort to rid the world of democracy and yet the Liberal government through actions recently displayed revealed that it was able to accomplish what the Kaiser and Adolf Hitler were unable to accomplish, the destruction of parliamentary democracy in this country.
There were hundreds of thousands of Canadian citizens who were willing to lay down their lives for the sake of parliamentary democracy. May I remind the house that Hitler also had a parliament where the majority ruled, Mussolini had a parliament where the majority ruled and I understand that in Moscow there are approximately 1,600 members in their parliament where the
Supply-Veterans Affairs majority also* rules. We had hundreds of thousands of Canadian citizens who were willing to sacrifice their lives and say they would die if necessary for our own British system of government and yet this government utilized the lives of Canadians in a cause that I have reason to suspect was most insincere. I have reason to think the government was more concerned about the welfare of the profit-making institutions who would make money on war than the lives of Canadians who were willing to die for a cause they thought was the cause of freedom but which has now been decidedly proven to have been the interest of the Liberal party of Canada alone.
I return to the point concerning which I am supposed to speak at this time. In the over-all picture the veterans' interests are insignificant in the eyes of the Liberal party of Canada. The interests of parliament and of democracy are insignificant. The interests of the Liberal party and the so-called overwhelming majority in the House of Commons-although not in the nation as a whole *-have to take second place to the Liberal party itself.


Claude Sartoris Richardson: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. gentleman a question? Is the hon. member prepared to throw away the constitution of the British North America Act including section 49 or has he the courage to go and present a bill to this house amending that section?


Erhart Regier: Mr. Chairman I do not have to throw away the constitution of Canada and the traditions of parliament because the Liberal party has already done that.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Chairman, I want to take a few minutes at this time to speak about the three benevolent funds of the services. It is true there is an item, No. 512, which grants $8,000 to the army benevolent fund, but my remarks are of a rather more general nature and I feel I am more in order in expressing them now than I would be in expressing them on that particular item.
The general public may not realize the need for these various funds and the excellent work they are doing. The general public may perhaps feel that the various pieces of veterans' legislation should cover all cases and therefore that no veteran should be in need of aid from other sources. But of course that is not the case, and in order to illustrate the point I should like to refer briefly to the annual report of the army benevolent fund for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1955, where they give illustrations of cases where benefits have been given to veterans under certain circumstances.

Supply-Veterans Affairs
For example, one case was the training for employment of a widow. In this case the man was killed in a non-pensionable accident leaving a widow and three children. The widow was given a training course in dressmaking which offered possible earnings of $2,400 a year and the children were placed with the widow's sister for day-time care.
Then there was another case where a man signed up for overseas service and assigned $30 monthly to be applied against four finance company loans totalling $1,300. His assigned pay barely covered the interest and as the family had obtained the loans originally to pay medical debts the fund made a grant which together with $200 realized by the serviceman from the sale of radio equipment was sufficient to retire the outstanding loan.
There are many cases of this sort where veterans find themselves in difficulty, where they cannot obtain benefits under any veterans' legislation but where they receive worth while benefits from the benevolent fund of the service in which they serve. I have no general criticism at this time of the army benevolent fund, but I am concerned with the situation that exists with regard to the air force benevolent fund. One objection I have is that although public moneys are paid into that fund, perhaps in an indirect way, it does not seem to be answerable to parliament through any minister that I know of. I do not think that is a reasonable state of affairs. I suppose the minister is going to rise to say that I am not in order in discussing this.


Hugues Lapointe: That was not my purpose in interrupting the hon. gentleman. I simply wanted to point out that the air force benevolent fund has its own incorporation, whereas the army benevolent fund was created by a statute of parliament and by virtue of that statute, is responsible to parliament through the Minister of Veterans Affairs. The department as such has no responsibility in connection with the air force benevolent fund nor in connection with the navy benevolent fund, which was set up in a similar manner.


John Angus MacLean: I want to thank the minister for very succinctly summing up the nub of my complaint. I feel that this is an unsatisfactory state of affairs. I believe that the air force benevolent fund, and I think the same applies to the navy benevolent fund, receives certain benefits from the taxpayers, perhaps in an indirect way. I stand subject to correction, but I believe quarters are provided.


Arthur-Joseph Lapointe: No, not for the air force or navy.
[Mr. MacLean.1


John Angus MacLean: I grant, not by the minister's department.


Hugues Lapointe: It may be possible, but I am not aware of it.


John Angus MacLean: I am under the impression that that is the case. I notice in the annual report of the air force benevolent fund they do not show any expense for headquarters rental, as they do in the case of the outlying areas. Then I notice also that the air force benevolent fund is audited by the Auditor General, even though it comes under the Companies Act.
I feel that there should be a more direct responsibility to the parliament on the part of this fund. I am not saying that because I feel there has been any maladministration on the part of those administering the fund, because I believe they are doing a good job by their own standards, but I do not think their objectives are absolutely correct.
As I said before, the army benevolent fund is in a different situation. As I understand it, the purpose of that fund is to give grants, loans and other benefits to veterans who served in the army during the war. The army has a separate army welfare fund to look after servicemen who are presently serving, while in the case of the air force the one fund looks after both classes of men.
We have a situation where a fund is not responsible directly to parliament, yet is receiving certain benefits from public moneys, even though indirectly. This is something which bears a close relationship to problems which arise in the Department of Veterans Affairs, and I think there should be a closer contact between these two funds. I should like to think that the minister or his parliamentary assistant, who may be more directly interested in this, would look carefully into this situation.
As the minister knows, during the war large sums of money accumulated in the nonpublic funds accounts in messes and canteens of the air force, and toward the end of the war these were turned over to the air force benevolent fund. Contributions continue to be made to that fund from similar sources in the air force. There is a strong feeling growing up among veterans who served in the air force that they do not have the same opportunity of benefiting from the air force benevolent fund as do the men who are presently serving. In the case of a man presently serving there are officers immediately at hand who are well acquainted with the benefits which are available and applications can be made and recommendations sent forward if the case is a good one, and a grant or loan is usually made. The air force veteran

who is now a civilian feels that he is denied the services of such qualified men, that therefore his case is not so well presented, and as a result the benefits which he receives are not in proportion to the contributions which veterans as a group made during the war.
I think the system adopted in the case of the army benevolent fund is a good one. In that case field services are provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs. I would recommend that the minister look carefully into the situation with regard to the air force benevolent fund to see if a similar arrangement could not be made. I think it is most important that it should be made in the case of the air force, because the proportion of men now serving in the air force as compared with those who served during the war is much greater than in the case of the army. Therefore it is more important, not less, that two separate funds should be set up; an air force welfare fund for serving members of that service, and an air force benevolent fund which would apply only to veterans of the air force.
After all, it was the veterans who in the first case contributed through their nonpublic fund accounts very large amounts of money to the benevolent fund. Toward the end of the war they lost complete control of that as individuals. The non-public funds were turned over to the air force benevolent fund, and in most cases canteens, messes and so on had no alternative but to turn over the profits that had accumulated during the war. I know from experience that in many cases messes operated at a higher profit than they would have if they had anticipated what was going to happen.
It may be said that I have just expressed an opinion or that several veterans of the air force, who tend to grouse anyway, are just complaining because they do not feel they are getting a fair break, but I see a paragraph in the eleventh annual report of the Royal Canadian Air Force benevolent fund which substantiates what I have to say. They condemn themselves with their own words, in my way of thinking, in this regard. Please do not misunderstand me. Mr. Chairman. All three benevolent funds, I feel, are serving an excellent purpose and doing a vast amount of good, but there is always room for improvement, and it is on that basis that I make my remarks. In that connection, they say on page 13 of that report:
The majority of R.C.A.F. veterans are established in peacetime careers but a surprisingly large number who have re-enlisted in the regular air force have, on returning from civilian life, required financial assistance. In general the applications examined presented a diversity of problems, mostly the result of sickness or accident, large 67509-375
Supply-Veterans Affairs
families, low income, injudicious use of credit and some unemployment especially in the older groups.
My contention is that if these veterans required attention from the benevolent fund on rejoining the service they required it when they were civilians, and their claims should have been made and considered on their merits. I bring that to the minister's attention because I think it is important. It is something that will probably become worse as the years go by. If justice were to be done, I feel that part of the benefit fund which was accumulated during the war should be disbursed to the benefit of men who served during the war in such a way that the fund would be expended entirely by the time the veterans of that war had disappeared. At the present time there is a strong feeling among veterans that they contributed substantial amounts to this fund which is being held as a continuing investment fund and as a continuing benefit to people who may serve in the air force in the future. To my way of thinking that is not a fair state of affairs. If the fund were divided and an air force welfare fund established, it could be self-sustaining from the profits which accrue to it from the peacetime canteens and other non-public fund profits.
I should think, too, that the annual report of the air force benevolent fund and the navy fund should be more readily available. I was amazed to find that even the library of parliament does not have copies of these reports. I know that the minister has no direct responsibility in this matter, but I think it is something that is worth the attention of the welfare officers of his department.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, before the minister replies I should refer very briefly to the Stanley Hepworth case, which I raised this afternoon and on which the hon. member for Prince Albert also spoke subsequently. I do so because during the course of that discussion some doubt was raised as to the accuracy of the facts I presented; at least that doubt was cast by implication. I should like to assure the committee through you, Mr. Chairman, that I think there is absolutely no doubt in regard to the facts; I have never heard any expressed by anyone. I have discussed this matter with the commanding officer and with other members of the regiment; I have discussed it with a number of other people concerned in the matter, and I think there is absolutely no question in regard to the facts as I presented them.
The difficulty, as I have indicated before, I think is that there is too narrow an interpretation of section 13 (2). I think the difficulty really stems from the fact that during

Supply-Veterans Affairs the war there was undoubtedly a considerable abuse of military transport, in that it was used for personal purposes of all kinds. Those abuses inevitably continued after the war, and therefore the general position taken by the government has been that people who take military transport and use it in an unauthorized way, if they are injured or killed, are not going to be rewarded, as it were, by the grant of pensions and things of that sort. It is too literal and too strong an application of that general idea. I think it causes the difficulties in these motor accident cases.
In every one of these motor accident cases where injury or death has resulted, that I have known about, it has been extremely difficult to get a pension granted. As I say, I think it stems from that position of contempt for military transport, and of not paying pensions unless it can be proved definitely that it was military transport authorized for use, that it was being used for military duty and so on. It was a correction of what I consider this unjust application of these ideas that I was requesting the minister to look into, particularly as far as this case was concerned.


Hugues Lapointe: Mr. Chairman, I wish to assure the hon. member for Calgary North that, in my remarks addressed to the hon. member for Prince Albert, I was not questioning for one minute the accuracy of the facts which he stated to this house, but simply questioning whether those facts had been properly put before the commission.
I should like, at the beginning of my remarks, to thank all hon. members who have participated in this debate on the first item of the estimates of the Department of Veterans Affairs. As is usual and proper, there have been praises for the officials of the department and criticism of the minister and of the policy of the government, and I suppose that is as it should be. However, I might say that I readily accept on behalf of the officials of my department the praises which were expressed of them, because I feel that the veterans' charter is administered and implemented not only with efficiency but in a humanitarian and understanding way. That is done both at headquarters and in the field by officers of the department who are veterans themselves in almost all cases, and I think that might be an explanation of their attitude of mind.
I must say I was particularly glad to hear the hon. member for Cape Breton South emphasize the fact that the department does act, that it does things without any special urging or pressure, because as I said in my opening remarks and have said on other


occasions, it is the aim of the government, and it is certainly the aim of the Department of Veterans Affairs, to keep the veterans' charter constantly under review to ensure that it is always up to date and that it is meeting as much as possible the changing needs of veterans and their dependents.
I do not propose to deal at this stage with all the points that have been raised. I think I can do so better on the specific votes as they are called. I think it will be agreed that most of the points raised by way of criticism are matters that have been discussed before in the house, outside the house and before the special committee on veterans affairs. I think that all hon. members will agree that in many instances it is most difficult to draw the line for qualification for benefits under legislation such as that which comprises the veterans' charter. It is difficult, whether the line be one regarding a means test, or service qualification, or one concerning a time limit. In acts such as the War Veterans Allowance Act, the Pension Act and the Veterans' Land Act, no matter where the line is drawn there will always be borderline ones which just fail to qualify and may in fact well be cases of hardship. I think that is true of all legislation of a social character, what might be termed social legislation. It is one of the difficulties that governments meet, whether at the federal, provincial or municipal level.
Most of the hon. members who have spoken up to now on this item have referred at length to the ceilings on permissible income in the War Veterans Allowance Act. I think in the debate on second reading of the bill amending the War Veterans Allowance Act last session I submitted at quite some length and to the best of my ability the reasoning of the government in fixing the ceilings at their present levels, that is $840 for a single man and $1,440 for a recipient at the married rate. I pointed out, at the time, that if the ceilings had been established at $1,200 single and $2,000 married, the War Veterans Allowance Act could and would, in a number of cases, be a supplement to normal income.
I also pointed out the necessity of keeping all benefits available to veterans in balance, and that when fixing the ceilings under the War Veterans Allowance Act cognizance must be taken of the disability pensioner under the Pension Act. I also pointed out that this had always been done throughout the history of veterans' legislation in this country. The present ceiling of $70 a month for a single recipient is equivalent to slightly more than a 55 per cent disability pension, that is, a pension paid for injury incurred in service,

while the ceiling of $120 a month for a married recipient is equivalent to approximately a 70 per cent pension under the Pension Act.
As I said at that time, if the ceiling on the single rate were raised to $1,200 that would be the equivalent of an 80 per cent disability pension. It would be in fact $25 less a month than a 100 per cent disability pension. A ceiling of $2,000 on permissible income at the married rate would be just $40 a year less than a 100 per cent disability pension at married rate. A 100 per cent disability married pensioner gets $2,040 or $170 a month.
The hon. member for Royal said that a disability pensioner with a small pension or a small superannuation allowance is prejudiced because of these permissible ceilings. I am afraid, Mr. Chairman, that, regardless of where you set the ceiling, a case could be made showing that the ceiling was not fair to certain people. That is what I was pointing out in the earlier part of my remarks when I referred to the difficulties that exist in dealing with such legislation.
For instance, let us say that the ceiling was raised to $1,200 a year for a single man. A war veterans allowance recipient at age 70 would receive $40 by way of old age security payment and $60 war veterans allowance, or the maximum permitted under this $1,200 ceiling. But let us consider the case of a 45 per cent disability pensioner under such circumstances. That the case, for instance, of a man who has lost an eye. I believe that, according to the table of disabilities, the loss of one eye creates a right to a 40 per cent disability pension. Let us say this man is a 45 per cent pensioner, that he has lost one eye and has some gunshot wounds. At age 70 this man would receive $675 under the Pension Act, he would receive $480 under the Old Age Security Act and roughly about $5 a month by way of war veterans allowance, making in all a total of $1,200. I think that this 45 per cent disability pensioner might say, to use the terminology of the hon. member for Royal, that he was prejudiced in that he would be getting very little benefit from his disability pension.
I dealt at much greater length with this question last year and I did note that although hon. members have again made the same representations-I know they do so with the greatest sincerity-no one dealt with the side of the case that I put up last year.
In the course of his remarks one hon. member said this: "It would not cost the government very much more just to raise the ceiling to $1,200 for the single recipient and $2,000 for the married recipient." I wish that were so, Mr. Chairman. However, it 67509-375i
Supply-Veterans Affairs has been estimated-and these estimates are fairly accurate-that to raise the ceiling to those levels, with the present rates being paid, would increase the liability for war veterans allowance which appears in the estimates as $41,192,000 by $13,900,000, which would be, I believe, a little more than a 30 per cent increase in the present liability.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Might I ask the minister a question there?


Hugues Lapointe: Yes.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Would that be in the event that all war veterans were unemployable it would reach that amount?


Hugues Lapointe: No. It would mean present recipients plus additional recipients. As my hon. friend well knows, every time the ceiling is raised on legislation such as this a new group of recipients come in under the act, veterans who were barred from the act because of the existing ceiling and who with a higher ceiling may be permitted to come under the act for part of the allowance. That is the estimate we have. I say these estimates are fairly accurate. The last time we raised the ceilings and the rates, I gave the house an estimate of the increased liability, and I think the experience of the following year showed that our estimate, if anything, had been too conservative.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: My point is this, Mr. Chairman. The war veterans allowance is giver, under two headings, namely to those who are employable and those who are unemployable. I know that while the department have not boasted they have spoken quite eloquently of the casual earnings and so on, and have shown to us that a war veteran who was receiving the benefits of casual earnings receives more than $1,200 a year while the war veteran who is married and receives casual earnings obtains over $2,000. I was wondering whether they were being included in this amount of $13 million which the minister is now quoting. Frankly I may say that I think his estimate is much too high. I do not think the amount would be anywhere near that.


Hugues Lapointe: These estimates are based on the same figures we gave previously, when I told the house what would be the estimated cost of the increase in rates and increase in ceiling which we implemented when we last amended the legislation. I might further add that casual earnings do not come into the picture at all because, as my hon. friend knows, they are exempted. This would be straight income.

Supply-Veterans Affairs


Alfred Johnson Brooks: They would come into the picture in this way-


Hugues Lapointe: Not into this calculation.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: -if a man were earning $600 or $700 a year and asked for war veterans allowance, it would only be the $600 a year that he could receive even though the ceiling were $1,200. That is the point I wish to make.


Hugues Lapointe: I might read briefly what the estimated cost is based on. Taking into account all other income which the present recipients had and the additional amount of allowance that would be paid to them if the ceiling were increased, it is estimated that an additional sum of $9,050,000 per annum would be paid out. It is also estimated that the increase in ceilings would make eligible for allowance 8,260 other veterans at an annual cost of $4,850,000. Thus the total cost of this proposal is estimated to be $13,900,000 per annum.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Does that also include the extra amount that would be paid out in old age pensions?


Arthur-Joseph Lapointe: No, this would be a straight vote for war veterans allowance.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I think it needs checking up again.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It was right the last time.


Hugues Lapointe: My hon. friend says it needs checking up again. May I say that I have noticed one thing, and it is this. Every time I have given estimates they have been challenged. Hon. members opposite always say, "Of course that is exaggerating". However, when we implement the changes those estimates always prove to be either accurate or, if anything, too conservative. I therefore think the hon. member may rely on the figures I have given him.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Why not try being liberal once in a while?


Arthur-Joseph Lapointe: I may say that is about the only occasion on which the department is too conservative.
While speaking on this question of raising the allowance may I say there is one point which seems to be forgotten. It has been admitted by hon. members and certainly by veterans' organizations across the country that the changes which were made last year in the formula used for casual earnings had been of considerable help to the veterans under war veterans allowance, and that the

more generous approach which the department had taken in the handling of this legislation had certainly brought about great benefits. But there is one group, and I think they are the ones to whom our attention should be directed particularly, who constitute what might be described as the difficult cases.
I refer to the war veterans allowance recipient who has absolutely no other source of income; who is totally unemployable; who cannot benefit from casual earnings because he is incapable of doing so; who has no disability pension; who has no superannuation. Regardless of the level to which you raise the ceiling on permissible income I submit that you cannot help this man directly, because he has no other source of income. That is where the assistance fund comes in.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Would there not be one exception, namely the man who is 70 years of age and who would receive old age pension?


Hugues Lapointe: I shall deal with that matter. My hon. friend knows that an unemployable veteran might come in long before he is 60. He might come in under the war veterans allowance if he is totally disabled physically or mentally, and nothing can be done; no matter how high you raise the ceiling, you do not help that man. That is why we created the assistance fund a few years ago.
There is one thing I have noticed, and it is this. Whereas the creation of that fund was discussed at the time, in any representations that are now made to increase the ceilings under the War Veterans Allowance Act, there is no longer any demand that this assistance fund should disappear. All who are familiar with the operation of the act realize the necessity for it.
I think the hon. member for New Westminster mentioned the rigidity of the formula used in granting assistance under this fund. I did refer to that in my opening remarks. Last year we did broaden the formula used to qualify under the fund, and we did follow very closely its operation during the year. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, in my own estimation there are cases in which the formula now is not flexible enough, and it is the intention of the department and the war veterans allowance board to go into this and be able to deal with those individual cases of hardship which remain even with the existence of the fund.
Then, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Royal asked me if the war veterans allowance recipients reaching the age of 70 would not be able to benefit by the full amount of the old age security payment if the ceilings were raised to the levels that have been

suggested. Well, that is quite true. This matter was raised by other members. On other occasions, I have given the government's view on the matter. I know I have been questioned in this house and outside. The tact of the matter is, whether or not one wishes to admit it, that one has to go back some years to the origin of the war veterans allowance to realize just what was behind that legislation. I have said this before the Canadian Legion at their dominion convention, and nobody contradicted me. Nobody has contradicted me so far. I should like, if I may, to quote exactly what I did say at that time, because it explains why certain things that are requested under the War Veterans Allowance Act, in the view of the government cannot be done. These remarks were made in 1954 at Toronto:
War veterans allowances have been based, since their inception in 1930, on the premise that service in a theatre of war preaged a veteran and placed him in a more unfavourable position in the labour market than would have been the case if he had not had such service. Because of this accelerated aging, the allowances were introduced to provide for veterans who needed at age 60, a form of social security not available to their non-veteran contemporaries until they reached the age of 70.
In effect, it was an old age security scheme designed especially to meet conditions peculiar to veterans who had seen combat service.
Now-some of you may object to that assimilation of the war veterans allowance to other social security measures. But the fact remains that a perusal of the debates in the house and the deliberations of the parliamentary committee of 1930 will bear me out on this point.
This being the case, any major changes in the War Veterans Allowance Act-particularly some which have been suggested-cannot help but have serious financial implications in other fields of governmental activities.
Mr. Chairman, that basically is why, when a recipient of war veterans allowance reaches the age of 70, the amount of his allowance is reduced by the amount of the old age security payment he receives. Otherwise, for all practical purposes, he would be receiving the equivalent of two old age pensions coming from two different sources. Unfortunately that is the position and no one has ever denied it. It is impossible to do so if you go back and study the origin of the legislation and the debates that took place at that time.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Does he not receive it now? He is receiving one and a part of the other. He receives both.


Hugues Lapointe: Because the balance of the war veterans allowance within the ceiling is paid to him as assistance on account of his war service. The same reasoning applies to some of the other representations which were made. I do not think it can be ignored.
Supply-Veterans Affairs
There was much said about service in England during the first war being recognized for the purpose-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Before the minister leaves the matter he was just discussing I wonder if he would permit another question. If the minister is going to claim that there is a relationship between the war veterans allowance and the old age pension because of the origin of the war veterans allowance, should the government not now take cognizance of the fact that whereas the old age pension in 1930 had a means test, the old age security pension that is now paid at age 70 has no means test. Does that not make it necessary, if the government is going to draw this parallel, to do something about the means test on the war veterans allowance, which the minister says is the civilian old age pension which the civilian receives at age 70, paid to the veteran at an earlier age?


Hugues Lapointe: I think my hon. friend will admit that if the means test were taken away from the war veterans allowance the result would be that this legislation would become nothing less than pensions legislation for nonservice incurred disability paid to veterans automatically on reaching a certain age. It would amount to that. I have never heard of any organized veterans' body in this country endorsing such a policy.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If the minister is not prepared to take that move, is he fair then in saying that the parallel still exists between the war veterans allowance and the old age pension? My point is that he is correct historically in referring to the parallel in 1930, but surely cognizance has to be taken of the change that has been made with respect to old age pensions. I think the Legion and others who have made representations are being responsible and fair in suggesting as a compromise made necessary by the change not necessarily the removal of the means test from the war veterans allowance but a raising of the ceiling itself.


Hugues Lapointe: There has been a certain amount of compromise, because the ceiling was raised and certainly our regulations concerning casual earnings, farm earnings and earnings from keeping boarders and so on, if my hon. friend is familiar with them, are very generous.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The ceiling was raised, for the single recipient, only by the amount of the increase; the margin was not raised.


Hugues Lapointe: It was raised from $60 to $70.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The allowance was raised from $50 a month to $60 a month, but the margin was not changed from $10 a month.

Supply-Veterans Affairs


Hugues Lapointe: I do not think that comes into it at all.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We think it does.


Hugues Lapointe: This is one case where my hon. friend and I differ in our views. However, to return to what I was saying concerning service in England during the first war, it was suggested that it should be recognized as a qualification for war veterans allowance. I think if we go to the origin of this legislation, Mr. Chairman, we have to recognize that eligibility for war veterans allowance is based on service in an actual theatre of war. I know the hon. member for Royal in the course of his remarks the other day said that it used to be like that but it does not exist any more. I would like him to get together with his colleague the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, because in the course of his remarks concerning war veterans allowance recipients he referred to them as "those fighting front line soldiers".


Alfred Johnson Brooks: That was the original idea. I would like to ask the minister this question in order to see if he and I agree. Is it not true that we give war veterans allowance to men who have dual service, and that a man who only had service in England in the first war and only had service in Canada in the second war without ever being near the front line receives war veterans allowance?


Hugues Lapointe: That is right.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I also referred to the man who was in the back lines in France and never got near the front. That is my argument on behalf of the men who had service in England. I think we have come a long way from the original idea.


Hugues Lapointe: I do not fully agree with the hon. member for Royal, Mr. Chairman, with regard to the dual service veteran. I think the hon. member is as familiar as I am with the history of that particular section of the War Veterans Allowance Act. This change was brought in originally in 1944, and it was an order in council passed under the authority of the War Measures Act. It was known as the "veterans' dual service pension order". The hon. member will recall that, when we sat in the veterans affairs committee in the years that followed the war and were asked to put in statutory form the various orders that had been passed, something had to be done about that particular pension order and it was added to the War Veterans Allowance Act at that time as part III of the act.
Finally when we reviewed and consolidated the act in 1952-my hon. friend sat as a member of that committee-it was decided that rather than have a separate part of the War Veterans Allowance Act to deal with


the dual service pension order, it would be simply included in the act as a section and it became, I think, section 30. These veterans were described in section 30 of the War Veterans Allowance Act.
I say we cannot overlook the fact that the war veterans allowance was originally created and has always been looked upon as legislation designed to deal with the needy veteran who served in an actual theatre of war. It has been said that many of these men stayed in England not because of their own choice. They may have been kept there because they were cn the administrative staff or for some other reason, and mention has been made of the fact that they would have liked to serve in an actual theatre of war. I point out, Mr. Chairman, that is the case with every man who enlists. If service in England during world war I is recognized as a qualification for war veterans allowance I do not see how we could eventually avoid recognizing service in Canada.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: That is not a logical conclusion.


Hugues Lapointe: My hon. friend shakes his
head, but I would point out to him that particularly during the second world war many men stayed in Canada because they were kept here for some reason or another. I would cite, for example, the case of a flying instructor. I know some of them per-sonnally who because they enlisted at the beginning of the war were considered too old to fly, because the air force was pretty choosey concerning age in those days at the beginning of the war. Those men were put on the instruction staff and remained there. They flew in Canada in that capacity throughout the war, and certainly they underwent as great a risk to their lives as anybody who served in England during the first war. If we were to consider preaging and the fact of having undergone hardship being likely to bring about preaging, I know my hon. friend is familiar with some of the training the army, for instance, was put through particularly during the final years of the war. I suggest that at the present time disability pensions are being paid to people who suffered disability on battle drill courses or assault courses where undoubtedly they were put through a very hard type of training.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: They were in the first war,
too.


Hugues Lapointe: I am just mentioning those
cases to illustrate how difficult it would be, if we granted the request that service in England during the first war be recognized, not to include service in Canada, as service in an actual theatre of war.

It was also mentioned that this change would not be very costly. It is estimated that recognizing England as a theatre of war during world war I would cost approximately $7,920,000, which would have to be added to the present cost of war veterans allowance; and of course if this were done and the previous request of some hon. members were granted that the ceilings be raised, this amount would also have to be increased.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: In that connection may I ask
the minister if it is not true that the figure he quoted includes several thousand veterans who arrived in England in 1918, at about the time the war ended, and all the real service they had in England was training in some of the reserve camps?


Hugues Lapointe: I am afraid it would include all service in England; that is right. It is impossible for me to give the figure concerning those who came in at such a date and so on, but I am giving the figure for 1955. It is estimated that the probable number of veterans living in 1955 who had seen service only in England was 52,000. In arriving at this estimate we assumed that the same proportion would apply for war veterans allowance as in the case of other veterans who qualify, and that would be approximately 23 per cent. This refers to world war I, of course.


Gordon Minto Churchill: These figures were given
last year in the committee on estimates, and I quoted them last year when I was speaking. A total of 52,000 served in England, and the official who gave these figures estimated that 11,500 would be eligible for war veterans allowance, or 22 per cent-the minister makes it 23 per cent-with the cost being $9,650,000. I want to point out that on the basis of the total number of survivors of world war I and taking the number drawing war veterans allowance as being 10 per cent, the figure for the United Kingdom would be reduced greatly, and I estimate it would be only $4,200,000.


Hugues Lapointe: My hon. friend is quite an expert on figures and the interpretation of statistics, but I can only give to the committee the views which my officials and the financial members of my staff give to me. Those are based on our past experience with other veterans.
There is another point which was mentioned by some hon. members and to which I should like to refer briefly. This concerns the payment of war veterans allowance to recipients who were living outside of Canada for reasons of health. Last year the hon. member for Kootenay West spoke at some length on this subject and I told him that we
Supply-Veterans Affairs would be looking into these particular cases, which would call for an amendment to the act. Since that time I have had discussions with officials of my department, and I asked them to investigate this situation thoroughly.
I regret to say that, after a great deal of discussion and thought we find it is not feasible to amend section 14 (1) as was suggested. Under the present legislation a recipient may absent himself from Canada for a period of up to three months in any calendar year without affecting the payment of his war veterans allowance, and he may dovetail his stay outside of Canada from one calendar year into another and thus be able to absent himself for six months without having his allowance reduced. However, he can do this only once every two years.
There are serious obstacles to making the suggested change in the legislation, one being the provision of treatment for recipients of war veterans allowance who are living outside of Canada. A great proportion of them need medical treatment from time to time, and this would involve the extension of the provisions of section 12 of the veterans' treatment regulations. It would be most difficult indeed to implement such provisions.
Then there would be the difficulty of arranging for periodical medical examinations of veterans who have not reached the age of 60 years but who are in receipt of war veterans allowance because they are totally unemployable. Such examinations would be most difficult indeed under the circumstances. There would also be the matter of administering the means test in connection with people living outside of Canada. Of course if we followed the suggestion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and eliminated the means test that obstacle would disappear, but I am afraid I cannot agree to that suggestion.
Complicated administrative problems would be created where the wife of a recipient of war veterans allowance did not accompany him when he left Canada but remained in Canada. It would be most difficult to amend this section of the act to permit a war veterans allowance recipient to go outside Canada to only one or two specific countries. During the course of the debate last year reference was made to the veteran who might wish to go to the southern part of the United States or Mexico. If the act were opened up to permit the payment of allowances in other parts of the world, the administrative problems thus created would be most complicated.
The hon. member for Kootenay West mentioned the specific case of a veteran who wanted to go to Mexico. Frankly I do not

Supply-Veterans Affairs know how we could deal administratively with veterans in that country. As I understand it, the facilities for looking after veterans in that country certainly are not such as would meet the necessities created by our act. For that reason we have not found it feasible to agree to this change at this time.
I realize that I have taken longer than I had intended. There are many other matters on which I wish to answer hon. members, but I suggest that possibly it would be more useful to deal with specific items as they come up.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
500. Veterans' welfare services, $3,155,735.
Alfred Johnson Brooks: I should like to ask a question having to do with veterans' preference in the civil service, and I do not know under what item this would come. No doubt the minister has received many complaints from veterans and veterans' organizations that the veterans' preference is not being observed as it should be in the civil service. Whether or not that is correct is not for me to say.
Recently I saw a letter from an officer of the Canadian war disability pensioners association in which he complained that there was apathy with regard to the employment of veterans in the House of Commons, and he then went on to quote specific instances. He mentioned the fact that out of 33 appointments at Kingston penitentiary in recent years only 11 were veterans, and he mentioned also that two recent appointments at Stony Mountain penitentiary were nonveterans.
I should like to ask the minister if there is any check by the Department of Veterans Affairs as to whether veterans are receiving the preference they should in connection with appointments to the civil service. The Department of Veterans Affairs is considered by the veterans to be their champion.


Hugues Lapointe: Veterans' preference in the civil service is statutory, as my hon. friend knows. It is part of the Civil Service Act and, to my knowledge and certainly to the knowledge of my officials, has always been observed. There have been drawn to our notice cases where in advertising for a position in the civil service the usual reference which always appears to the effect that preference would be awarded to veterans with overseas service had been omitted, but in actual fact, when the competition takes place, veterans' preference was observed because it is statutory. That was brought to our attention some time ago, and I think it

has beeen remedied since then. As I understand my hon. friend, he wanted to know whether it was still in force.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I wanted to know whether there was any branch of the department that checked up on the correctness of these complaints that preference was not being given.


Hugues Lapointe: When complaints of that nature are brought to our attention the welfare branch of the department investigates the case to find out whether or not they are accurate.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Have there been any reports of inaccuracies after investigation?


Hugues Lapointe: Yes. The only report from our investigation was what I mentioned before. In some cases, the advertisement did not mention veterans' preference, but it had been applied in the actual competition.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Treatment services-
501. Operation of hospitals and administration, $39,347,750.
Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like the Minister of Veterans Affairs to say something further regarding the matter of the five-day 40 hour week for employees in the hospitals that come under his department. I know that the last two or three times he has been asked questions on this matter on the orders of the day, including the occasion yesterday when I put a question to him, he has contented himself with the reply that he has already dealt with this matter.	I must
assure him, however, that that contentment is something he alone enjoys, for the employees of the hospitals where the five-day 40 hour week is not yet in effect feel that they are the victims of discrimination. In connection with this matter I should like to read to the minister a telegram which, I understand, is similar, if not identical, to telegrams received by all of us-


An hon. Member:: It was already read.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -from the Winnipeg area. This one is addressed to me. It reads as follows:
Strongly protest the statement that appears to have been made by the Minister of Veterans Affairs to the effect that cabinet has not considered our representation for a five-day 40 hour week for hospital employees made last October.
L. J. Perry, President,
D.V.A. employees national association, Winnipeg.
Yesterday I asked the minister about the situation at Deer Lodge hospital, and it was one of those occasions on which he simply said that he had dealt with the matter on an earlier occasion and had nothing to add. On

other occasions when we have pressed the government for an extension of the five-day 40 hour week we have been told-and this minister has told us-that it is the government's policy to institute the five-day 40 hour week only in those areas where it is the general practice. I hasten to assure him that the five-day 40 hour week is quite general in the Winnipeg area. Indeed, in recent weeks it has been extended in the case of employees of rather large firms or establishments where it was not previously enjoyed. On that account it seems to me that employees of Deer Lodge hospital should not have to wait further for the five-day 40 hour week.
Another argument which, it seems to me, is of equal force and should carry some weight with the government is that, as I understand it, some 90 per cent of the government's employees, taking all of them into consideration, classified civil servants and prevailing rates employees and others, are now on the five-day 40 hour week, and in that case it seems all the more ridiculous that the other 10 per cent should have to wait.
The other day the Leader of the Opposition asked the Minister of Veterans Affairs whether it was true that employees of D.V.A. hospitals get the same rate of pay whether they work the longer or the shorter week. The Minister of Veterans Affairs said that was something he would want to look into before commenting on it. Perhaps he has done so in the meantime. Certainly it is my understanding that members of the operating staffs at D.V.A. hospitals get the same rate of pay whether they are at a hospital that is on the five-day 40 hour week or a hospital where they work 44 hours a week.
I speak particularly of Deer Lodge hospital because it is in the Winnipeg area, but I join with those who have made similar representations for employees of hospitals in other parts of the country. I hope that this time the minister will not just say he has dealt with this before, but that he will either indicate to us that action will be taken on this matter at a very early date or that he will give us some better reason than we have yet had for such action not being taken. Naturally I hope that what he will do now is to indicate to us that the five-day 40 hour week will very soon be extended to the operating staffs of all hospitals coming under his department.


Hugues Lapointe: I am sorry that my hon.
friend took my answer to his question yesterday in that way. I am sure I did not want to offend him in any manner, but I find that I had actually answered the question the day before.
Supply-Veterans Affairs


Stanley Howard Knowles: To the minister's satisfaction, but-


Hugues Lapointe: Whether or not my hon.
friend finds the answer satisfactory is another matter altogether.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There are also the telegrams that have been coming in since.


Hugues Lapointe: Yes, but my hon. friend did not mention the telegram when he put the question. If he looks at Hansard for yesterday he will find-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, because the telegram came later. That is the point. The grievance still exists.


Hugues Lapointe: If my hon. friend looks at Hansard of yesterday he will find that the telegram was read in this house by the hon. member for Quebec West, and I answered the question on this particular telegram. However, I do not think any discussion between the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and myself is going to settle the question of the 40-hour week or satisfy the employees of D.V.A. hospitals. At this stage I can say that the matter is being looked into by the government, and it there is any change in policy it will be announced as a matter of government policy.


Douglas Scott Harkness: In speaking earlier I expressed the hope that the minister might say something about the hospitalization of non-pensioned veterans, and particularly whether any changes might be under contemplation easing the regulations in that regard so that elderly veterans on comparatively low incomes might receive hospitalization without payment.


Hugues Lapointe: I referred in my opening remarks to the application of section 13 of the veterans' treatment regulations. I do not know exactly what my hon. friend wants by way of information beyond what I mentioned in my opening remarks. I believe I stated the amount that had been spent and the number of veterans who had taken advantage of that section and had benefited from it. I should like my hon. friend to restate his question.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I read a resolution which had been passed by a local branch of the Legion in Calgary requesting that veterans above the age of 55 and with incomes below $1,800 for a single man and $3,500 for a married man should be able to take advantage of this hospitalization without payment rather than having to pay the sums they have to pay at the present time. I do not know how much these particular people have to pay, but in any event the rate is $14 a day for the non-pensioned veteran.

Supply-Veterans Affairs


Hugues Lapointe: I may say that to my knowledge the resolution to which the hon. member refers was never presented to the dominion convention and as such was never presented to the government by the Canadian Legion. As my hon. friend knows, the section provides for a sliding scale having regard to income, in order that a veteran may not become financially embarrassed because of hospitalization if he is in the low income group. The sliding scale starts at $840 and goes up to $2,500 under what is called adjusted income. I could explain it at great length but I could not say anything more by way of explanation than appears in the pamphlets that were issued by the department and which I believe my hon. friend received, and which explain how this particular clause involving the sliding scale works.
In the last year 6,359 patients were treated under section 13, and that was done at a cost of $2,356,563. Of this amount only $546,726 was charged to the patients, which I think indicates the effectiveness of the sliding scale plan and how it operates in helping veterans to get treatment at a very low cost. Of course the indigent veteran is treated free in our veterans hospitals.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Treatment services-
503. Hospital construction, improvements, equipment and acquisition of land, $4,534,825.
Gordon Minto Churchill: This item deals with hospital construction, etc., and involves an expenditure of $4J million. Would the minister give us, as he did last year, a breakdown of that expenditure by provinces?


Arthur-Joseph Lapointe: I think the figures I gave last year had to do with major projects then in progress. The information this year for major projects now in progress is as follows: Saint John, New Brunswick, Lancaster hospital, land purchase and construction of laundry, $184,925; Winnipeg, Deer Lodge hospital, replacement, 300 bed hospital, $900,000; Calgary, Colonel Belcher hospital, new wing and facilities, $900,000; Vancouver, Shaughnessy hospital, prosthetic and maintenance building and central heating plant, $650,000, and new wings and facilities, $225,000. I would think that would be the first payment at the commencement. That covers the major projects.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have one other comment with regard to the construction of hospitals. I have been in some of these veterans hospitals and I think they are a credit to our country. At the Lancaster military hospital in New Brunswick I saw an inscription on
[Mr. Harkness.l
a bronze plaque which I thought was very much to the point and well chosen. These were the words:
To the gallant men and women of the armed forces of Canada who have fought and suffered in her wars for freedom this hospital is dedicated by a grateful people.
When I read it I thought that was a fine inscription to be placed on a plaque in a veterans hospital and that it or a similar inscription might suitably be placed in other veterans hospitals. I wish my commendation could go further than that, but I regret to say that I must now raise an objection, and I want to give a warning to the minister. I take quite an interest in the Minister of Veterans Affairs, and I try to give him advice from time to time.


Arthur-Joseph Lapointe: I am very grateful.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Therefore I am going to give him some advice on this occasion. He is concerned with other hospitals throughout the country. I am very much interested in the addition to the Deer Lodge hospital, and what I have to say about putting bronze plaques in military hospitals will also apply to other public buildings in which the minister might be interested so perhaps he might pass this word on to the Postmaster General. A new post office is going up in the city of Winnipeg and I do not want him to make the error there to which I am now going to refer.
The bronze plaque in the Lancaster military hospital is a very large plaque. I have given the inscription. The plaque measures 36 inches across and is 18 inches in depth. It is very large. One-third of the bronze plaque is taken up with the inscription I have read and to which I have given approval. Two-thirds of the plaque, the larger portion, is taken up with the names of the gentlemen who opened that hospital, a hospital erected by the people of Canada for the veterans of this country. It is to that practice that I raise objection. These hospitals as well as other public buildings have to be opened but those who open them are serving in a temporary capacity and their names do not need to be recorded for all time.
I recognize the fact that the minister is a representative of the new ruling class of Canada, the pseudo-aristocracy, the descendants of the family compact, foreshadowed in section 49 of the British North America Act; nevertheless I do not think it is correct that their names should be recorded for all time on public buildings in Canada. Consequently I draw attention to the fact that this plaque, which may be satisfactory to the people of Lancaster would not be satisfactory,

I think, in the city of Winnipeg, records the fact that the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Veterans Affairs and the then deputy minister of veterans affairs opened that hospital and their names and titles are recorded in bronze, occupying two-thirds of that large plaque and dwarfing the one-third devoted to the inscription recording the fact that the people of Canada erected the hospital for their veterans. The type used for the Minister of Labour is one inch in size for each letter, and for the Minister of Veterans Affairs and his deputy the type is three-quarters of an inch in size for each letter.
If you look at the plaques which were set up just outside the library, on the occasion of the opening of the renovated building, you will see that they are much more modest in character and in the size of the type that is used. But at this veterans hospital erected by the people of Canada for disabled veterans and those in trouble, in great blazing letters three-quarters of an inch in height, we have recorded for all time the names of these temporary occupants of office, two of whom happen to be present here in the House of Commons and the other serving as a deputy minister. The three gentlemen are all deserving of recognition in some way or another for their services to their country, but I think it should not be done in this way. In so far as any new buildings are concerned out in the area in which I dwell, I suggest to the minister that this practice should not be followed.


Harry Oliver White: Mr. Chairman, I regret that I was out of the chamber for a few moments and did not hear what the minister had to say with regard to new construction. What is in the books for Westminster and London?


Hugues Lapointe: As far as Westminster hospital is concerned, the situation is this. It is at the head of the priority list, if I might use that expression. As soon as the major projects which are now under construction-like Colonel Belcher hospital in Calgary, which will soon be finished, and the others I have mentioned-are completed, Westminster hospital will be the first one on which work will start thereafter. I would think that in next year's estimates there will be an item for the start of construction. At the present time we are working on the plans and specifications.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Supply-Veterans Affairs
War veterans allowances and other benefits-
508. War veterans allowances, $41,192,000.
George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, this matter might have been raised on item 507 but I thought the minister would like to get away from the block of figures with which he has been tied up and move on to another heading.
I have one question to raise with respect to the war veterans allowance. I am raising it now because, as a matter of fact, this morning I had another letter about this case which reminded me of it. It raises a problem on which I should like the minister to make a brief statement. We know that the war veterans allowance is paid under various categories, over 60 and so on and so forth, permanently unemployable, and then you come down to one who, because of physical or mental disability or insufficiency combined with economic handicaps, is incapable of maintaining himself.
The situation which was brought rather forcibly to my mind this morning by a rather pathetic letter-a situation with which the minister or his departmental officials dealt two years ago and which has now been revised-is one such as this. You have a veteran who has been receiving war veterans allowance. He had a kidney disability, as a result of which one kidney was removed by operation. He had tuberculosis of the other. He had been receiving war veterans allowance up to two years ago, when somebody decided that he was then capable of earning a living. An appeal was taken and as a result the war veterans allowance was restored. Since then he has had two more operations on that kidney, so his condition apparently was not too good two years ago. Now he has been in Camp Hill hospital for examination, and he received a letter last week saying that, according to the doctors, he was now capable of earning a living. So his war veterans allowance has been cancelled as of July 31 this year.
I can understand the position of the department. Apparently, the section is mandatory and provides that if the medical officer says that he is capable of earning a living, there is no alternative. Frankly, I do not know what the minister can do about it. I think there should be some elasticity brought into the picture somewhere. Obviously there has been such elasticity or else he could not have got around the appeal two years ago. When you go on to the next section, you find that it is much more elastic, where provision is made for payment of benefits to employable veterans because there the requirement is that he is unable to maintain himself or is capable of taking only light employment.
5912	HOUSE OF
Supply-Veterans Affairs
At the same time, I know this is not the place to amend the act, and I quite appreciate the fact that some departmental officials have taken it upon themselves to view that section very leniently in restoring war veterans allowance, and they will have the same responsibility on their shoulders within the next few days. But I would think there should be another section in there which would give some discretion.
The situation is this. This particular man is a labourer with a grade VI education and living away out in the country. I know he was told at one time, "Perhaps you can operate an elevator". He never saw an elevator in his life, and he would be scared to death if he got into one; or if he got into one and operated it, he would probably kill whoever was in it. If he had training as a bookkeeper or as a school teacher, possibly he would be able to earn a living. But as a labourer, living in a rural community where, frankly, the only employment open to a labourer would be that of digging ditches, it is practically impossible for him to earn his living, though from a medical standpoint he might be capable of earning a living if he had employment categories open to him.
I am bringing the matter to the attention of the minister. As I said, I appreciate the fact that on an earlier occasion there was elasticity in the interpretation given to the section, and that was helpful. On many occasions there must be need for such elasticity. But I would think it would be a matter worthy of an amendment of some kind, so the minister or his departmental officials would have discretion there. When you get shall we say a hard-boiled doctor- and some of them are hard-boiled because, I suppose, they are obliged to be so in order to carry out their profession-who says, "You are capable of earning a living, in my opinion", then what does the department do about it?


Arthur-Joseph Lapointe: Mr. Chairman, of course it is extremely hard for me to make any comment on the specific case mentioned by my hon, friend because I do not know the details. With him, I will admit that the man concerned does not sound like a very healthy type. I shall be glad to look into the case again and see what can be done.


George Clyde Nowlan: Of course that is the whole point. He does not have to be healthy. He just has to be capable of earning a living. That is the wording of the section.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Despite what the Minister of Veterans Affairs said today in reply to


what I thought were excellent representations made by many members for raising the ceiling on the war veterans allowance, I hope he will give this matter still further consideration. It seems to me that the Legion is most responsible in the figures it has suggested, namely a $1,200 ceiling for single recipients and $2,000 for married recipients. Because those figures are fair and responsible, we on this side of the house naturally do not like to suggest anything less.
However, it seems to me that the minister took advantage of that situation and was satisfied to take the view that there were only two choices; either the present ceiling or the figure advocated by the Canadian Legion and suggested in this house. If the minister and the government have not yet seen the light and are not prepared to go as far as the Legion has suggested I would hope that at least they would realize the force of the argument that has been made in the house and would start moving upward the ceilings on the total incomes of war veterans allowance recipients.
I listened with interest to the arguments the minister advanced today, and I confess that he did not convince me as well as he appears to have convinced himself. He pointed out, for example, that to establish a ceiling of $1,200 on the income of war veterans allowance recipients would be to set a figure equal to about 80 per cent of the disability pension. I point out to him, however, what all of us realize, that to establish a ceiling of $1,200 for single war veterans allowance recipients does not give them $1,200 a year. It merely permits them to supplement their war veterans allowance up to that figure.
May I also point out the other difference that would still obtain between the war veterans allowance recipient, if the ceiling were set at $1,200, and the disability pensioner, namely that there is no ceiling on the income of a disability pensioner. It seems to me that these same answers apply to the other examples the minister gave, and that in fact to establish a higher ceiling on war veterans allowances would not be as unfair-I am not sure if that is the word he used but that is the spirit I caught from what he said-as he suggested it would be to the disability pensioner. I do not hear any disability pensioners complaining about the suggestion that something better be done for war veterans allowance recipients. As a matter of fact those ceilings in the War Veterans Allowance Act have a limiting effect on the income of many recipients of the disability pension.

As the minister and all of us know, where a disability pensioner is receiving an amount as a disability pension which is equal to or higher than the ceiling set in the War Veterans Allowance Act he is denied the possibility of any supplement under the War Veterans Allowance Act. On the other hand, if the ceiling were raised under the War Veterans Allowance Act it would be of assistance not only to those who receive only the war veterans allowance, not only to the others who might come in, but it would be of assistance as well to many who receive disability pensions in the lower percentage brackets.
The minister also gave the example of a war veterans allowance recipient now drawing $60 a month. He said that if the ceiling were raised to $1,200 a year or $100 a month, that would permit him, when he reached 70 years of age, to draw the $40 old age pension in full and still keep the full amount of his war veterans allowance, bringing him up to $100 per month. Against that the minister set the case of a 45 per cent disability pensioner drawing $675 a year disability pension and $480 old age security or a total of $1,155 a year. He said further that that person, if the ceiling were raised to $1,200, would be able to draw only another $45 a year as war veterans allowance.
As I took it from the minister, he seemed to suggest that there was something of an imbalance between the treatment accorded the disability pensioner and the war veterans allowance recipient in that situation. May I point out that so far as the war veterans allowance recipient to whom he referred is concerned, prior to reaching age 70, at $60 a month he is already receiving $720 a year which, of course, is more than the 45 per cent disability pensioner is receiving under that legislation. The 45 per cent disability pensioner does not complain about that so long as there is a margin that permits him to get a supplement by way of war veterans allowance if his income is not adequate.
All told, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that these comparisons the minister sought to make between the position of the disability pensioner and the war veterans allowance recipient are not valid. For these, and for the other excellent reasons that have been advanced in the discussion of these estimates, I hope that further consideration will be given by the government to raising these ceilings. I wish the government would start making some upward move at this session. Certainly the ceilings should be set at nothing less than the figures suggested by the Legion of $1,200 single or $2,000 married, but surely it is possible to make a start in that upward direction at this session.
Supply-Veterans Affairs


Hazen Robert Argue: I wish to support the request of the Canadian Legion that the allowable income ceilings on war veterans allowance recipients be increased. I think over the years the Canadian Legion have taken a very responsible attitude so far as government legislation is concerned. Their proposals have always been moderate and responsible. I think their proposals today in relation to the war veterans allowance are very modest indeed. They are not asking, though I think they might have reason to ask, that the basic pension itself be increased above the $60 for a single person or $108 for a married couple. The new income ceiling they suggest of $1,200 per year single or $2,000 a year for a person who is married I think is quite low enough.
Today the cost of living is at an all-time high. If such a person could obtain the extra allowable income to reach the $100 a month, that would be little enough to meet the current cost of living. The Legion is asking for only a $30 per month increase for a single person and $46.66 increase in the allowable income per month for married veterans.
I would like to see, as others have said, a veterans affairs committee established again. I believe that in the past members of that committee have taken a very sympathetic attitude towards the veterans. I believe that if a representative committee of this house were to discuss this question they would bring in a recommendation that would, in large measure, meet the requests of the Canadian Legion.
I have only a few more remarks to make, Mr. Chairman.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Has the hon. member consent to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hazen Robert Argue: I have just one other remark. I cannot understand why persons on war veterans allowance who become 70 years of age are not allowed to have the old age security pension without a reduction being made in the war veterans allowance. I have had persons say to me, one living across the road from another, that it seems an anomaly that a person who is quite capable of taking care of himself in his old age, quite wealthy, reaches the age of 70 and gets an additional $40 per month, but a person on war veterans allowance will have his allowance decreased by $30 per month, if he is a single veteran without additional income, or by $58 per month for a veteran and his wife on old age security if they have no additional income. I would suggest that the minister take a look

Supply-Veterans Affairs at this question and place the veterans who are on war veterans allowance in the same position as other Canadians.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Edward Turney Applewhaite: If the committee will permit me, may I say it has been indicated to me that there is a desire to make a change or two in the personnel of the standing committees, and under those circumstances would the committee agree to reporting the resolutions and asking leave to sit again later this day?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.


RESEARCH
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Is
there unanimous consent to revert to motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Gilbert Weir: That the name of Mr. Hahn be substituted for that of Mr. Low on the special committee on research.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS War veterans allowances and other benefits-
509. Assistance fund (war veterans allowances), $650,000.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Harry Oliver White: I notice reference in this item to the erection of headstones. Would the cost of a headstone and its erection be provided for in the case of a veteran who died and was buried in other than a military cemetery?


Hugues Lapointe: A headstone is provided by the department in every case where a veteran dies while under treatment in a veterans' hospital and the department has contributed toward the cost of burial, and in the case of the death of a disability pensioner discretion is given to the commission to pay for a headstone if the financial circumstances of the deceased warrant such a decision. Similarly,


headstones are provided by the Last Post fund in the case of veterans who are buried by that fund, and of course they are provided for all veterans in our war cemeteries overseas. The latter is handled through the imperial war graves commission.


Harry Oliver White: I presume that would apply also to Indians who were war veterans.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The hon. member for Royal is not able to be here this evening because of the activities of the research committee, and he asked me to bring up the matter of assistance provided under the war veterans allowance. I note that the amount spent under this vote last year was about $375,000 less than the amount voted. The act provides for fhe payment of $10 per month or $120 per year to completely unemployable old veterans who are receiving war veterans assistance, but it would appear that the average payment is considerably under that amount. I should like to know the average amount paid to these unemployable old veterans. My information is that instead of $120 per year being paid the average is between $60 and $70, or about one-half.
It would appear from the fact that the amount voted last year was considerably underspent that the regulations have been rigorously applied. I submit that this is one group who are probably in about as bad a situation as any group in the Dominion of Canada. These old veterans are completely unemployable and it is impossible for them to supplement their war veterans allowances. In spite of that fact, if my information is correct on the average they get only a little more than half what the legislation provides.
I should like the minister to tell us what was the average amount paid and why the vote was underspent by more than one-third last year?


Hugues Lapointe: The hon. member will remember that last year we amended the act to increase the ceilings and the rates, and in so doing we brought in additional veterans. It turned out that we had overestimated the number who might qualify for assistance from the fund. Furthermore, by raising the rates some people who might have applied for assistance under the fund did not do so.
In making our estimate this year we went by our experience last year, but from what has happened in April, May and June it would appear that we may have underestimated. As compared with the same months last year the number of applications received in April, May and June this year were 40 per cent higher.
As of March 31, 1956, there were 6,256 recipients who were receiving assistance

from the fund, and of that number 3,070 represented new applications made during the year, the balance being carried over from the previous year. Of the 2,072 veterans receiving allowances on the basis of married rates, 1,574 received $10 per month or more. Out of a total of 272 widows, 232 received $10 per month or more. Of those two groups, 311 received single payments averaging $58 per year.
In the case of those on single rates, out of 1,501 veterans, 756 received $8 per month or more; out of 1,467 widows, 1,158 received $8 per month or more. In that group 560 received average single payments of $42. Out of a total of 2,348 married rate recipients, 2,117 received assistance at the rate of 85 per cent or more. Out of 2,968 recipients, 2,474 received assistance at the rate of 80 per cent or more.


Douglas Scott Harkness: A rapid bit of mental arithmetic would indicate that the figures the minister has given indicate that the average payment was around $7 per month instead of $10. It would seem to me that as the amount involved here is almost negligible considering our general revenues, being $100,000 or something less than that, this is a case where the legislation and the regulations should be applied in the most liberal manner possible.
I see the minister nodding his head in agreement. I hope that in future years these people will be given the maximum amount the law allows, the $10 per month, without too much question being asked; because, as I say, the total amount of money involved is very small. For people who are getting say $60 per month total income plus the amount of this allowance, if they get $10 per month perhaps they can just get by, whereas if they get only $66 or $67 per month it may mean a terrific amount of hardship. It is a question of people on an extraordinarily low total income where every dollar makes a great deal of difference as to whether they merely exist or perhaps exist with one, two or three of the simple pleasures of life.


Hugues Lapointe: I think the hon. member will recall that in my opening statement I did mention that, basing ourselves on last year's experience, although the formula used for the assistance fund had been broadened last year, there were cases where we did not think it met the problem, and members of my department were looking into this to try to find a solution to those problems.


Ray Thomas: I could ask this question either on item 508 or item 509. What will be the relationship between the new unemployment assistance act and the war veterans allowance
Supply-Veterans Affairs and war veterans' assistance? Is there any agreement between the two departments as to which will look after the borderline cases? Has the Department of Veterans Affairs agreed more or less to look after the borderline cases of those who might be veterans, or will they be dealt with under the unemployment assistance act? Where are they going to draw the line?


Hugues Lapointe: I should not like to make any definite pronouncement on the matter. I should think that any assistance received under the new act would, as the present War Veterans Allowance Act stands, have to be considered as income for the purpose of this act. The problem has not arisen as yet, and I can assure my hon. friend that we shall study this situation.


Ray Thomas: What worries me about this is the fact that it could be quite convenient for the Department of Veterans Affairs to disclaim any responsibility in many of these cases and put the onus on the unemployment assistance act, under which the cost would be shared by the provincial government.


Hugues Lapointe: At the present time, payments for unemployment under the Unemployment Insurance Act are considered as income under the War Veterans Allowance Act, and they have to be taken into consideration when computing the permissible income of the recipient of war veterans allowance. I should think that principle would apply to the new act but, as I said, the matter has not been studied as yet.


Ray Thomas: It is not exactly a parallel comparison, because the new act, the unemployment assistance act, is drawn up in such a way as to supplement the Unemployment Insurance Act; and there would not be much overlap between the Unemployment Insurance Act and the war veterans allowance or assistance, but there might be between the unemployment assistance and the war veterans allowance. It appears to me that there might possibly be a tendency to take many of these borderline cases who are applying for war veterans allowance or war veterans assistance and place them under the unemployment assistance act, in which case the province would be responsible for carrying a part of the burden.


Hugues Lapointe: It will be looked into, but I might say that in the past the situation has been that where there are borderline cases we get them under the war veterans allowance.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
5916	HOUSE OF
Supply-Veterans Affairs
Miscellaneous payments-
511.	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, $1,393,713.
Douglas Scott Harkness: I note in the details on page 613 of the estimates that the grant to the imperial war graves commission is $467,000 this year, whereas it was $518,000 last year. Could the minister tell us the reason for that decrease? As I stated this afternoon, I was extraordinarily impressed with the work the war graves commission is doing and the care it is giving to the cemeteries where our Canadian war dead are buried in Europe. My understanding was that our payment to the imperial war graves commission was on a per capita basis; in other words, that we paid so much per grave. I wondered whether this decrease meant that we had decreased the amount we were paying per grave, which I should think, in view of what I saw in several score of cemeteries last summer, would not be a good move.


Hugues Lapointe: No, the amount we pay is set by the commission. It is on a pro rata basis on the number of Canadian graves in those cemeteries. At the present time the imperial war graves commission is completing the construction stage of its work in our cemeteries, and in many of them, as my hon. friend knows, their work consists in maintenance of the cemeteries. Hence their budget has gone down, and our share of that budget has decreased accordingly. However, the commission set the amount. They bill us for the work they do for Canadian graves over there.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
512.	Grant to army benevolent fund, $8,000.
Victor Quelch: Could the minister say who administers the benevolent fund and just what veterans benefit under that fund?


Hugues Lapointe: The army benevolent fund, as my hon. friend knows, is set up under statute. It is administered by a board headed by General Murchie. The members of that board are: Lieutenant General Murchie, chairman; Brigadier Gauvreau, Montreal; Captain Peck, Vancouver; Lieutenant General San-som, of Fredericton, I believe, but representing the Canadian Legion; and Major Wickens, representing the national council of veterans' associations. They do their work through the officers of provincial committees. There is a committee for each province of people who


in a benevolent fashion do that work for the fund. They have a central office, and every year they make their annual report to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, and that report is tabled in the house.


Victor Quelch: What kind of cases would be looked after?


Hugues Lapointe: They are all world war II veterans who can benefit from the fund, because it was made up of regimental funds, mess funds and so on accumulated in the second world war. Their work involves a welfare program, financial assistance and vocational training of children of veterans. They will endeavour as much as possible to help in the rehabilitation of veterans and in meeting major emergencies with which the veteran cannot cope because of the high financial cost that might be involved. They will also help in re-establishing a veteran who is in bad financial circumstances by advancing money, possibly getting agreement among his creditors to accept certain sums, and set him back on his feet.


Victor Quelch: What is the total amount of the fund at this time?


Hugues Lapointe: The balance in the fund as of March 31, 1956, was $8,088,045. The program of expenditure is laid out in such a way as to endeavour to keep the fund going for 50 years from the date of the end of the war. That was the recommendation made by the veterans affairs committee when that statute was studied.


Victor Quelch: Is it supposed to be in the form of a revolving fund?


Hugues Lapointe: Oh, no. The money is held as a special account in the consolidated revenue fund, and the expenditures are actually made out of the fund so that 50 years after the end of the war the fund will have been totally expended.


Ray Thomas: Could the minister tell us what the expenditures were for each of the last five years, and how much was for administration?


Hugues Lapointe: The figures I have here show the total disbursements since the inception of the fund. The figures cover the last three years, and by figuring the difference between these amounts I would be able to tell how much was actually expended. In 1953-54 total disbursements had reached $2,354,473. In 1954-55 they had reached $2,901,984, and for 1955-56 that figure had reached $3,368,373. It works out, I think, that slightly over $400,000 a year is expended from the fund.


Ray Thomas: Is there any way of telling what were the administrative expenses?

Supply-Veterans Affairs


Hugues Lapointe: For the year ended March 31, Canadian Legion service bureau are con-1956, the administrative expenses were siderably higher than the grant which is $70,068.	made by the department.


Erhart Regier: Did I understand the minister to say that tor an expenditure of some $400,000 odd the administrative costs were some $70,000 odd? I should like to be sure on that point.


Hugues Lapointe: I am sorry; I did not quite catch the question.


Erhart Regier: Did I understand the minister correctly that last year for a total disbursement of $400,000 odd the costs of administration were $70,000 odd?


Hugues Lapointe: The actual amount spent by way of grants to veterans during the year was $465,155. However, the benevolent fund also does the service work for the army welfare fund, which is a national defence organization or project. The personnel of the army benevolent fund organization do that work for them, and in that particular field they made loans to servicemen amounting to $277,754 and grants to servicemen amounting to $100,573. In their yearly operation, therefore, they gave direct financial assistance totalling $843,482; that is, they had operations involving that amount. I find that the figure I gave as to the cost of operation was not correct. It was $67,793.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
513.	Grant to Canadian Legion, $9,000.
Erhart Regier: What is the annual income of the organization called the Canadian Legion to which we pay a grant of $9,000 a year? What I should like to know is how much is the annual income of the Canadian Legion, to which we pay a grant of $9,000.


Hugues Lapointe: The Canadian Legion, as my hon. friend knows, is definitely not a part of the Department of Veterans Affairs, and we have no way of knowing just what their financial statement is. It is given yearly to the members of the Legion and is studied at their conventions. I have seen it at times but I have just not got it. It is not part of my business to do so. The grant to the Legion is paid in order to help defray the cost of their service bureau, which was started some years ago. The original grant was $10,000, and it was reduced to $9,000 in the thirties. The purpose of the grant is to help the Legion to defray the cost of the service bureau where they do considerable work which otherwise might have to be done by the Department of Veterans Affairs. That part of their operation is audited by our department treasury officers, and I can assure my hon. friend that the expenses of the


Erhart Regier: I wonder whether the minister could give us some more details as to what services the service bureau offers. I listened carefully to the minister, and I am not exactly sure as to whether this grant should be $9,000, $900 or $900,000. If it is for a justifiable cause I am sure this house would be willing to endorse $900,000. I feel that the minister's explanation is a little inadequate. I do not know why the grant should be $9,000 rather than $900 or $900,000. Exactly what does the bureau offer?


Hugues Lapointe: Mr. Chairman, the service bureau of the Canadian Legion handles many cases of veterans before the pension commission, and before the war veterans allowance board; it also brings to our notice welfare cases which exist in the various regions of the country and of which they are aware but of which we might not be aware.
As to the specific amount of $9,000, as I mentioned earlier, it was originally $10,000. It was reduced to $9,000 and the Legion has never asked for more. We audit their books and find that the cost of operation of the service bureau is much higher than our grant. I would think possibly one of the reasons they do not want more is that they do not want to be too dependent on the Department of Veterans Affairs.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canadian pension commission-
524. Administration expenses, $2,298,111.
William Gourlay Blair: I have some questions to ask of the minister with regard to this estimate. The first one applies to the Hong Kong veterans. It is not a very large group. I will go over these questions slowly so that the minister will have time to take them down. It will be recalled that this group had a rather, as I might describe it, different form of service and that they did suffer-if I might use the word-peculiar forms of disability in comparison with those suffered by other servicemen. We have been assured that this group was being closely watched with regard to eye trouble and various other disabilities. If the minister will jot these questions down as I go along, I should be obliged to him.
My first question is this, if the information is obtainable. How many of this group are pensioned at the present time? It is not a very large group. It was a brigade, so it should not be very difficult to get this information in a rough way. My second question will be this. How many of those formerly

Supply-Veterans Affairs pensioned are now deceased? I am trying to get some idea of the mortality of that group. My third question will be-


Hugues Lapointe: I am sorry, but I did not hear my hon. friend's first question.


William Gourlay Blair: How many of those formerly pensioned are now deceased? My third question is this. How many of those at present living have had increases in their pensions? My fourth question is, how many have had their pensions decreased? While the minister is going over those questions, I have another one to ask. While it may not apply directly to the Department of Veterans Affairs, nevertheless I think some information could be derived which would be useful.
I refer to coronary disease. I am aware that coronary disease is not regarded as pensionable by the Canadian pension commission or by the British commission, though I think there is a pension for aggravation. If this information that I am trying to bring out were available, I think it should be made available to the medical people in general. Are there any statistics available on the number of veterans who have suffered this disability? In a rough way, what has been your experience with it as to the effect of long service or difficult service, undergoing the stress and strain of service, particularly in the first war where men had four years in the trenches under a rather arduous type of service? Has it been shown from the statistics of the Department of Veterans Affairs that this service had any effect on the percentage of coronary disease?
Probably that is not quite a fair question to throw at the minister. On the other hand, I think it would be valuable information to have. If it could be worked out even later it would be satisfactory. If a study could be made of the matter it might help out in an attempt to solve the problem of the effect of stress as far as this disease is concerned. If that latter information is not available, possibly the minister could give me information on the first four questions with respect to the Hong Kong group, so far as ne is able to do so from the statistics at hand.


Hugues Lapointe: I very much regret to say this but I am afraid I cannot give any detailed information on this matter.


William Gourlay Blair: What has been the experience?


Hugues Lapointe: I refer to the Hong Kong veterans. We have not here any figures which would sort out the Hong Kong pensioners as compared with other veterans. I can tell my hon. friend that about 95 per cent of them are pensioned or have entitlement. Of that fact I am aware. Most of them

are high disability pensioners. We have followed very closely that type of pensioner in our hospitals and treatment services. I refer to the Hong Kong veterans. Because of the particular maltreatment they underwent over there, a Hong Kong veteran will come into a hospital and it is understood he can be examined at any time for his condition. He receives what you might practically call special treatment because of the particular circumstances of the service performed. I shall endeavour to get those figures.


William Gourlay Blair: I thank the minister.


Hugues Lapointe: I shall be pleased to let my hon. friend have them. As to the other questions he asked, I think the matter would more properly come under treatment services. I know that at the present time some research work is being done on coronary disease in connection with veterans, particularly older veterans. I am afraid I am not an expert in the medical field, and I could not give any details about that matter. However, I shall certainly see to it that the hon. member is made familiar with any developments that we have found in that field.


William Gourlay Blair: I thank the minister.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
515. 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, $132,769,300.
Douglas Scott Harkness: So far the minister has not said anything with regard to the case of Stanley Hepworth to which I referred this afternoon. I think it is important, from two points of view, that something definite be done with regard to this case and others of the same nature. I think it is important first of all from the point of view of the reputation of the Department of Veterans Affairs itself, and second from the point of view of the general morale of the Canadian militia and the matter of getting recruits. When you have the situation of a man who served five years overseas and proved his mettle by winning the Military Medal; who served six years in the militia and had an extraordinarily good record; who obeyed the orders of his commanding officer to turn out on a parade and who, as a result of turning out on the parade, lost his life; and when really because of a technicality based on a mischance when he lost his life his widow has been turned down for pension, I think you have a situation which calls into question in the minds of a large number of people the claims which we have heard that our veterans' legislation is

the best in the world. It also discourages people from joining the militia or continuing in the militia.
It seems to me it is just not good enough to leave the situation as it is. This one case which I have mentioned happens to illustrate the matter particularly well, but there have been other cases of the same kind. It is not good enough to leave the situation where it stands. I think the minister owes it to his own department and to the defence department as well as to this house to make some kind of statement in regard to this particular section 13 (2), I believe it is, of the Pension Act, as to what can be done in order to correct what I think is a very unfortunate state of affairs in regard to this particular case as well as cases generally along this line.


Arthur-Joseph Lapointe: This case which my hon. friend mentioned, Mr. Chairman, is one which would come under section 13 (2) of the Pension Act. This is the section which makes provision in respect of military service in peacetime, whether in the regular service or in the militia. It differs in certain respects from service in wartime, but I do not think I need to go into that; he is quite familiar with it.
In the case which the hon. member mentioned this afternoon, I did have a few heated words with the hon. member for Prince Albert, but I think that was mostly the result of a misunderstanding on both our parts. The facts have to be put before the commission. Now, the facts as they were put before the members of the committee by the hon. member I would say were very well put forward. It is impossible for me to pass any judgment on the decision that was rendered without being able to see whether those facts were actually put before the commission. It does happen quite often that on the initial hearing all the facts which would justify the commission in making an award are not put forward. I take it from what my hon. friend said this afternoon that this was the first hearing.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The second hearing is over.


Hugues Lapointe: At any rate, I think he will understand how difficult it is for me to pass any judgment on the case without being able to see the facts that were put forward. In any event, it would be out of order for me to make any remarks about a decision rendered by the pension commission, which is a completely autonomous body where the minister has no discretion whatever to interfere.
Supply-Veterans Affairs
But it does present a problem. I have been informed by the commission that fortunately most of these cases that are brought forward are quite clear-cut. But there are some that are marginal cases, and it is very difficult for people to decide whether a man was or was not on duty. I know of a couple of such cases that have come to my knowledge. As a matter of fact in these cases, the services, particularly in the last year or two, have been most helpful. The chairman and members of the commission have explained to the services how they must protect the interests of their own men by making it clear whether or not the man was on duty. I have known of cases myself in which the adjutant general or the A.A.G., have come up and explained the circumstances of service under which the accident took place, and favourable decisions have been rendered.
Following the consideration of the estimates last year I looked into this particular section. I do not know how the section can be changed unless the principle which exists now is departed from altogether. I do not know how the mere wording of the section could be changed to achieve the purpose which my hon. friend has in mind, because it is a question of the interpretation of the facts by the commission. We may think at times they are wrongly interpreted. Of course one is free to form one's judgment on the matter, but the wording of the section is correct so far as I can see and does afford the protection it was intended to give to those serving members. I would think that the case which my hon. friend has mentioned is possibly a marginal case, and I think it would be very proper for the person concerned to appeal the case.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I do not believe this is a case, as the minister has indicated, where the facts have not been put forward. I think the facts have been put forward. The difficulty is, as I said, that the decision has been made really on a technicality. It was founded on a mischance. In other words the army transport which was supposed to be provided for the members of this unit to go to this parade had a breakdown. As a result it did not appear and the senior officer on the spot gave instructions or orders that the men who were there would then go in private cars. There happened to be a sufficient number of private cars there owned by these people. They went in those private cars and this man was killed in a private car returning from the parade. Because it was a private car and not a military vehicle and was not on a per diem or mileage basis, the application for pension has been turned down. Really it amounts to that.

Supply-Veterans Affairs
In other words, as I say, it is a technicality based on a mischance. I believe that is the sort of thing that it should be within our capability and within the capability of the department to overcome, to ensure that an injustice is not done. This unfortunate set of circumstances technically left the case outside the provisions of the Pension Act. Really all I am asking is that the minister and the government look into this and if it is necessary pass an order in council or do something else to overcome that particular difficulty.


Gordon Minto Churchill: This is the section 13, subsection 2 which has been causing so much difficulty for a number of years. The answer the minister gives is that the pension commission is an independent body. We accept that. When an inquiry is made of the pension commission they say they have to conduct their proceedings and make their decisions in accordance with the act. The act can be changed only by parliament, and the person who should introduce such a change is the minister. Last year in the estimates committee he told us that this section 13 subsection 2 was under consideration. He has now reported that it has been considered and he sees no way in which it can be altered.
The hon. member for Calgary North has raised now a very good example of the weakness of the act as it is interpreted by the pension commission. It is only about four years ago that I raised in this house a somewhat similar case affecting a member of the regular forces who lost his life. Again it was section 13, subsection 2 under which the decision was rendered. When the hon. member for Calgary North was talking about this particular instance, naturally my mind went back to the McAulay case that I raised before the appeal board of the pension commission and spoke about in the House of Commons. The people who suffer under these decisions which the pension commission finds it has to make in accordance with the act are the widows and children. Surely that is not the intention of parliament or the Canadian people.
In both these instances, the one raised by the hon. member for Calgary North and the one I raised four years ago, the men had given first class service overseas. In the case to which I referred the man continued in the regular army back home, and in the case referred to by the hon. member for Calgary North the man continued in the militia. Both men gave continuous service in the interests of the Canadian armed forces. In both cases the widows are now left without assistance; in both cases the men were acting under orders, as we see it, and both the hon. member for Calgary North and I have had some


military experience. In both cases the pension commission found that these accidents were not directly connected with military service. It just does not make sense to us.
I recall in the McAulay case I was informed by a member of the pension commission that the corporal who later was killed should have refused to obey the order of the sergeant who put in his possession the jeep which he drove. When the hon. member for Prince Albert was talking about the Hepworth case that was mentioned earlier I thought the answer might have been given by some member of the commission to the effect that the men should have refused to obey the order of the major, the second in command of the battalion; that they should have said to him, "Sir, we cannot travel to our destination in civilian cars because if we do that we will not be obeying the rules and regulations".
Subordinate ranks simply cannot take stands like that. They have to obey orders, whether the order is given by a sergeant to a corporal, by a major to a lieutenant or by men of other ranks. To people who have served it is just nonsense to suggest that junior ranks can resist orders given by people senior to them.
I think, Mr. Chairman, that section 13(2) will have to be reconsidered by the minister. As the hon. member for Prince Albert mentioned, the Department of Justice might very well be called in to give some advice on the matter, which is becoming a serious problem.
Last year in the estimates committee I asked the chairman of the pensions commission for some figures with regard to the number of applications to the pension commission by former members of the regular forces under section 13(2). He gave figures for a 5-year period from January, 1950, to March, 1955, and these appear at page 578 of the proceedings of the special committee on estimates of last year. In that 5-year period 6,952 cases came before the commission either on first or second hearing or on appeal, and 89 per cent were rejected. That is a very high rejection figure, and all those rejections were under section 13(2).
I submit, Mr. Chairman, that much more serious consideration must be given to this matter. It is intolerable that the burden of these accidental deaths should fall upon the completely innocent widows and children. It must be remembered that the wives permit their husbands to take part in these military activities, and the army and other service authorities urge the married women to permit their husbands to spend two or three nights a week in militia training of this sort. In the regular forces there is a considerable

amount of encouragement given to the married women in order to have their husbands remain in the services.
There is quite a bit of attention paid to the attitude of the women in this connection until the husband is killed in what those of us who have served and others think is the course of his duty; then the Department of National Defence and the Department of Veterans Affairs say, "There is nothing we can do about it under section 13(2). This accident did not arise out of service". They say to the widow, "Although for several years your husband served his country gallantly in war and in peace, we are sorry but we cannot do anything for you now. You may have children. Well, that is not our responsibility, and you must go somewhere else."
I do not think we can much longer tolerate that state of affairs under legislation which is so frequently described here as the best veterans' charter in the world, and so on. If things of this nature continue to be permitted it must certainly be revised if it is to become the best in the world.


Ernest George Hansell: Mr. Chairman, the minister was in his seat when I spoke this afternoon, and I believe he gave his usual attention to what I had to say. I wonder if now that this particular item is before us he would care to comment on whether or not we can expect pensions to be awarded regardless of preenlistment disabilities?
I pointed out this afternoon that any cases I had taken up with the department showed that a substantial number of pension applications were turned down by reason of the department discovering that whatever was wrong was caused by a pre-enlistment condition. At the same time, when the veteran was recruited and joined the forces he was given an A-l classification. I wish the minister would comment on that. I realize there has been some improvement in the act over the years, but I believe that when one is taken into the forces and given an A-l classification it should stand for all time.
Perhaps when the minister speaks he will not be able to give us the statistical answer to this question, but I would like to add a question to those which have been asked by the hon. member for Lanark. How many pension applications, let us say during the last year, were turned down on account of a condition of pre-enlistment origin, and what percentage would that be of the total number of applications that were turned down?


Hugues Lapointe: Well, Mr. Chairman, I am afraid I could not give the hon. member at this time the exact number of applications that were turned down on that specific basis. The question of pre-enlistment condition is
Supply-Veterans Affairs dealt with in section 13, subsection 1 (c) of the act. The principle is that no deduction is ever made in the award because of a preenlistment condition where there has been service in a theatre of war, unless prior to enlistment the condition was obvious or recorded on medical examination.
The meaning of the words "recorded on medical examination" appears in section 2, subsection (u) of the Pension Act. That is a definition that was inserted in 1948 at the suggestion of the members of the veterans affairs committee. In order to understand this section properly, one should read the definition of the words "recorded on medical examination prior to enlistment". Subsection (u) reads as follows:
(u)	"recorded on medical examination prior to enlistment'' includes recorded symptoms or findings in,
(i)	medical proceedings for enlistment,
(ii)	official documentation covering any former period of service,
(iii)	the files of the department,
(iv)	compensation board or insurance company records, and
(v)	the records of a hospital, private physician or other medical authority,
where such record refers to the injury or disease resulting in the disability in respect of which the application for pension is made;
As my hon. friend says, this covers considerable ground. It is quite true that some members of the forces-I understand that this occurred more often during the first war than during the second war-were accepted as being in good physical condition and after being discharged from the service developed certain conditions for which a claim for pension was made. When the commission goes back into the army records, it might be found that a man had been hospitalized in 1942 or 1943 for a certain condition. Then going back into hospital records, they might find that, on being questioned as to his medical history upon entering hospital, he had said that when 10 or 15 years of age he had been hospitalized for a certain condition. The commission might get in touch with the doctor who had looked after him at that particular time. The man might not be familiar with what had happened, but when the doctor was contacted it might be discovered that the condition for which the man was claiming was pre-enlistment. This information would not be withheld wilfully by the man when enlisting, as he might not be aware of this condition, but the commission would find that as part of his medical record, and under the statute it could do nothing but take it into consideration.


Ernest George Hansell: Is the examination covered by the section to which the minister has referred the examination given on enlistment, or is that the examination given after
5922	HOUSE OF
Supply-Veterans Affairs it is discovered that something is wrong with the man? I cannot quite understand how that section could apply to an enlistment. A man might get a clean bill of health upon enlistment. As the minister has said, this is a pretty definite section. If the medical examiners followed the provisions of that section they would surely find that something was wrong.


Hugues Lapointe: 1 can assure my hon. friend that if the examinations made prior to enlistment were as thorough as we would like to believe they were, the commission would be saved a lot of trouble. The medical examination referred to is the one prior to enlistment. The man is examined before enlistment and is not enlisted until that examination has been held. As I mentioned, the definition in the act permits the commission to examine any medical records relating to the period before enlistment. If the commission does find evidence of a medical character which is related to the condition for which the man is applying for pension, then the commission is obliged to take that into consideration in rendering its decision.


Erhart Regier: Further to what the hon. member for Macleod has said, I should like to pursue this matter a little. I have in my hands the particulars of a case where a man claims that upon enlistment he was found to be in category A. After enlistment he was re-examined four times and always found to be in category A. The man enlisted on May 19, 1941, and left the service on June 3, 1942. He was discharged at that time for medical reasons but was denied full pension benefits because it was claimed that the medical reasons for his discharge had existed prior to enlistment.
I find this a little hard to swallow. We are willing to send a man over the hill, as it were, upon the basis of one medical examination, provided he is declared to be in category A. If we are willing to risk a man's life on the basis of one physical examination he should receive the proper consideration. Former students of mine lost their lives after having had only one medical examination, yet here is a case where a man was declared five times to be in category A.
I notice that in replying to the hon. member for Macleod the minister qualified his statement by saying that a pension decision was partly dependent upon where the service had been. I think that is a most despicable arrangement if such an arrangement exists. Once a man volunteers his life on behalf of the nation he should receive equal treatment regardless of the disposition that is made of that man by the armed forces.


I should like to read from the report of the pensions advocate concerning this man, as follows:
Service documents record treatment for the above noted condition during service. During treatment he stated he had had many colds in his head and pleurisy at eight or nine years of age.
May I just interrupt here. I wonder if this man had asked for exemption from military service on the basis of having had this condition when eight or nine years of age how far he would have got. He would not have got to first base, especially after having five medical examinations which listed him as being in category A. I continue:
According to specialist's report, on 14-4-42, man gave a history that he saw Dr. Campbell Brown in Vernon, B.C., because of frequent colds in chest with cough. On the record this condition existed pre-enlistment with some aggravation during service, but there is no evidence to show that such aggravation arose out of or was directly connected with military service.
I must interrupt to say again that this man was found to be in category A in five examinations. I continue with the report:
The commission rules chronic bronchitis and bronchiectasis pre-enlistment condition, aggravated during service in Canada but not pensionable under section 11 (2) as the aggravation did not arise out of nor was it directly connected with military service.
I feel the minister must agree that this is a most niggardly attitude to take when we are willing to shove men over the hill upon the basis of one report which lists them in category A; yet when after five listings in A category these men are thrown out of the service, even against their will, and declared medically unfit and they apply for a pension, we say, "We have now discovered, because of the statement the man made in all honesty at the time of his enlistment, that he had a cold when he was a child, and we therefore find that the disability is of pre-enlistment origin." I think that is disgraceful.


Edward George McCullough: I feel I must rise to join with others who are discussing the situation of veterans who, after entering military service and getting a clean bill of health, then have disabilities and find, perhaps after demobilization or discharge, that they are not eligible for pension. It is not my intention at this time to go fully into the case I have had before the department for some three years, but I feel that since other hon. members have spoken on this very issue, I too must make mention of it.
In the case of the veteran of whom I am speaking, he was examined by six specialists of the department on enlistment. He was a first war veteran, having served some three and a half years, and he enlisted for second war service. His category on enlistment for

second war service was Al; he came out P5. He was not demobilized but discharged with the lowest possible category. As I understand it, the terms of the veterans' act are that a veteran is entitled on discharge to be boarded for a medical examination. This man was not boarded for a medical examination, and the determination of his disabilities was not made until 1949. When they were found it was established that he had a heart condition. I have a letter, which is before the department, confirming that he at least feels that his disability was due to service, and the symptoms were those he was boarded for health reasons during his service.
In spite of the fact that many of us bring veterans' cases before the department in which we obtain good consideration and fair and just settlements, it seems to me that in this particular case, where a veteran has served with distinction and has come out with such a low category and there is an establishment of a severe disability, it is up to the pension commission to grant such a veteran some reasonable pension. I want to say to the minister that I intend to fight this case until I get some pension for him that will be in conformity with his service and his disability.
I do not think we can be satisfied with a situation in which a man, having served his country for 10J- years, should be treated in such a way. He was not demobilized but was discharged. As a matter of fact this particular veteran was kept on the staff here in Ottawa for six months after demobilization because the department could not do without his services. To turn him out and to leave the onus of proof on him is completely incompatible with the act, I think, and certainly with simple justice. So I just want to inform the minister that I hope in the near future there will be an easement on the part of the pension commission so the veterans in these cases coming before them will not have the onus of proof put on their shoulders when they cannot establish the exact date when their disabilities occurred. If the veteran has five or six medicals on enlistment, comes out in a P5 category, and is discharged on that account, surely he should be entitled to a decent pension.
So I hope we members of the opposition will not have to get up again and plead with the minister of this department for an easement and an adjustment on behalf of these servicemen. I hope we shall have some justice and that they will receive pensions when they come out with such a low category.


William Gourlay Blair: I remember very well when the clause the minister read to the house was
Supply-Veterans Affairs before the veterans committee, and I think I took some part on the debate on that clause. It was a very difficult thing to decide at that time on account of the medical records that were kept during the first world war. Even with the better records and conditions in the second world war, in so far as medical examinations were concerned, it is still a cause of worry in many cases. We have had two specimen cases described tonight.
There is another clause in the pensions act dealing with the benefit of the doubt. I wonder whether that clause would not apply to the case mentioned by the previous speaker. This states that the onus is not on the man to prove his condition; he is given the benefit of the doubt. I do not know anything about the case cited by the second last speaker, concerning the boy with colds.


Erhart Regier: He should be given the benefit of the doubt.


William Gourlay Blair: It seems to me that it would be flimsy evidence for the board to accept, that at eight years of age he was subject to colds. Surely the man should receive the benefit of the doubt. I do not think any medical man could ascribe a condition where a man of say 21 was passed fit, as this man was four times, as the hon. member said, and then go away back into his childhood days and make a statement, as he made, that at eight years of age he was subject to colds. There must be something more than that. I would be most surprised if such a condition existed, and I would be further surprised if that situation existed, bearing in mind this clause of the act which was very carefully gone over by the veterans committee that wrote the veterans' charter. That committee did the very best it could with the matter of preenlistment disability.
Then there was the second clause brought in some time later, the clause which states that the man must receive the benefit of the doubt. I do not know anything about the case cited concerning the boy who got the colds, but I think the benefit of the doubt clause would apply. I do not see how the commission could arrive at their decision on evidence that the boy got a cold when he was eight years old; it is positively ridiculous.
What concerns me, having had some part in framing the first part of the legislation, is that that should be fitted in with the other clause in the Pension Act known as the benefit of the doubt clause. I think that should be carefully watched. There may be a tendency to go by that benefit of the doubt clause without looking properly into the history of the matter.

Supply-Veterans Affairs


Erhart Regier: Might I assure the hon. member for Lanark that what I read was from the official record, and every word of it was taken from the official record, the report in which it was clearly stated that they accepted the man's statement he had made as to his condition when he was eight or nine years old. This was a man who enlisted in good faith as a result of some of our advertising.


Victor Quelch: I suppose the question of disabilities of pre-enlistment origin has received more consideration by veterans committees in the past than any other single question, and various changes have been made. I recall that when we struck out the words "wilfully concealed" we hoped that would take care of many of the cases that had been disallowed. It has been emphasized time and again in veterans committees that the full benefit of the doubt should be given the veteran. I remember that the last time a change was made we were told that a very careful watch would be kept of all cases, and that if it were found that the amendments to the act were not giving general satisfaction consideration would then be given to further changes.
In view of the fact that the Legion is once again bringing up this question quite strongly, and in view of the cases they put before the committee two years ago, I think it was, it does look as though further consideration should be given to this question.
Personally I do not believe there will ever be general satisfaction until such time as the government recognizes that a soldier's condition as recorded on his medical sheet at the time of enlistment is his true condition, and that therefore any deterioration from that condition should be pensionable.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Soldier Settlement and Veterans' Land Act-
SI 7. To provide for the cost of administration of Veterans' Land Act; soldier settlement and British family settlement, $4,852,880.
Ray Thomas: Mr. Chairman, I believe it
was two years ago that the Minister of Veterans Affairs gave us quite a detailed report on the Veterans' Land Act, at which time he said that payments on loans to veterans under the act were going ahead very well, that there was very little delinquency, and that as a whole the act was working out very well. In view of the general decline in the position of farmers in the west and the decline in farm income over the last two or three years, I wonder whether the minister would give us a report on the condition of the accounts, whether or not there is any increase in delinquency with respect to those accounts, how many of the soldier


settlers are in arrears, and the total amount of arrears. At the same time maybe he would check and let us know how many of the old soldier settler accounts are still outstanding and by how much, and how many have had to give up their land as the result of the debt.


Hugues Lapointe: With regard to my hon.
friend's first question, I can assure him that the collection picture under the Veterans' Land Act continues to be very good indeed. As of July 1, 1956, out of 30,891 full-time farmers and commercial fishermen only 908 were in arrears of over $200, and out of 31,824 small holders settled under the Veterans' Land Act only 40 were in arrears of more than $100. Therefore the collection picture has continued to be very good indeed.
With regard to soldier settlers' accounts which have been subject to debt reduction the picture is as follows. As of October 31, 1948, there were 2,637 active soldier settler accounts with a total debt of $2,842,534.30. As of today there are 69 active accounts left with a total debt of $41,818.26, the average debt being $606.06. Of those 69 accounts 35 have not been adjusted at this date and the remainder are repaying the reduced indebtedness on a time basis.


Erhart Regier: How many accounts are there altogether?


Hugues Lapointe: There are 69 active accounts left. The first figure I gave was the number of active accounts when we started the debt reduction program in 1948. At that time there were 2,637 active accounts. Now there are only 69 left.


Victor Quelch: Can the minister say whether any full-time farmers under the Veterans' Land Act have had to give up their land on account of failure to repay?


Hugues Lapointe: There have been 140 full-time farmers and small holders who have given up their lands because of the impossibility of meeting payments, out of a total of 70,237 settled.


Colin Cameron: There is a matter with regard to V.L.A. small holdings which I should like to take up. I have written to the minister about it in the past. I am speaking now of my own district on Vancouver island, and I refer to the position in which small holders find themselves due to the very rapid expansion of the urban areas of towns such as Nanaimo. At the close of the war quite a number of settlers were settled under the Veterans' Land Act on the outskirts of Nanaimo. Since that time the municipal boundaries have been extended and the provincial government has put a new highway

through one area in which a number of these holdings are situated. In one instance I know that the provincial government in putting the new highway through expropriated part of the V.L.A. holding of one man, rendering it of no great value for the purpose for which it was originally intended, but as a matter of fact adding value to it for another purpose which would have been, if he had been able, to subdivide the property and sell it. He could have done very well out of it.
In another case I know of the man has no ambition at all to do that with his property, but he would like to move into the sort of low taxation area in which he had originally been established but which has now become a high taxation area; and with the rapid expansion there the element of taxation is going to be increasingly important. Many of these men are finding themselves on properties that are now assessed so high and taxed so high that they are moved out of the category of the original intent of the V.L.A. small holding.
I wonder whether the minister can tell us what provisions are being made by the department to enable men in such cases to dispose of their property or part of it, or turn it back to the department with a return of what they have invested and the retention of their rights to areas outside. There may have been some change in the administrative practice or the regulations. I should like the minister to tell me if he has had to do anything about these cases.


Hugues Lapointe: Yes, Mr. Chairman. We have had some of these cases, and where it has been possible we have permitted the veteran who was settled to sell his property and we have settled him again on another property m a lower taxation area. That has been done m my hon. friend's part of the country. If the settler has not earned his conditional grant already; that is, if he has not been on his property for 10 years, he cannot do it; of course, if he has been on the property for 10 years he has earned his conditional grant and can obtain title and sell out.
. Mr- Cameron (Nanaimo): Is it not true that if they sell they must be able to find a cash customer?


Arthur-Joseph Lapointe: That is correct; they must find a cash customer. But if the property has really increased in value and is in an area where because of this increase in value, the taxation rate has become too high, our experience has been that the settler does not meet great difficulty in finding someone who will pay cash for the property.


Colin Cameron: I do not know that I agree with the minister, because the 67509-376
Supply-Veterans Affairs very fact that it has increased in value in many instances makes it more difficult to find a cash customer, whereas there are opportunities to sell it on terms.


Arthur-Joseph Lapointe: As a rule the purchaser can finance. He will pay cash and, of course, he will have to finance with a mortgage of his own afterwards. That is easily arranged.


Erhart Regier: I am very pleased indeed to hear from the minister that the veterans are the most reliable credit customers we have in Canada. I think he would agree that in relation to the vast number concerned, almost all of them are meeting their commitments on the due dates. I believe he mentioned some 40 or so out of 31,000 who were in arrears. I think that is something really worthy of note in Canada and even in Canadian credit circles.
I also noticed that in reply to the hon. member for Acadia he mentioned that even today there were some veterans of the first world war who were owing money on their properties. I think 99-9 per cent of the people of Canada would be most happy to see the minister this year, not next year, introduce a bill into this House of Commons that would wipe out this balance owing by these senior citizens and senior veterans of our country. However, my main reason for rising at this time is to ask the minister whether any consideration has been given to raising the amount of the loan that it is permissible to be granted to the veterans of the recent world war on the purchase of small holdings.
In my riding the cost of small holdings consists mainly of the cost of the home. Whereas several years ago $8,400 may have supplied the veteran with an adequate home, that is not the situation today. I might at this time pay my compliments to the civil servants in this branch of the minister's department. I think many of the finest homes were built by veterans at that time for that money. However, has any consideration been given to the greatly increased cost of the land and also of the buildings since that time? I hate to see these two by four buildings going up. For $8,400 nowadays in my riding you cannot put up a home that is worthy of erection, one that will be a credit to Canada and that will be in line with what the veteran deserves. It costs us at least $10 a square foot to put up even the most modest of homes. I feel that we have had enough of these small homes built in Canada. Most of these veterans' families have now reached an age where they need larger homes.
I am wondering whether any consideration has been given, during the last year or so,
5926	HOUSE OF
Supply-Veterans Affairs to raising this ceiling from $8,400 to, say, $12,000, $13,000 or $14,000? If a veteran wants to take advantage of the veterans' legislation I see no reason why he should be obliged to build an $8,000 home when other Canadian citizens, taking advantage of the provisions of the National Housing Act guaranteed loans, can move into $13,000, $14,000 and $15,000 homes. Has any consideration been given to raising the ceiling?


Hugues Lapointe: The ceiling was raised last year when the act was amended, and part III was introduced to permit an additional loan which brought the figure to what my hon. friend has mentioned. That was done last session.


Erhart Regier: Might I ask the minister this question. Does that apply to the veteran in the urban areas? Is he now able to obtain a $12,000 loan for the building of a home?


Hugues Lapointe: I do not know where my hon. friend gets the figure of $12,000. There is no such figure under the Veterans' Land Act, either for full-time farming or for small holdings.


Erhart Regier: May I ask the minister what the ceiling now is for an urban veteran with respect to building a home?


Hugues Lapointe: If he builds under part I of the act, which has to do with settling on a small holding, and if he takes advantage of part III which was brought in last year and which gives him an additional loan, the amount is $8,100 all told. If he takes advantage of part II of the act, which was also introduced last year and which is to permit a veteran contractor to build his own house and finance through the facilities of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the revolving fund which we hold, he must provide himself with a lot valued at $800 or more and then he can get up to $8,000 in the way of assistance.


Erhart Regier: In that case I was in error only on the wrong side of the fence. The maximum that the veteran can obtain apparently is $8,100. I must again emphasize the fact that in an urban area in British Columbia $8,100 is most inadequate and is most out of line with present day building costs, even though the lot were given to the veteran.
I feel it is high time that the veteran was able to take advantage of the veterans' legislation. In the lower mainland of British Columbia we have thousands of veterans who are buying N.H.A. guaranteed homes simply because they find themselves unable to build homes that meet their needs under the veterans' legislation. I feel that all veterans


should receive some help out of this legislation, and that it should not be limited only to the rural veteran who wants to buy a farm.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
DEPARTMENT OF NORTHERN AFFAIRS AND NATIONAL RESOURCES 209. Departmental administration, $510,190.
Jean Lesage: Mr. Chairman, the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources includes five branches that deal with widely divergent subjects. The national parks branch administers the national parks of Canada, the national historic parks and historic sites, the Canadian wildlife service and the national museum. The water resources branch is responsible for the federal aspects of water resource questions in Canada. The northern administration and lands branch handles the administration of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory in all its aspects. It is responsible for the administration of Eskimo affairs and also for a great many land problems including the natural resources of the two territories. The forestry branch deals with forest research, forest products research, and forestry management, including agreements with the provinces on forest inventories and reforestation. The Canadian government travel bureau deals with travel promotion and the tourist industry in so far as they are of concern to the federal government.
With this great variety of operations I do not think it would be desirable for me to try to give a comprehensive survey of the work of the department in detail at this time. Such a survey was given when the estimates of my department were before the committee on estimates during last session, and many hon. members will be familiar with the discussion at that time. In all the circumstances I think it may be more satisfactory to deal with a few of the highlights of departmental operations as reflected in the estimates for the coming year. I would wish also to outline in some detail the policy of the department with regard to national parks. When each individual branch is under consideration I shall, of course, be very happy to deal in detail with particular aspects of the work in which any hon. members might be interested.
A principal point of interest in the estimates of any department is always the extent of and the reasons for any major changes from the preceding year. For 1956-57 the estimates of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources show an increase of $5,918,662 in the main estimates, plus an additional $3,084,078 in the supplementary

estimates. This makes a total increase of $9,002,740. The increase, as a percentage of the estimates for 1955-56 is quite substantial, approximately 30 per cent. It is my hope that the house will feel that this increase is entirely justified, in fact I would venture to say more than justified, because of the reasons that lie behind the increases where they occur. The actual increases are in fact concentrated in a very few major aspects of operation, and these aspects reflect the places in which the government feels that substantial increases in activity are necessary.
The largest single increase is in the appropriation for the construction of trunk highways and bridges in the national parks. This increase amounts to $4,687,450, including the main and supplementary estimates. There are over 500 miles of main highways in the various national parks. This does not include those portions of the trans-Canada highway that are in the parks, nor does it include minor roads and trails.
These main highways include such important roads as the Banff-Jasper highway; the Banff-Windermere highway; the highways north and south through Prince Albert national park and Riding Mountain national park; the highway connecting with the provincial highways in Fundy national park; the Cabot trail in Cape Breton Highlands national park; and the Ocean View highway in Prince Edward Island national park.
The traffic on these roads has been increasing very markedly in the last few years. The extent and rate of the increase in traffic has now gone far beyond the standards to which most of these highways were built. In virtually all cases extensive or complete reconstruction is becoming necessary. I might also mention that we have found, particularly in the mountain parks, that it is very poor economy to build roads that are below the standard that is required for the wear and tear that the traffic imposes on them. The government, accordingly, has approved a six-year program for the reconstruction of the major park roads.
The total program over the six years will, it is presently estimated, amount to over $60 million. The increase in 1956-57 represents the first instalment of this new program. It includes major construction activity on the Banff-Windermere highway; the Banff-Jasper highway, the Cabot trail, and the Ocean View highway. The program in succeeding years will, on the average, be somewhat greater than the level indicated in this year's estimates.
Other capital items in the parks constitute an increase of $849,118. Accordingly, of
67509-376i
Supply-Northern Affairs the total departmental increase I have mentioned, no less than $5,529,568 is made up by construction and other capital items in the national parks.
The next largest item of increase also reflects an expansion of activity as a result of decisions of policy. This increase is in capital items in the north. One of the major requirements in the Northwest Territories is to provide the kind of educational facilities that will equip the Indian and Eskimo children there for the change that is now taking place at an increasingly rapid rate from their native hunting and trapping economy to an economy based on our way of life. This is not a change, at least in the rate it is taking place, that has been particularly sought or worked for at this time. I dealt in more detail with this matter in the statement on education policy that I made before the committee on estimates last year and I do not propose, Mr. Chairman, to go into it at length now.
I might say, however, that the present change is a change that is inevitable because of two interrelated forces. One is the very great increase in economic, defence and other activity in the north that is bringing our way of life inevitably into contact with the native way of life. The other is the fact that the hunting and trapping economy is rapidly becoming less capable of supporting the increasing population. Unless a very serious human problem is to be faced in a few years, extensive education and training of the native people to face a new form of life is urgently required. The largest single increase in northern administration is to provide educational facilities, housing and related administrative facilities in the Northwest Territories. It amounts to $1,821,565, of which educational facilities alone form by far the largest part.
The other substantial aspect of increase in northern administration reflects the policy of the government to stimulate and encourage economic development in the north. The increase for the construction of roads and bridges amounts to $441,830. The increase in funds provided for the construction of the new Aklavik as a centre for administration, education, and welfare in the far north amounts to $1,013,650. These three capital figures are subject to an adjustment downward of $1 million, which was the original estimate of likely short-fall in northern operations, and which has been partly restored in the supplementary estimates. The net result is that the increase of a capital character in our northern administration amounts in total, including the main and supplementary estimates, to $2,277,045.
As hon. members will see from what I have said, the total departmental increase is made
5928	HOUSE OF
Supply-Northern Affairs up to the extent of $7,806,613 by capital items in the national parks and the two northern territories.
The other substantial increase in the departmental appropriations again reflects a capital item. For a number of years the government has been providing an annual grant to the pulp and paper research institute to assist in the financing of research that is of value to this very important part of the Canadian forest industry. As was announced some months ago, it has now been agreed with the institute that it would be preferable for the government to provide a building of the most modern and efficient character in which research can be carried on and to discontinue the annual grants. There is, therefore, in the estimates an amount of $1,075,000 for a new laboratory to be constructed in Montreal. The total costs of the lab with equipment, to be financed by the federal government, will amount to $2,250,000 over a two-year period.
I think the above summary sets forth virtually all the substantial increases in the appropriations that are now being sought. The capital figures I have mentioned account for increases of $8,881,613. There are minor increases and some decreases in other places which bring the total departmental increase to the figure I gave at the beginning of my remarks, $9,002,740.
There is one other highlight of departmental activity that I should like to mention. As hon. members are aware, water problems have for some time been of concern in the province of Manitoba. As a result of discussions with Premier Campbell, I signed an agreement with him on July 5 for the establishment of a lakes Winnipeg and Manitoba

board. The board will consist of representatives of the province and of the federal government, and its duties will be to-and I quote from the agreement-
. . . plan, supervise and carry out a study of lakes Winnipeg and Manitoba and the resources of water within Manitoba flowing into and from those lakes.
It is to report on:
. . . what further developments and controls of these water resources in its judgment would appear to be physically practicable with particular reference to (a) flood control; and (b) hydroelectric power.
The federal government and the province are sharing equally in the cost of the survey and report.
Mr. Chairman, as I said at the beginning of my remarks I had intended to go on for some time in outlining the policy of the department regarding national parks, but since it is two minutes before ten o'clock I might call it ten o'clock at this time.
Item stands.
Progress reported.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, we are going to take agriculture tomorrow.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Is the minister in a position to announce the program for Monday and Tuesday?


Walter Edward Harris: I thought I had it settled earlier today, sir, but I received indications late this afternoon that it might not be possible to follow the plans we had in mind.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

[Stage Direction]
The following answers, deposited with the Clerk of the house, are printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:

Mr. Wylie: 1. What is the total amount of principal and interest outstanding on the old dominion-provincial
Federal liens
Principal
Manitoba	 Nil
Saskatchewan	 $202,668.17
Alberta	 36,680.67
Questions
seed grain liens in each of the following provinces: Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba?
2. What is the amount of principal and interest, by provinces, that has been collected from November 1, 1935, to the present?
Answer by: Hon. Jean Lesage (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):
1. The amounts of principal and interest
outstanding on June 29, 1956, are as follows: Interest	Total
Nil

Nil

Total	 $239,348.84	$492,480.14
Federal share of joint provincial and federal liens
Manitoba	
Nil	NilSaskatchewan	
$263,980.96	$497,083.67Alberta	
94,647.21	167,512.08

Nil

Total
358,628.17
$664,595.75	$1,023,223.92
2. The following amounts of principal and interest collected from November 1, 1935, to June 29, 1956, are as follows:
Federal liens	Principal	Interest	TotalManitoba	
Nil	Nil	NilSaskatchewan	
$541,555.83	$249,581.26	$791,137.09Alberta	
108,705.27	37,637.71	146,342.98Total	
$650,261.10	$287,218.97	$937,480.07
Federal share of joint provincial and federal liens
Manitoba	
Nil	Nil	NilSaskatchewan	
$ 47,393.04	$13,798.64	$ 61,191.68Alberta	
63,694.57	11,467.71	75,162.28Total	
$111,087.61	$25,266.35	$136,353.96


LOBSTER CATCH, HALIFAX EAST
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 549[DOT]-Mr. Balcom:
What has been the landed value and weight of the lobster catch in Halifax east, January 1 to July 1, 1956?
Answer by: Hon. James Sinclair (Minister of Fisheries):
The landed value and weight of the lobster catch in Halifax east, January 1 to May 31,* 1956, are as follows: Landed value, $221,700; weight, 5,610 cwt.
* Figures for June are not yet available.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:

[Stage Direction]
498.	Departmental administration, $2,215,472.
499.	District services-administration, $2,821,316.
500.	Veterans' welfare services, $3,155,735.
Treatment services-
501.	Operation of hospitals and administration, $39,347,750.
502.	Medical research and education, $375,000.
503.	Hospital construction, improvements, equipment and acquisition of land, $4,534,825.
504.	Prosthetic services-supply, manufacture and administration, $1,044,899.
505.	Veterans' bureau, $536,714.
506.	War veterans allowance board-administration, $142,554.
507.	Veterans insurance, $70,650.
War veterans allowances and other benefits-
508.	War veterans allowances, $41,192,000.
509.	Assistance fund (war veterans allowances), $650,000
510.	Treatment and other allowances, $2,782,500. Miscellaneous payments-
511.	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
5930	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Supply-Veterans Affairs
Belgium and for Canada's share of the expenditures of the imperial war graves commission, $1,393,713.
512.	Grant to army benevolent fund, $8,000.
513.	Grant to Canadian Legion, $9,000.
Canadian pension commission-
514.	Administration expenses, $2,298,111.
515.	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, $132,769,300.
516.	Gallantry awards-world war 2 and special force, $21,000.
Soldier Settlement and Veterans' Land Act-
517.	To provide for the cost of administration of Veterans' Land Act; soldier settlement and British family settlement, $4,852,880.
518.	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.
519. 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, $250,000.
520. To provide for the payment of grants to Indian veterans settled on Indian reserve lands under section 39 of the Veterans' Land Act, $100,000.
521.	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, $10,000.
522.	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 veteran 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, $12,000.
Terminable services-
523.	Veterans benefits, including assistance and the training of certain pensioners under regulations approved by the governor in council, $1,912,900.
Soldier Settlement and Veterans' Land Act-
536.	To provide for protection of security- soldier settlement, and refunds of surplus to veterans, $9,200.
537.	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, $22,584,000.
Miscellaneous payments-
729.	To provide for the cost of transportation from their homes to London, England, and return of Victoria Cross holders and certain eligible relatives attending the Victoria Cross centenary in June, 1956, and administrative expenses, $85,000.
Terminable services-
730.	To provide for the repayment in such amounts as the Minister of Veterans Affairs determines, not exceeding the whole of an amount equivalent to the compensating adjustment made under subsection (1) of section 13 of the War Service Grants Act or the payment made pursuant to paragraph (c) of subsection (2) of section 12 of the Veterans Rehabilitation Act, where the person who made the compensating adjustment or payment does not receive benefits under the Veterans' Land Act or where, having had financial assistance under that act, he is deemed by the minister on termination of his contract or agreement under that act to have derived thereunder either no benefit or a benefit that is less than the amount of the compensating adjustment or payment made, $190,000.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, July 13, 1956