1964-10-22

Mr. R. W. Prittie (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, this question of privilege concerns question No. 2,084 which I submitted and which was answered yesterday. The question is in two parts and reads as follows:
1.	What was the total amount of the budgets of the Department of National Defence for the fiscal years 1949-50 to 1983-64 inclusive?
2.	What was the total amount of actual expenditures by the Department of National Defence for the fiscal years 1949-50 to 1963-64 inclusive?
In replying to the question the Department of National Defence gave the information for the fiscal year 1963-64 but noted that the other information was contained in the public accounts.
I am well aware, Mr. Speaker, that the information is in the public accounts, but I asked the question because I wanted it to be a matter of public record. I checked Hansard and found numerous examples of questions which have been answered with information which is contained in the public accounts, or in departmental reports, or in the Canada Year Book.
Let me quote just two examples. First of all there is question 1,835 which was answered on September 14, as appears at page 7952 of Hansard. This concerns hospital grants paid to the provinces for the past five years. The information is in the publie accounts, but the question was answered. Question 1,793 was answered on September 9 and appears at pages 7776 and 7777 of Hansard. It concerns expenditures on historical sites in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. This information is also in the public accounts, but the question was answered by the department.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that there is an established practice, and that the ministry should be consistent in this matter.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister in connection with representations which Her Majesty's loyal opposition thinks deserve attention, namely the request from the civil service federation of Canada to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance asking for higher pensions for superannuated employees of the federal government because of the reduction in the purchasing power of fixed incomes, and in view of what is described as the ever increasing cost of living. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether attention will be given to this very proper request.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have received representations from the organization in question. With the Minister of Finance I am receiving a delegation next week, at which time those representations will be considered with them.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question. If when the government considers the representations from the civil service federation on behalf of retired civil servants it looks favourably upon those representations, will legislation regarding this matter be introduced at this session?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I think we better receive the representations and have a discussion with the representatives of the organization in question before I answer that question in the house.



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the

Inquiries of the Ministry Secretary of State, and relates to the Fowler commission and its announced study tour in Europe. Will the commission be including Germany in its itinerary as it studies the various broadcasting systems in Europe?


Hon. Maurice Lamonlagne (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I am not too sure about that, but I will make inquiries and give the hon. member an answer at a later date.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Justice.
Could he tell us whether he asked members of the R.C.M.P. who were in Quebec city on Saturday, October 10 last, to report on the events which took place that day, and more especially on the behaviour of members of the local police force?


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question which enables me to correct a mistake in this morning's issue of Le Devoir concerning a reply I made.
Yesterday, the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas), referring to a question he asked me last Friday, requested that I give this house certain information concerning what occurred in the city of Quebec during the visit of Her Majesty.
The daily Le Devoir, in this morning's edition, seemed to think that the matter dealt with the reading, or the reception, by myself, of the report of the solicitor general of the province of Quebec, Mr. Wagner. I was not referring to Mr. Wagner's report, the text of which, as printed in Le Devoir, I already had in my files, but to the report I was expecting from the R.C.M.P. I received that report at noon today, and I will be in a position to make a statement to the house on this matter tomorrow; however, I do not think it is in order for me to comment, especially in this house, on the behaviour of the provincial or of he municipal police, because the attorney general of the province of Quebec is the only one who has jurisdiction to pass official judgment or take action in this matter.
As far as I am concerned I shall limit my report to the activities of the R.C.M.P., over


which the federal government has jurisdiction.


Gilles Grégoire: May I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker?
I am not asking the Minister of Justice to make a decision concerning the behaviour of the municipal police of the city of Quebec, but could he give us at least a report from the R.C.M.P. concerning the activities or the behaviour of the Quebec municipal police on that day?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, of course from now until this report is communicated, I must decide how far I can go along this line, but I shall endeavour to do so to the extent that my duties and the limitations of my jurisdiction allow.


John George Diefenbaker: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is it not a fact that under no circumstances should the mounted police be placed in a position of becoming a kind of court of appeal against the actions of other police forces? To put the mounted police in that position would be very detrimental to that great force.


Guy Favreau: I fully agree, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Georges Valade (St. Mary):: Mr. Speaker, 1 wish to ask the hon. Minister of Justice a supplementary question.
Can he tell us if the R.C.M.P. was in charge of all security measures during the royal visit in Quebec city?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, the delimitation and allotment of the various fields of responsibility will specifically constitute one of the aspects I shall deal with in the statement I intend to make before the house tomorrow.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Labour, but in his absence I will address it to the Prime Minister who will probably want to take it as notice. In view of the representations that have been made to the government by the interprovincial trucking industry requesting that they be excluded from the application of Bill No. C-126, can

the Prime Minister tell us whether any decision has been made in this regard?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, their representations are being given very careful consideration.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Prime Minister be able to give the same assurance he has just given to my colleague vis-a-vis the managers and operators of country elevators in western Canada?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am glad to give that assurance too.



POINT EDWARD NAVAL BASE-CONSIDERATION OF SENIORITY AND VETERANS PREFERENCE IN LAY-OFFS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['Mr. Speaker, I made these remarks publicly on a number of occasions. I am quite sure the ministers of all governments in Canada are aware of them, and I do hope they will take them to heart.']
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Does the trade testing of qualified employees at the Point Edward naval base, and the proposed lay-off of tradesmen without right to seniority or veterans preference, represent government policy?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Associate Minister of National Defence):: I shall take that question as notice, Mr. Speaker.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, the question I have asked is not of the type the minister can answer by saying he will take it as notice. If he chooses not to answer, that is one thing; but for him to say he takes such a question as notice is ridiculous on his part.

Mr. Speaker, I have a question supplementary to the one I asked previously. I direct it now to the Prime Minister. I would ask the Prime Minister whether he no longer considers the veterans preference and prior agreements made by labour-management as part of government policy. I put special emphasis on the veterans preference as policy.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the veterans preferences as laid down in the regulations will certainly be observed by this government.


Malcolm MacInnis: A further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Now that the Prime Minister has assured the house that the veterans preference will remain as such, would he take the trouble to inform both ministers of national defence?
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):
It is not being observed now.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, to whom I sent notice, I wish to address a question to the Prime Minister. In view of reports from Washington that virtually no NATO country, with the sole exception of West Germany, wants any part in the multilateral nuclear force, and in view of the present international situation, would the government of Canada give consideration to urging the United States to delay consummation of this United States-German nuclear venture until further opportunity is provided for consultation with the new leaders of government?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it would be the course of wisdom for this government to intervene in a matter of this kind involving consultations between the United Kingdom and the United States governments which will be taking place when the new British secretary of state for foreign affairs arrives in Washington next week.


[Stage Direction]
INQUIRY AS TO STEPS TO INCREASE TRADE On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Graffiey (Brome-Missisquoi):: My question is directed to the Minister of Trade and Commerce and is based on answers given to me this week by the right hon. Prime Minister on commonwealth trade. In the light of Prime Minister Wilson's proposals, and those of our own Prime Minister in 1962 in North Battleford and Edmonton on the question of commonwealth trade, has the Canadian government prepared any specific proposals-I underline the word "specific"- and does it intend to take any special initiative in regard to commonwealth trade? Can the minister give us any information at this particular time?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: As the Prime Minister has said, we would be very happy to discuss with the new government matters of commonwealth trade. We are interested in the promotion of commonwealth trade, and we believe also
9310	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry that the promotion of world trade in general will help the commonwealth. I expect that we shall be receiving some proposals from the new government, and these we shall look at most sympathetically.


William Heward Grafftey: May I ask a supplementary question. In view of the fact that Prime Minister Wilson's views with regard to this subject have been known for quite some time, may I ask if the department has at this time prepared any specific proposals relating to commonwealth trade?


Mitchell William Sharp: I should think that since the new Prime Minister of Britain has expressed these views publicly, he will probably be taking some initiative. I would hope and expect that we shall treat the initiative of the British government on this occasion a good deal more sympathetically than it was treated by the government of which he was a supporter.


John George Diefenbaker: The usual cheap remarks from the minister; cheap and false.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Francis Alvin George Hamilton: May I
direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce? In view of the minister's recent statement in Nova Scotia last week, and in view of the rumours that are now current about delays in negotiations with the Russians vis-fl-vis wheat particularly, has the minister considered, as one type of initiative he might take, a quick visit to Moscow to establish contact with the new administration and get negotiations back on the rails?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am flattered by the suggestion that I might be able to help relations between the Soviet union and Canada by taking a quick visit to Moscow. I can assure the hon. gentleman there has been no delay in any negotiations between the Soviet union and Canada, which are proceeding as I expected they would. They will take their course until the Soviet union decides how much wheat they would like to buy. We are in constant communication with them urging them to buy Canadian wheat to the extent that they need it.


Mr. M. W. Martin (Timmins):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the assurance by the Minister of


Trade and Commerce that discussions are continuing between Canada and Russia I would like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister inform the house if it is true that two eminent Canadians, Mr. Dalton Camp and Mr. Keith Davey, have flown to Moscow to find out how it is done?


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether his attention has been drawn to the statement made by President de Gaulle yesterday that unless there is a reconciliation of agricultural policy France may withdraw from the European economic community. There is also the fact that there is no further point in negotiations in the so-called Kennedy round until these problems are resolved. I would like to ask the minister whether these trade negotiations are continuing and whether the representatives in the negotiations are addressing themselves specifically to this question of trade in agricultural commodities.


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Just today I read dispatches from Geneva dealing with the news item that appeared in the newspapers and to which my hon. friend has referred. The continuing difficulties in trying to work out a common agricultural policy for the European economic community is one of the most serious difficulties standing in the way of the opening of the so-called Kennedy round. The United States, supported by Canada, has said on a number of occasions that we believe the negotiations should relate not only to industrial goods but to agricultural products. The United States, in negotiations with the European economic community, has not yet been able to agree with them upon a suitable method of negotiation.
However, the discussions are continuing. I think all those concerned-and I believe this includes all the participating governments without exception-would like to see a successful round of trade negotiations. Therefore I am hopeful, although of course not confident, that a method will be found of negotiating with regard to agricultural products that will enable the negotiations to proceed.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the minister's recent statement in Winnipeg, repeated in Halifax last week end, that regional economic barriers should be avoided in Canada, has the minister made any representations to the government of the province of Quebec with regard to sanctions against the free movement of goods within Canada such as are implied in some of its policies?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Muir: I should like to ask a supplementary question. I thank the hon. minister for his reply, but in view of his remarks to which I have referred is it his intention to make any representations to that government in this respect?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I made these remarks publicly on a number of occasions. I am quite sure the ministers of all governments in Canada are aware of them, and I do hope they will take them to heart.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. This question arises from newspaper reports published in La Terre de Chez-Nous and La Frontiire de Rouyn concerning tests made with a view to producing rain artificially.
Here is my question. Has the government granted a permit to the Weather Engineering Corporation of Canada to produce showers artificially in northwestern Quebec or in the Saguenay region?


Mr. Speaker:: Surely this is a question for the order paper if there ever was one.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, in a little while I shall put down this question for debate at the earliest opportunity.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Lester Bowles Pearson: I was really going to say 1 had heard nothing about this matter, but I would look into it.


Gilles Grégoire: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.
The question asked by the hon. member for Chapleau probably sounds strange to a resident of Montreal, but I do know that clouds are sown over our area and, as a result, there have been so many days of rain in the Saguenay region that crops have completely failed and a large number of farmers have seen their year's work wasted.
That rainmaking has brought about a farm crisis in those areas. As far as our region is concerned, therefore, this is a most important matter.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think sufficient publicity has been given to the question by now.



INQUIRY AS TO MEETING WITH MINISTER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture I will direct my question to the Minister of Forestry.
Could he tell us the results of the negotiations and discussions which took place yesterday between the officials of his department and U.C.C. officials?


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that the Minister of Agriculture had a meeting yesterday with U.C.C. officials.


Gilles Grégoire: It is time you knew.



RAPESEED-STATEMENT ON REQUEST FOR ANNOUNCEMENT OF QUOTAS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I should like to answer a question asked on October 19 by the hon. member for Rosthern about quotas in respect of rapeseed.
I have been advised by the Canadian wheat board that the quota for rapeseed, which currently is five bushels per seeded acre, is determined largely by market requirements. At the present time stocks are more than ample.

Inquiries of the Ministry The rapeseed situation is under continuous review by the board, and indications are that the quota can be increased in the near future.



EDUCATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. L. Chatterton (Esquimali-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Is he aware that, contrary to the intent of the student loans act as indicated by the minister when introducing Bill No. C-110, many needy students attending educational institutions outside their home provinces find it impossible to obtain loans simply because of the differing policies of the provinces involved?


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I would not like to make any comment on the adequacy of the administration of the provinces concerned without knowing more about which provinces are involved, and more about the details.


George Louis Chatterton: As a supplementary question, would the minister look into this matter in that I understand, for instance, the provinces of Nova Scotia and British Columbia will issue certificates of eligibility only to their own resident students for fear they will use up their quotas?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I shall be glad to look into the matter, Mr. Speaker.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Public Works a question which has been prompted by my recent reading of United States magazines. Has the government decided that construction of the Prince Edward Island-New Brunswick causeway will begin in 1966?


Hon. J. P. Deschatelets (Minister of Public Works):: It is under very active consideration, Mr. Speaker.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: As a supplementary question, is the minister aware of the fact that one of his colleagues, at least in a report to this effect, expressed the assurance that the construction would commence by 1966?
[Mr. Sharp.)


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: I am not aware of this, Mr. Speaker.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert William Prittie: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs I would like to ask the Prime Minister a question concerning the current conference of UNESCO in Paris. Is there a Canadian delegation there, and did they vote on the question of mainland China and the admission of Formosa?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I shall have to look into that question, and I will be able to reply tomorrow.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I direct a question to the Acting Minister of Transport in connection with the Canadian National Railways. I have received a number of representations regarding the closing down of Nakina as a divisional point, which is to take place within the next couple of days. Would the minister take up with the railway the question of postponing that action for a short time, until a decision is made by one of the great steel companies in our country regarding the establishment of an iron pellet plant there? If this takes place naturally Nakina would have to continue as a divisional point, and in view of the shortness of the time within which the closedown is to become effective I would appreciate very much if the minister would do that.


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Acting Minister of Transport):: 
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for his very courteous answer.



PROPOSED REDUCTION IN SERVICE TO COMMUNITIES BETWEEN TORONTO AND MONTREAL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Russell C. Honey (Durham):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Minister of Transport. My question relates to the recent announcement of Canadian National Railways regarding the curtailment of passenger train service to many communities between Toronto and Montreal effective October 25, 1964. Will the minister make immediate representations to Canadian National Railways to reconsider this decision, and in addition request the board of transport commissioners to follow recent precedents and order Canadian National Railways to continue the present service until such time as the board can hold a public hearing on the matter?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I will draw the subject matter of the hon. member's question to the attention of both the C.N.R. management and the board of transport commissioners.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry. In view of the announcement by Premier Lesage of the proposed integrated steel complex in Quebec, which will undoubtedly provide competition for the Dosco steel operations at Sydney, does the minister have any plans either under export credits or other legislation to provide for the maintenance and expansion of the Sydney steel industry?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, the Dosco operation in Sydney is currently a very successful one, as I think hon. members know. This is partly as a consequence of assistance they have been able
Inquiries of the Ministry to obtain from the Export Credits Insurance Corporation. I do not think the hon. member would expect, nor does the government intend to do so, legislation to be passed to provide for the continuing existence of Dosco.


Robert Muir: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the minister whether the department has undertaken, or will it undertake, any studies of the long term prospects for the Sydney steel industry; and if so, will the minister make them public in order to allay the justifiable anxiety of the people of Nova Scotia in general and the people of Cape Breton in particular?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I think it would perhaps be doing a disservice to the people of Nova Scotia to suggest that they and the steel operations at Sydney are not capable of competing with anybody in the world. They have demonstrated that they can. I may add parenthetically, however, that the Department of Industry is engaged with the Domin-tion Steel and Coal Company in a research operation in connection with the smelting of the particular iron ore which Dosco employs at Sydney.


Robert Muir: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister not aware that the success of the Sydney steel operation has been due mainly to government assistance provided under the Export Credits Insurance Act?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I do not think I would admit that. The success of the Dosco operation at Sydney has been due, in my view, essentially to the initiative of the Dosco management and labour force.


Robert Muir: Thank you, Mr. Goldwater.


Mr. J. E. Lloyd (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry. Under the provisions of the Income Tax Act both provincially and publicly owned and controlled undertakings are exempt from federal income taxes. Would the minister assure the house that, should a steel complex located in Quebec and promoted by the Quebec provincial government qualify for such exemption, appropriate action would be taken to equalize the competitive position of privately owned steel corporations such as the steel complex in the province of Nova Scotia?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I will take that question as notice, Mr. Speaker.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Jean-Pierre Cole (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct to the hon. Minister of Industry a question supplementary to the one asked by the member for Halifax (Mr. Lloyd).
Is the minister aware that most of the shares which shall be issued by the new steelworks in Quebec will be held by private individuals and not by the government of the province of Quebec?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I have read the press reports.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Is the new system regarding the remittance of income tax deductions, effective November 1, whereby employers will have to remit the taxes they collect to the chartered banks, the first step in the minister's plan whereby employers will have to remit taxes the week following that in which they are collected?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot say that the two are necessarily connected. However, if one is to look to pay day remittances, this would certainly be an assistance.


Alfred Dryden Hales: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. How does the minister propose to introduce this new system? Will it be by a minister's directive, by order in council, or by an amendment to the act?


Edgar John Benson: The collection of taxes is the responsibility of the Minister of National Revenue.


Alfred Dryden Hales: How will the announcement be made?


Edgar John Benson: I have not as yet said that an announcement will be made.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question

to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the assurance given by the Prime Minister that the new legislation respecting the Canada pension plan will be on the order paper before the end of October, can she now tell us on what date this legislation will be on the order paper?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, it is expected early next week.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I address a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Does the commitment given earlier by the government, that this legislation will be concluded before this session ends, still stand?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I ever gave a commitment that the legislation would be concluded. I gave a commitment that the legislation would be introduced.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Justice on July 6 gave the commitment to which I refer, and the Prime Minister confirmed it on September 25.


Mr. Fisher:: Short memory.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The hon. gentleman knows, of course, that the government can introduce legislation but parliament is responsible for the date of its conclusion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I also know what the Minister of Justice said.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I have a supplementary question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I would like to ask her whether all the nine provinces that we hope will be participating in this pension plan have indicated that they are willing to participate.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: All provinces were represented at the last meeting at which this matter was discussed, and there was no indication from any province that it did not intend to participate.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. That was not an answer to the question I asked. I asked whether the government has received an indication from all the provinces that they are willing to participate.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I think my former answer must stand if only on this account. It is not only unusual but I might say rather improper for a federal government

to request heads of provincial governments to approve either in advance or concurrently what is wholly federal legislation. I would say that none of those who were present and who were fully apprised of the information in respect to pension plans indicated that under the constitution it would be prepared to introduce legislation which would usurp the function of a Canada pension plan.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: A further supplementary question. Could I ask the Prime Minister whether it is the view of the government that this pension plan is solely federal legislation?


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is indeed federal legislation, Mr. Speaker, and only one province has indicated its intention of introducing provincial legislation in this field.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. In view of the fact that the proceedings against Mr. Justice Landreville have come to an end, would the minister inform the house as to his view of the propriety, in the interests of the administration of justice and in the light of the facts revealed and the evidence which came out in court, of the resignation of the justice?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I think I said yesterday that I would be making a statement shortly on that matter.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the minister say whether any consideration has been given, since I raised the matter, to the appointment of a commission? In addition, can the minister give the house an assurance that if there is a resignation here there is certainly no case for pension rights?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Sherbrooke.


John George Diefenbaker: I want to know whether a commission is going to be appointed, Mr. Speaker. Is there going to be a commission to deal with this matter, or is a flagrant case such as this to remain not subject to the fullest examination by a commission?


Guy Favreau: I said, Mr. Speaker, that I would make a statement on this matter. At
Inquiries of the Ministry the moment I am not ready to prejudge any question.



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Chapdelaine (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege based on my personal interest as well as that of all hon. members of this house.
On October 8 last I raised a similar question to call the attention of the house to the fact that Mr. Maurice Allard, former member of parliament for Sherbrooke, used stationery placed at the disposal of members of parliament to send congratulations or other messages to people in the riding of Sherbrooke and, at that time I read a letter of congratulations for Mr. Robert Delisle, a student at Sherbrooke, who had won a golf trophy.
I thought that this warning would be enough for that former member of parliament who has no right whatsoever to one of the exclusive privileges of members of this house, namely to use the letterhead of the House of Commons to write to their constituents. Now, outdoing himself in rashness, Mr. Allard has convinced Mr. Delisle to send me a threatening letter and order me to return to him immediately the said letter, forbidding me to make copies or photostats thereof, and also asking me detailed explanations on how it came into my possession.
Moreover, the hon. member for St. Mary (Mr. Valade), speaking yesterday in the name of the said Mr. Allard on a question of privilege, accused me of a violation of the Post Office Act and told the house that the criminal offence I had committed was liable to a maximum fine of $3,000 or three years in prison or both.
Mr. Speaker, I think the house has already wasted enough time on such a trifle, but due to the way events are shaping, it is my duty to propose that this matter be referred to the committee on privileges and elections.
I am prompted by the following reasons to take this action:
1.	I believe that only members of parliament or officials of this house are authorized to use stationery bearing the crest of the House of Commons.
2.	The use of this stationery for such frivolous purposes as those invoked by the former member for Sherbrooke reflects upon


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, in raising his question of privilege, the hon. member for Sherbrooke mentioned having received a threatening letter from one of the addressees who received a letter not belonging to him, and I would ask that the hon. member for Sherbrooke also table the copy of that letter which he qualifies as
[Mr. Chapdelaine.)

threatening in order that the house may have the full story.
As far as the question of privilege is concerned, I should like to quote section 42 of the Post Office Act which reads:
All undeliverable mail and all non mailable matter found in the mails shall be sent to the section of the department established by the Postmaster General for the receipt thereof-
And no other person, even a member of parliament, has the right to intercept, retain or delay delivery of a parcel when he is not the addressee. I hope that this explanation will confirm the complaint I made yesterday.


Gérard Chapdelaine: Mr. Speaker, I do not object to tabling the letter in question and, furthermore, should the hon. member for St. Mary decide to take legal action later on, he can go ahead.


Mr. Speaker:: I may tell the house that this is not the first time I have heard of this matter, nor does it exactly catch me by surprise.
On October 8 the hon. member for Sherbrooke raised this matter, but he did not follow through with any motion to the effect that it should be referred to a committee for study, and the matter died there. Today, October 22, he raises in effect the same question. As all hon. members know, the proper procedure is to raise a question of privilege at the earliest opportunity. In my view the motion cannot be accepted at this time for at least that one reason, that it has not been raised at the earliest opportunity. The hon. member had an opportunity on October 8 to move a motion, but apparently decided at that time not to follow through.
As partial authority for this view I should like to quote Beauchesne, citation 104, subsection 5, as follows:
As a motion taken at the time for matters of privilege is thereby given precedence over the prearranged program of public business, the Speaker requires to be satisfied, both that there is a prima facie case that a breach of privilege has been committed, and also that the matter is being raised at the earliest opportunity.
I should also like to quote from Beauchesne, citation 113, beginning at approximately the middle of the paragraph, as follows:
A question of privilege ought rarely to come up in parliament. It should be dealt with by a motion giving the house power to impose a reparation or apply a remedy.

In view of the fact that this matter has been discussed now on three occasions it is my opinion that the opportunity for raising this at the earliest possible time was not taken and, consequently, I do not think the motion is in order.


Gérard Chapdelaine: If you will allow me, Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out that the second letter I read was returned to me only after October 8 last, and that I did not intend to raise the question by proposing a motion to the effect that the matter be sent to the committee on privileges and elections, even though I have had the letter from the beginning of this week. It is the intervention of the member for St. Mary who, intending to accuse me of having committed a criminal act, tends to lead the house into believing that I have acted illegally.
Mr. Speaker, I am of the opinion that the illegal act has been committed by the former member for Sherbrooke, and I should like this point to be elucidated once and for all by the committee on privileges and elections or by the competent authorities, in order that we may know definitely where we stand with regard to the use of House of Commons stationery.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In my opinion more than enough publicity has been given to this matter. If any mistakes have been made-


An hon. Member:: That is not true.


Mr. Speaker:: If any mistakes have been made I am sure they will be corrected. I still hold to the decision that if the hon. member had a point of privilege on October 8-and there appeared to be a prima facie case- he did not avail himself of the opportunity to propose a motion to the house to the effect that the matter be referred to the committee on privileges and elections. Several days, or perhaps even two weeks later, in my opinion, is too late.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, on a personal question of privilege, the hon. member for Sherbrooke in his remarks-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I rise because of allegations made by the hon. member which are not in accordance with the facts. The
Inquiries of the Ministry
hon. member for Sherbrooke has said that I accused him of doing something illegal. I never said that in any of my interventions.
I did mention certain articles of the post office regulations which deal with this aspect of the matter, but I never accused the hon. member of having proceeded illegally. I did say the articles did not provide for that procedure.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I know it is irregular to direct a question to you, but in respect of this very important matter would you consider looking into the situation and examining what has happened? Many of us are very concerned about this kind of thing. I do not particularly want to have the committee go into this case, but I certainly feel you should protect the interests of all of us by examining this matter.


Mr. Speaker:: I should like to reply very quickly that I spent considerable time in respect of this matter this morning. I would be very pleased indeed to accept the suggestion of the hon. member.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, we are also agreeable to the suggestion made by the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) to the effect that your ruling be deferred, so you may have time to examine the matter, because all hon. members are interested in finding out exactly how things stand with regard to stationery and to their rights and privileges in that connection.


Georges-J. Valade: And also with regard to the Post Office Act.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The suggestion of the hon. member for Port Arthur was that the Speaker look into the matter, and it was not made to delay or to solicit a further interpretation of the decision.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. What action, if any, is contemplated to enlarge the size of the presently planned new passenger terminal at the Moncton airport, in view of
9318	HOUSE OF
Supply-Veterans Affairs growing concern that the present plans will not provide sufficient space for present and future traffic?


Mr. Speaker:: This is a question for the order paper.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, I would agree with you except for the fact that tenders have already been called in respect of the construction of this terminal, and when they were called this fact become known. Representations have been made to the department in an attempt to have the traffic facilities there enlarged. I am wondering whether that has been contemplated.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as notice so that I may obtain an answer for the hon. member.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Cameron (High Park) in the chair.


The Acting Chairman (Mr. Cameron, High Park):: Order. The house again in committee of supply. Owing to the fact that the chairman of the committee, Mr. Deputy Speaker, cannot be here for a short time, and because the deputy chairman is otherwise engaged,
1 have been asked to take the chair, if it meets with your approval.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Donald Cameron: The first matter is the estimates of the Department of Veterans Affairs, item No. 1.
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 1. Departmental administration, $6,491,400.


Donald Cameron: I recognize the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre.


Mr. Churchill:: Mr. Chairman, before I commence my remarks I should like to ask the Minister of Veterans Affairs whether the annual report for the fiscal year 1963-64 has been published.


Mr. Teillet:: Mr. Chairman, I am informed that it is now at the printers. I cannot tell the hon. gentleman now when it will be ready, but I will get an answer for him as soon as I can.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, it makes it a bit awkward to discuss the estimates of the department when the annual report is not before the house. As I look back at other an-

nual reports I notice that the letters of transmittal signed by the ministers have been dated in the months of May, June or July. In all these years this is the first occasion that has come to my attention of the report not being in the hands of the house by the last week of October. I am surprised it was not available for the standing committee on veterans affairs when they were conducting their deliberations earlier this month.
I should think the minister would have to look into this matter very carefully to see why there has been such a substantial delay. When he first became a minister of the crown in 1963 he signed the report which had been prepared under myself and my predecessor, the hon. member for Edmonton West. He did so on May 30, 1963. What has happened this year? It is almost the end of October and we still do not have the annual report of the Department of Veterans Affairs. I judge that there has been a dereliction of duty here and I hope the minister will improve his attitude with regard to this department.
On December 19 of last year, ten months ago, the estimates of the Department of Veterans Affairs were before the house for consideration. Those estimates had been prepared by the former Conservative government. Consequently we did not spend as much time examining them on that occasion as we are spending in examining the estimates on this occasion, when the estimates are new and have been prepared by the new government.
However, on that occasion the minister had been in office for quite a number of months, and when he introduced his estimates he restricted himself to a very short speech of about three minutes or less. When he introduced his estimates this year he cut his remarks down even more. On both occasions all he really said to us was "The estimates have been before the standing committee on veterans affairs; consequently I have nothing to add to the committee proceedings."
I think this is a wrong attitude on the part of ministers of the crown. When their estimates come before the House of Commons they should make statements indicating what they have been doing during the course of the year, because virtually a year elapses between their appearances for the purpose of discussing their estimates. They should make statements concerning the policy of their departments, tell us what has been done as the result of suggestions made the previous year, and also give an outline of future policy.

We have had nothing of that sort from the minister.
Last December I put three questions to the minister. We accepted the fact that he had not been long in office, and for that matter not long in parliament. But I suggested to him that even then he was derelict in his duty in not giving us some idea as to what he and the department intended with regard to certain matters pertaining to the department. I thought that amendments to the Pension Act should have been looked at, including the question of the benefit of the doubt clause. I also asked him about the section dealing with servicemen now in the regular forces whose affairs come under the jurisdiction of the pension commission. I think it is section 13, subsection 2, but in any event it causes a lot of trouble. I also asked him about the question of veterans hospitals.
The standing committee on veterans affairs also made a report last year containing ever so many recommendations, which the member for Okanagan-Revelstoke drew to our attention yesterday. Not one word was said by the minister with regard to those recommendations of the standing committee. There were 14 paragraphs in the report of the standing committee made on December 12, 1963, but not a word have we had from the minister. He said nothing about the Hong Kong veterans, a question also raised a year ago. I use that as an example because the subject has been aired in the house on two or three occasions in the last few months.
Some members who spoke yesterday said that in view of the fact that the standing committee on veterans affairs had examined the estimates there was not much need to discuss them in the House of Commons. We have recently had a report from the committee on rules and procedure advocating a more extensive use of committees, and there is a general feeling that if problems are referred to committees everything will be all right and the problems will be solved and settled.
I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that is a careless view of what actually happens. In the years I have been here I have served on a great many committees, and I know exactly what a committee can accomplish and some of the omissions that occur with regard to committees. In looking at the record of the present standing committee on veterans affairs I notice that although it started off with a membership of 40 it found it necessary to reduce its quorum to 10, which is a clear indication the committee was having
Supply-Veterans Affairs difficulty in assembling members to discuss veterans problems.
So I do not see that it makes very good sense for people to say here in the house that these estimates were carefully examined and scrutinized by a committee, which had only four or five meetings, and that on that ground we in our turn should not give much attention to these estimates in the house. I do not take that stand at all. I have had too much experience with committees. It is here in the House of Commons that the minister has to answer to the house with regard to his knowledge of the department and his system of administration. He must also be prepared to give us an indication of the policy of the government and an accounting of what he has been doing.
The minister has been in office now for a year and a half, long enough to indicate whether he is maintaining the Department of Veterans Affairs at the level at which it should be maintained, long enough for him to be able to give us decisions with regard to some of the problems still affecting veterans. In the interests of the general public I think in his opening remarks each year the minister should say something about the veteran population of this country which still requires assistance. People get the wrong impression with regard to our veterans, and that impression should be corrected from time to time by the Minister of Veterans Affairs himself here in this public assembly.
There is a misunderstanding in the country with regard to our veterans hospitals. That situation should be explained again. Granted the minister made a statement last March, I think, but this is the end of October. Let us have a statement now as to the situation with regard to these veterans hospitals.
Why has he not done something with regard to the problems raised by the director of medical services, who last year and again this year in the standing committee on veterans affairs raised the problem of staffing veterans hospitals? In effect, on both occasions he said that although he could manage moderately well under the present terms of reference, it is up to parliament to decide this question for him and give him the necessary direction. If this means we should be building institutions for domiciliary care to look after chronic cases and relieve present hospitals of those cases, then let us have a policy on the part of the work of the department.
The present minister may say, why did you not do that while you were in office? I
9320	HOUSE OF
Supply-Veterans Affairs had this subject under discussion, but I did not have time to complete it during the years our government was looking after veterans affairs. We made ever so many amendments to the veterans charter; we kept the house busy and the officials of the department very busy making the necessary amendments to the veterans charter. We looked after the situation with regard to disability pensions, war veterans allowances and things of that nature. During the years we were in office we raised very substantially the amount of money available for our disability pensioners and those on war veterans allowances. We made it possible for the Veterans' Land Act to operate more effectively by increasing the loans. All told we increased by almost $100 million the amount of money available for our veterans who required assistance. We were repairing some of the neglect of earlier years.
Now, what is this present minister doing with regard to our disability pensioners, with regard to people on war veterans allowances? In the time we were in office we were not able to solve all these problems. There are other problems that arise. Veterans associations right across this country keep bringing forward suggestions for the improvement of conditions with regard to veterans. The department is a good department; we all admit that. It is well staffed. However, the departmental officials themselves require direction. If parliament passes a measure they are obliged to follow the terms of that measure. They have no authority to deviate from it. If there are modifications of the charter that should be introduced, parliament should introduce those modifications.
I am sure the parliamentary secretary to the minister must be frustrated, because in days gone by I recall him as a very active worker in connection with veterans affairs. When he was sitting in opposition he always participated in the debates on veterans problems when we had bills or estimates before the house. He made some very useful suggestions for which I commended him. Some of those suggestions were put into operation later. He must be a very frustrated man now, sitting here as parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, and we have not heard a word about the suggestions he made two or three years ago. I feel sorry for him because his interest in veterans always impressed me, and I am sure it continues. Where is his influence? Has he no affect on his minister? I am afraid not.


I am not here to praise the minister, as may be evident. I think the minister must show whether he has any value as a minister of veterans affairs. A year and a half has gone by and we have had no declaration of policy from this minister, no amendments to the veterans charter. He talked in the standing committee about amendments he was going to bring forward, but was rather vague and nebulous about them. He said nothing about disability pensioners, nothing about war veterans allowances. He said nothing about the Hong Kong veterans. He has not given us an up to date report with regard to hospitals, and a year and a half has gone by. This Department of Veterans Affairs is not just a department. It has a very important function to perform. I think the department, under this minister, has not received the attention it deserves.
I wonder how the minister fares with his cabinet colleagues. Do they just brush him aside and say "You may have some ideas but we are not ready for them, we have other problems with which to deal." I wonder about his influence with the members of the treasury board. Are they brushing him aside and saying "No, you must not ask for any increase anywhere down the line at all"? Who is responsible for the veterans of this country? The rising cost of living and the vast number of requests that are coming to members of the house mean that the minister must very quickly do something about these particular problems.
I draw these matters to the attention of the committee. I feel the minister should become active so that this department may continue to function at a high level of efficiency and with continuing regard for the veterans of this country. There are still living in Canada over one million veterans of the various wars in which we have been engaged. Fortunately 80 per cent of them do not require assistance, but approximately 20 per cent do. This 20 per cent require help because of wounds suffered in wartime or because of serious economic conditions. We are maintaining our veterans hospitals to look after those who require medical assistance. The department therefore has a continuing responsibility, a responsibility that goes on and on and on.
As I pointed out on one other occasion, once a nation enters into war; once that fateful decision is made, as was done in September of 1939, you are obligated for 70 years to those people who suffer in that war. It is for this reason we are still looking after

some members of the South African force. The disability pensioners of the first world war will still be around for a number of years, although their average age is now about 70. There are hundreds of our veterans who are living to what we call a ripe old age, up into the nineties. They enlist at 19 or 20, so we have a 70 year obligation. The veterans of the second world war will present problems for this parliament and for this country for another 50 years. We cannot brush these problems aside. This is a debt of honour that the country owes to her veterans.
Let me remark again that 80 per cent of the veterans do not require any assistance at all. They are the fortunate ones who escaped serious injury in wartime. We must give help to the other 20 per cent, their dependants, their widows and orphans. I hope the present government will make sure the Department of Veterans Affairs is maintained as one of the important departments over which the government has jurisdiction. I am afraid that in the last year and a half there has been a cooling off of interest with regard to this department and the welfare of the veterans. What I am attempting this afternoon is to draw attention to the importance of reviving that interest so that people generally will have an understanding of our obligation.
The figures in the 1960-61 and 1962-63 annual reports are the most reliable we have, because the annual report for the last fiscal year has not yet been distributed. These show that in 1960-61 first world war disability pensioners totalled 48,000, and their number declined to 41,000 in 1962-63. I may add that I am giving the round figures. World war II disability pensioners numbered 104,000 in 1960-61, and increased to 106,000 by the end of 1962-63. The number receiving war veterans allowances increased from 48,000 in 1960-61 to 54,000 in 1962-63, and these figures show that the decline in the number of first world war veterans is matched by the increase in the attention that must be given to the second world war veterans and the boys from Korea.
I anticipate that with the improved economic conditions over the last 20 years, better conditions than we had between 1920 and 1940, the number of veterans from the second world war who will require war veterans allowance will not reach the same percentage as those from the first world war, who had a much more difficult period in which to adjust themselves. If economic conditions improve and social improve-
Supply-Veterans Affairs ments continue, the veterans' problem will not reach the magnitude it did following the first world war, but I give the figures to illustrate the continuing problem that faces the department.
There is another subject I wish to raise, but I shall not do so now because it is entirely different from what I have been talking about and I see I have almost exhausted my specified allotment of time. However, I conclude by urging the minister to give us a definite statement with regard to what he intends to do concerning disability pensions, war veterans allowances and the Hong Kong veterans, whose case has been ably presented by various members. Also I urge him to give us an up to date report on medical services and veterans hospitals.


Mr. Lambert:: I had not intended to speak on these estimates, but having read what was said yesterday I agree with my colleague from Winnipeg South Centre on the paucity of the minister's remarks. In fact his statement as recorded in the transcript of evidence given before the standing committee on veterans affairs was just about the same length as the statement he made yesterday and which is recorded in Hansard. For that reason he deserves the strictures uttered this afternoon by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre with regard to the limited nature of his remarks as official spokesman for the department.
I too would like to have seen a definite statement. I know the estimates could have gone to the committee a lot sooner, and privately I indicated this to the minister. It is a charge I have levied against the government on other occasions, because the estimates of many other departments could also have been sent to committee. In some ways I differ from my colleague on the value of sending estimates to a committee, but it is true that even if a committee does the appropriate work, general principles may remain to be discussed in this chamber. This is the point involved here, and I am not surprised that we may now have to cover somewhat more ground than would have otherwise been the case.
Yesterday the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke, leading off for the opposition, referred to last year's lengthy recommendations of the veterans affairs committee. I believe we are entitled to a progress report on those recommendations, and I think it should have been given yesterday. I hope the minister will see fit to comment on those recommendations
9322	HOUSE OF
Supply-Veterans Affairs in his closing remarks, because the veterans affairs committee is one which adopts a nonpartisan attitude. Recommendations coming from it should receive careful consideration in this chamber. Not only that; the appearance of careful consideration should be given them by a report from the minister, following consideration of the recommendations by the departmental officials, the minister and the government.
Part of the problem which arose during the past year concerned veterans hospitals which, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, was something which was exercising the director of medical services, the senior departmental officials and the ministry at the time the present minister assumed office. Progress may have been made in the interim, but it has not been indicated. However, may I say the situation that boiled up in Edmonton has been dealt with and, providing the provincial authorities are able to go forward as outlined on page 12 of the evidence before the committee, we shall be satisfied if that progress is made as rapidly as possible.
I was most gratified to note the reactions of the various service organizations and veterans generally in the Edmonton area as a result of the arrangement that was made. I hope it will serve as a blueprint for other areas. Once again, we shall have to be guided by the experience of how it works out over the years, but certainly the negotiation of the agreement should serve as a pattern for similar situations. Having said that, I must add that I do not know whether the same circumstances will arise again. I do not know whether any provincial government will be almost aching to death to get hold of certain departmental properties for projects of its own, but I think with the pattern established we will come out of this with a better deal. The director of medical services is to be commended on what he has done in this regard.
Although the department has not published its report for the past year, there is some information in a publication I received today which may be even more up to date than that contained in the department's report. The publication is called "National Finance" and is issued by the Canadian tax foundation. Before dealing with it, however, I wish to add to the representations made at the committee hearings concerning war veterans allowances, because one serious difficulty has arisen as a result of the 1961 amendment dealing with the requirement of one year's residence in tMr. Lambert.]	,

Canada. I know there would be problems for the department with veterans living, say, in the United States. In fact if this requirement were waived claims would come in from all over, and people might move south to warmer climes; but I am concerned over one particular group which is large in number, the Canadian veterans living in the United Kingdom where, for a variety of reasons, they settled after the war. Many of them married girls living in Britain and they have continued to live there ever since.


An hon. Member:: Eighteen thousand.


Norman Platt Lambert: One of my colleagues suggests that the number is 18,000. A number of these men have now fallen victim to those circumstances which would normally entitle them to war veterans allowance, and they cannot claim it; they simply cannot afford to come to Canada, live here for a year and then go back to the United Kingdom in order to qualify for war veterans allowance. But, Mr. Chairman, there was another amendment at about the same time which permitted special allowances to be paid to members of the allied forces living in Canada, after a specific period of years of residence. So that a Canadian living abroad who has not come back to Canada is not entitled to war veterans allowance, but a member of an allied force who has settled in Canada is so entitled.
I think we are building up a body of Canadians-fortunately it is not too great a number; it is not a number that will increase but it will be a steadily declining number, or potentially so-who must depend upon social welfare in another country; yet they are entitled, by reason of their service in the Canadian armed forces during world war II or world war I, to the same consideration that we give to our veterans under the War Veterans Allowance Act. I would urge upon the minister a very careful examination of this matter to see whether he could not take care of these people. They are very deserving cases.
I know there has always been this difficulty about those living in continental North America outside the Canadian borders, but I do not believe that for this reason we should disentitle those living in the United Kingdom or in Europe, if there happened to be some there, because the man who is living in the United States can motor back up to Canada- it is not impossible for him to come here- whereas the man living over in Europe is naturally faced with an almost insurmount-

able obstacle. Those are the matters I would like to bring to the minister's attention with regard to the War Veterans Allowance Act.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I wish to say a few words with regard to the estimates generally. Disregarding the minor supplementary estimates and supplementary estimates A, the amounts contained in the estimates for 196465 with regard to disability and death pensions total some $171 million, of which $109 million are estimated to be in respect of world war II and some $57 million in respect of world war I. Then we have some other items such as peacetime defence forces, $2.3 million; Korean forces, about $1.6 million; civilians, world war II, $590,000; burial grants, $350,000. Then there are smaller amounts for the Newfoundland special awards, flying accidents compensation, and the northwest field force, etc.
In so far as civilians are concerned, I think the parliamentary secretary to the minister should take considerable credit for his persistent representations in regard to merchant seamen and others who are entitled to these civilian awards. In the compilation of the national finances there are a number
Supply-Veterans Affairs of tables that are really very instructive. I have not made a copy of them because I have not had the time, but I would like to have them appear in Hansard. Perhaps with the consent of the committee I could furnish the Hansard office with the tables I have before me and they could be printed in Hansard. Incidentally, they are tables taken out of the Canada Year Book, from dominion bureau of statistics sources, so they come from an official source. I would appreciate it, Mr. Chairman, if hon. members would permit me to do this and then I could make certain references to them.


Donald Cameron: Does the hon. member have the consent of the committee?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Mr. Chairman, I am sure that as far as we are concerned we would gladly give consent. I would like at the outset perhaps a little clearer identification of the individual tables so we may look at the information.
[Editor's note: The tables above referred to are as follows:]



TABLE 46

[Stage Direction]
WORLD WAR I PENSIONS For selected fiscal years 1920 to 1964
Fiscal year	For disability	To dependants	Total	Number of pensions	Annual liability ($ million)	Number of pensions	Annual liability ($ million)	Number of pensions	Annual liability a (S million)1920	
69,203	14.3	17,823	10.8	87,026	25.21925	
44,598	19.8b	20,015°	11.8b	64,613	31.6b1930	
56,996	27.1	19,644	10.7	76,640	37.81935	
78,404	30.4	18,241	10.4	96,645	40.81940	
80,133°	29.8	18,177	10.6	98,310°	40.51945	
73,863	26.5	17,221	10.6	91,084	37.11946	
72,396	26.5	16,982	10.6	89,378	37.11950	
67,387	31.2	16,414	13.2	83,801	44.41955	
58,548	38.0	15,323	17.0	73,871	54.91960	
47,845	37.5	14,812	19.6	62,657	57.01961	
45,588	41.9	14,714	23.2	60,302	65.21962	
43,143	40.5	14,552	23.2	57,695	63.71963	
40,879	38.3	14,455	23.1	55,334	61.41964	
38,493	35.9	14,321	22.9	52,814	58.8
" Does not necessarily add due to rounding of figures. b Reflects the increase in the basic rate of pensions.
° Peak year for number of pensions.
Sooucbs: Canada Year Books; Annual Reports of Department of Veterans' Affairs; Canadian Pension Commission.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Veterans Affairs

[Stage Direction]
WORLD WAR II PENSIONS For selected fiscal years 1941 to 1964
Fiscal year	For disability	To dependants	Total	Number of pensions	Annual liability ($ million)	Number of pensions	Annual liability ($ million)	Number of pensions	Annual liability® ($ million)1941	
319	.1	319	.3	638	.31945	
15,506	5.4	11,419	8.3	26,925	13.71946	
36,454	11.4	16,839	12.0	53,293	23.41950	
94,117	36.6	17,989	13.0	112,106	49.61955	
100,256	54.3	18,250	16.9	118,506	71.2I960	
104,911	68.5	17,546	19.3	122,457	87.91901	
105,338	81.9	17,301	22.1	122,639	103.91962	
105,951	84.8	17,088	23.1	123,039	107.81963	
106,437	85.1	16,805	22.9	123,242	108.11964	
106,628	85.2	16,581	22.7	123,209	107.9
a Does not necessarily add due to rounding of figures. b Reflects the increase in the basic rate of pensions.
Sources: Canada 1 ear Books; Annual Reports of Department of Veterans' Affairs; Canadian Pension Commission.

[Stage Direction]
TOTAL WAR PENSIONS For selected fiscal years 1940 to 1964
Fiscal year	World Wars I and II	Korean Forces	Total	Number of pensions	Annual liability ($ million)	Number of pensions	Annual liability (S million)	Number of pensions	Annual liability® (S million)1940	
98,310	40.5	98,310	40.51945	
118,009	50.8	-	118,009	50.81946	
108,850	60.5	-	108,850	60.51950	
195,907	94.0	-	195,907	94.01955	
192,377	127.0	1,273	.7	193,650	126.81958	
188,597	146.6	1,638	1.0	190,235	147.61959	
187,015	146.1	1,722	1.1	188,737	147.1I960	
185,114	144.9	1,776	1.1	186,890	146.01961	
182,941	109.1	1,820	1.3	184,761	170.41902	
180,734	171.5	1,874	1.5	182,608	173.01963	
178,576	169.4	1,926	1.5	180,502	170.91964	
176,023	166.7	1,962	1.5	177,985	168.2
a Does not necessarily add due to rounding.
Sources. Canada Year Books; Annual Reports of Department of Veterans' Affairs; Canadian Pension Commission.
Norman Platt Lambert: Mr. Chairman, one table is entitled, "World war I pensions for selected fiscal years 1920 to 1964". These tables give the number of pensions paid, the annual liability for disability, and then the number of pensions paid to dependants and the amount. Then the total amount is given for the two categories. There is also a second table for the years 1941 to 1964 in regard 
to world war II pensions. This table is on the same basis. Then there is a third table which is, shall we say, a synopsis of the first two tables. This table is entitled, "Total war pensions for selected fiscal years 1940 to 1964".
The conclusions we may draw are that the annual financial liability for pensions increased for nearly two decades following

world war I, rising from $25 million in 1920 to nearly $41 million in 1940. With the granting of pensions for disability or death during service in world war II and with the increase in the basic rate of pension, the annual financial liability since world war II rose from $60 million in 1946 to a peak of almost $148 million in 1958. In 1959 and 1960 a slight decrease occurred as the number of pensioners declined, but the 1961 increase in rates raised the annual liability by $24 million. Then there was a new peak of $173 million in 1962. With regard to 1964, the estimated cost is $168 million. The peak number of pension recipients reached a maximum of 195,900 in 1950 but has been declining ever since. There are now about 177,000 pensioners, of whom 10,000 live outside Canada.
With regard to the first world war I will take some selective figures. It is interesting to note that the peak in the number of disability pensioners for world war I was in 1940, when there were just over 80,000, and there were some 18,000 dependants, for a total of 98,310, with an annual liability of about $40.5 million. By 1945 this figure had declined to 91,000 pensioners, with a liability of $37 million. In 1960 there were only 48,000 pensioners, with some 15,000 dependants, and with an increase in rates the pension liability was some $57 million. On March 31, 1964 there were 38,493 disability pensioners and 14,321 dependant pensioners, for a total liability of $58.8 million. That is with regard to world war I.
So far as world war II is concerned, in 1945 there were 15,506 pensioners and 11,419 dependant pensions for a total liability of $13.7 million. In 1955 there were 100,000 odd disability pensioners with some 18,000 dependant pensioners for a total liability of $71.2 million. In 1960 there were 104,911 disability pensioners and 17,546 dependant pensioners for a total liability of $87.9 million. In 1964 -this is still world war II-there were 106,628 disability pensioners and 16,581 dependant pensioners for a total liability of $107.9 million.
Just as a last recap, according to the tabular information before me, in 1964 there were 176,023 pensioners, including dependants, who served in world wars I and II, for a total annual liability of $166.7 million. As for the Korean forces there were 1,962 pensioners for a total liability of $1.5 million. As soon as I have completed my references to some more statistical information, Mr. Chairman, I will give this information to Hansard.
Supply-Veterans Affairs


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Mr. Chairman, I trust that in agreeing to this, these tables to be printed in Hansard are relatively short?


Norman Platt Lambert: Yes, they are short tables and will occupy less than one page, I think.
I did speak of war veterans allowance. According to the information I have there were about 54,000 under this head. We know that indigent overseas veterans may also receive free treatment services and other veterans may obtain treatment at cost. I think this information with regard to veterans benefits which has been published by the tax foundation is of considerable interest, and as my hon. friend for Winnipeg South Centre indicated it would be interesting if the minister when he replies could give us a projection forward of the number of disability pensioners including dependants who might be expected by his departmental officials over the next five or ten years. Also some indication of the hospital care required would be enlightening. I remember that the director of medical services indicated there was quite a change in the treatment pattern regarding world war I veterans. There were fewer and fewer active treatment patients with disability ailments or pensionable disabilities, but there was a greater incidence of patients requiring chronic and domiciliary care. None of us is getting any younger and I am sure that the incidence of world war II veterans in the latter two categories has now become quite noticeable both as regards war veterans allowance and chronic and domiciliary care. Certainly men who in the early 1940's were in their forties are today well over the sixties and certainly their presence is now being felt in the patient stream, and over the next 20 or 25 years I think we are going to see the bulk of them.
It is true that much more extensive hospital facilities are available to the population in general through the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act, and there may be a lightened load on the Department of Veterans Affairs. Certainly in provinces such as Alberta where there are some very fine senior citizens homes we are going to get much less requirement for domiciliary care. Also auxiliary hospitals are being built in the province in fairly large numbers and this is going to reduce the incidence of chronically ill patients who are under the jurisdiction of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
This pattern is not general throughout the country. It is unfortunate but there it is. I think we should get some sort of forecast from the minister for the next five to ten
3326	HOUSE OF
Supply-Veterans Affairs years-I think it is asking too much to forecast over the next 20 to 25 years.
Another area concerning which I have had quite a conversation with the minister and in which I know he is very interested is this: Could he give the committee some idea of the thinking of his officials in connection with dealing with those men who must leave our regular forces as a result of incurring injury while in service? For example, they may have lost an arm or a leg or an eye or sustained a back injury. Are these men who are injured in the course of duty or while in service in our regular forces to be cast on some sort of scrap heap? They do not come under any workmen's compensation legislation. They are not covered by a pension and disability plan with a private concern such as might tie the case in industry. What are we going to do with them? This is something with which a man is concerned when he enlists, and if we want to continue to get the right type of people in our regular forces we must concern ourselves with this matter.
I do not know whether the present legislation is broad enough to deal with this matter. I suggest that if it has not already been done -I know the minister is thinking about this -a full study should be made to bring this matter into the ambit of another act. It certainly does not come under veterans benefits because these men are not war veterans. The matter does not come under war veterans allowance. I think there should be some other head of legislation to cover these persons because I am certain more and more cases are going to arise. After all, it is now ten years since 1954 when our regular forces were constituted at the level of 120,000. There must be a rather imposing total of these cases, each one becoming harder and harder to deal with. One feels that there should be adequate compensation, but there does not appear to be adequate legislation to cover this situation.
With those few remarks, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest to the minister that he give us a full statement when he does reply in respect of the points which have been raised by various members of this house, because I think we would then be in a better position to deal with these estimates. Unfortunately many of these things were not fully considered by the committee.


Mr. Tucker:: Mr. Chairman, while I have no intention of making a lengthy speech I do feel that I must speak for a few minutes during our consideration of the estimates of the Department of Veterans Affairs, because of their importance to so many Newfound-


landers. I am appealing primarily on behalf of the Newfoundland foresters who served during the last world war. I am sure it is the wish of all members of parliament on all sides of the house, as well as of all the people of Canada, that our veterans and their families receive adequate compensation for their services.
At a result of the speeches which have been made in the house in the last two days during the consideration of the estimates of the Department of Veterans Affairs, it can be seen that veterans have the sympathy and support of us all. I should like to express my appreciation to the minister, and particularly to his parliamentary secretary and the officers of the department, for their co-operation and many acts of courtesy in assisting me in dealing with matters which I have had to refer to them from time to time.
I must again bring to the attention of the minister the need to bring the status of Newfoundland veterans in line with that of Canadian veterans, and request that the government take into consideration the services given by the forestry units of world war II, as well as the merchant navy and the rescue tug service. All who served in these bodies should and must be brought under the veterans charter. There is scarcely a week during which I do not have to refer matters relating to Newfoundlanders who served in the Newfoundland overseas forestry unit to the Department of Veterans Affairs here in Ottawa.
During the second world war many Newfoundlanders were asked to serve with the Newfoundland overseas forestry unit and they were told that by serving in this unit they would be performing duties as important as any other branches of the services. Hundreds of Newfoundlanders answered the call to duty and served side by side with the Canadian forestry corps in a manner that reflected credit on them and their province. They were exposed to the same hazards and dangers from invasions and bombings, and for a longer time they were active in the front line of battle, as evidenced by Captain A. C. Hanely for the director of territorial army and army cadet force.
I have heard it said that the commission of government of Newfoundland did not recognize any obligation towards the forestry unit. Surely, Mr. Chairman, this does not mean that the obligation does not exist. The time is long past for the Newfoundlanders who served with the forestry units to receive the

same recognition as other Canadians who served in similar capacities.
I am very well acquainted with many of these foresters because it was my duty to purchase the clothing they used, on behalf of the then Newfoundland commission of government, before they left to take up their duties overseas. These foresters have never been recognized as veterans, as far as I can understand, because they did not wear uniforms.
I should like to quote from a brief prepared on behalf of the Newfoundland overseas forestry unit. At page 10 of that brief the following is stated:
Why did the Newfoundland unit not have a uniform? It is submitted that the only reason is because the United Kingdom government wanted loggers and wanted them badly and fast. There was no time to provide the first contingent with uniforms. It was much less expensive for the government to send them in their own civilian clothes and in fact the men could, most likely, work with greater ease and more comfort in these clothes than in uniform. Two thousand Newfoundland overseas forestry unit men were in Britain by February 1940 whereas the first contingent of Canadian forestry unit men did not arrive there until late 1941 and early 1942.
They were not recruited in the same manner as the other fighting forces, but they did exactly the same work, and for a longer period, as the members of the Canadian forestry corps. 1 feel that the time is long past when this wrong should be rectified, and I hope that the minister will find some way to overcome this technicality, thus treating the Newfoundland foresters in the same manner as other Canadians.
It has been said that Newfoundland foresters did not sign for the duration of the war. This fault in many cases did not lie with the foresters themselves. They were asked to sign up for six months, and this was done, and then many of them signed for another six month period. However, on March 31, 1960, a brief was submitted to the then minister of veterans affairs. In this brief it was pointed out in section 3, clause B, that the contract was altered in June, 1940, when each individual had to sign a formal agreement that he would not and could not be transferred to any other unit or to any of His Majesty's armed forces, and had to sign for the duration of the emergency.
This, Mr. Chairman, shows how important the work of our Newfoundland overseas forestry unit was, and I strongly appeal to the minister, not to show any particular preference to our Newfoundland overseas foresters,
Supply-Veterans Affairs but to see that they are treated in the same manner as other veterans.
I strongly urge the minister and his officials to give serious consideration to the submission made on behalf of the Newfoundland forestry unit. The brief from which I quoted explains in detail why the Newfoundland foresters did not have uniforms. In spite of that fact, they were told that they were doing as important work as the other branches of the services. If the minister will give consideration to the brief which was submitted,
I am sure that the members of our Newfoundland overseas forestry unit will be treated as veterans, and I submit they should be treated in that manner.


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Chairman, as regards the estimates of the Department of Veterans Affairs, I should like to direct but a few questions to the minister, so as to clarify the matter of the pension granted to the veterans and that of paid holidays. I should like to know to what extent the Department of Veterans Affairs is responsible as far as the veterans' protection and welfare are concerned. Exactly where does this responsibility end in the case of war casualties? What kind of supervision can the minister exercise in the case of the veterans' hospitals such as the Queen Mary hospital, in Montreal, and the Ste. Foy hospital in Quebec and also in the case of a veteran's death?
Mr. Chairman, a rather sad case comes to mind. Without belabouring the point, I would like to say a few words about it, in the hope of sparing people the agony which I saw this veteran suffer. This young man had enlisted in the air force, and was sent to Germany. During his stay in Germany, while on leave-probably on a paid leave, because I am not too familiar with the military regulations-he was a victim of a very serious accident and had to be hospitalized in Germany. The next day, he was transferred to a British hospital where he was very well taken care of. During his stay in that British hospital, a telegram was sent to his family, stating his condition. After approximately ten days, when the patient was well enough to be moved-apparently, one or two discs in his spinal column were fractured-the British physicians, in the best interests of the patient, decided to remove him to the Montreal veterans' hospital, after having informed him that he would undergo an operation in that institution and that in two or three months, his condition would be normal once more.
9328	HOUSE OF
Supply-Veterans Affairs
His family was most surprised when they learned that this Montreal hospital no longer recognized those servicemen who came from England but has a French Canadian name. It was in that hospital that this patient endured agony. Month after month, his operation was postponed, and finally it was no longer mentioned. He was termed a "crybaby". After a whole month, and many investigations, the government of the day was informed about the conditions prevailing at the hospital; it ordered an investigation and as a result thereof, two matrons, who came directly from England, and who were the supreme authorities at the hospital, were probably sent back to England. As for our patient, at the end of three months he could not stand it any longer, probably because his wound was getting more infected every day and prevented him from sleeping. He spent his time yelling his head off. So it was decided to put him in a cast from neck to toe. There he remained for three weeks and, when his yells got too loud, they put him in a dark room so they could not hear him shout. Their patience at an end, his relatives went to the hospital. And when they saw the condition he was in, they had the cast removed and had him sent to the hospital in Quebec city. This is where it was found that the flesh was in a state of decay and it was too late to do anything.
Mr. Chairman, the pain that patient had to endure was such that twice he tried to kill himself by cutting his veins open. When he yelled too loudly, they told him: "You go over there in the corner, you dirty Canadian."


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Chairman, I went to the hospital myself but I must say that at that time the government took the situation in hand and made a thorough cleanup. Now, I am not blaming the department, which did its duty; my sole purpose is to tell you about this case. After two years in the Quebec hospital, that serviceman died.
It is strange that he received only $7 a week during his stay at the hospital. That is the point I especially want to stress before the committee. For three years he only received $7 a week and his family had to send him $10 a week for petty expenses. He died three years later. Upon his death his family was granted $200 and not a penny more. This is worth noting. The family was unable to obtain one penny more. They made various representations, consulted Quebec lawyers,


one of whom was asking $2,000 saying "I will fix this for you". I wonder if the committee and the minister would take this case into consideration, and I ask the minister if the army is still responsible for soldiers on leave with pay.
If the army, through the Department of Veterans Affairs, pays more than $7 a week to a veteran who is ill, why does it only pay $7 per week to a veteran who was hospitalized and unable to do anything since he remained three years lying on his back in hospital?
I have been unable to understand this attitude. I went with his relatives to try to clear up the matter and recover at least the expenses which they had incurred, but we were unable to obtain more than $200 after the death of that veteran.
I know that the government of that day assumed its responsibilities when the veteran was in the Montreal hospital. As a matter of fact, the department, at its own expense, took him over to the Quebec hospital, where he received the care he needed but too late unfortunately, according to the doctors themselves at the Quebec hospital. In fact, they admitted that a surgical operation would have been required at least two months earlier.
This is why I am speaking now in order to let the officials of the minister's department know about the abuses in the army and military hospitals. I am sure that the minister, instead of laughing as some may do, will consider the matter more seriously and see the human side of such an appalling case.


Mr. Millar:: I have no intention of delaying the committee this afternoon, Mr. Chairman, but perhaps if I am allowed to put my question the minister can answer all questions at the same time. I should like first of all to ask the minister whether or not any consideration is being given to increasing the amount of money available to veterans under the Veterans Land Act. I believe that at the moment the maximum amount available is $12,000. At a recent meeting of the veterans affairs committee, we heard evidence to the effect that the cost of the average house to the veteran is something like $12,500. I am referring only to the construction cost. In addition to this the veteran has to pay something like $2,000 for the land required. This means that his cash outlay is considerably higher than it was previously when a house could be built for $10,000. I believe some consideration should be given to these facts, especially in view of the fact the government has

seen fit to increase the amount of the loan available from the Farm Credit Corporation, the farm improvement loans, and under this machinery syndicate measure which was passed a short time ago.
I have had complaints from veterans who find it difficult to raise this larger amount of cash necessary for a down payment resulting from these increased costs. It has been said that less than 1 per cent of the loans outstanding under the Veterans Land Act are in arrears. This is a very good record and compares favourably with the record of the Farm Credit Corporation. This is really the only point I should like to bring to the attention of the minister. However, while I am on my feet I should like to add my voice to those who have already spoken in support of consideration for increased pensions. Here again I think the government itself has provided the best evidence of the necessity for this move. They have raised the pay of practically all the categories of civil servants as a result of the increased cost of living. This increased cost of living applies to everybody. If it applies to the civil servants, certainly it would apply to the veteran who is trying to exist, in a good many cases, on a limited pension.
I have nothing further to add, Mr. Chairman, except that I believe the fact the minister has received little criticism in this committee indicates that his department is doing a fairly satisfactory job. I should like to say that my own personal experience has been that I have received full co-operation from the minister and the officers of his department.


Mr. McLean (Charlotte):: Mr. Chairman, I believe that hon. members have the interests of veterans at heart and the minister should understand this. I fully endorse the plea for increased pensions for veterans because we all know that the purchasing value of the dollar has gone down. War veterans should have a greater allowance.
I want to stress one point and that is that the benefit of the doubt now seems to be interpreted by the pension commission in the wrong way. The pension commission seems to think they have to doubt the veteran. I think they have it backwards, and my experience has been that the doubt has not been given to the veteran by the pension commission. I want to bring to the attention of the committee the case of a friend of mine who served in the first world war, and in whose welfare I have a particular interest. He is retired now and is in his late
Supply-Veterans Affairs sixties. He never was sick so far as I am aware, and he never asked for a pension. He did not ask for anything. He was always under the impression that when a veteran was old he could go to a veterans hospital and get fixed up. He went to a veterans hospital and the government of New Brunswick paid for his room, but he had to pay the surgeon $75. This man wanted a hearing aid and I will give you the reason he wanted this hearing aid. He says this:
While serving with the 26th battalion C.E.F. in Belgium in the fall of 1917-
I want to say that this man spent his entire service while he was in his teens.
-while the battle of Passchendaele was being fought in which my battalion suffered heavy casualties, my company went in the line with 145 men and four officers; 16 returned and no officers came out. I was one of the 16 that came out safe. We were forced to hold the line for 48 hours due to relief trouble, with no rations other than for the one day; we were very hungry and tired when relieved.
Then he goes on to say that he was very happy to get out alive, but his happiness was short lived. He says:
I was detailed to go back up the line to carry out the wounded. It was during this trip in that I had the misfortune to have my hearing affected. The time was approximately 2300 hours, very dark; travelling in single file after leaving the main road at Ypres a 15 inch Howitzer fired a shell. This was unexpected and so near that the concussion was tremendous-
He turned around three or four times and fell to the ground, but got out. This incident was not reported. He was deaf from then on.
I	said to him, "Well it is strange this was not reported." He said, "There were a good many things in the first world war that were not reported." I should like to quote further from his letter:
Only the day before this happened I had the pleasure to save another soldier's life, not one of our own battalion but of the 31st western troops that had been buried by shell fire early in the morning and when I came across him it was approximately
II	p.m. He could get air enough to breathe but only his feet were out, lying on his belly at that time. I heard his shoes clicking together, with approximately three feet of earth over him, saved only by the metal covering the Germans used to make their flunk holes.
He took his trenching tool, dug the man out and saved his life. He goes on further:
I had a bag of Mills bombs on my back and the attachment on my rifle as I was in that section in my platoon. I started to drop the bombs over approximately 75 yards. I sent about six bombs in that area and waited for approximately one hour as they had stopped firing soon after 1 had started. I was alone at the time, but the machine section of my platoon was nearby so 1 joined them and told them what I had just done, and the N.C.O.
9330	HOUSE OF
Supply-Veterans Affairs In charge there suggested to have a look and see what had taken place. We made around this mound and found a German machine gun and five dead Germans. We brought the machine back with some ammunition but were unable to make it work so we buried it in the mud-
This man is an upright citizen, he is retired, and he cannot even get a hearing aid. I have taken this matter up with the pension board. I know the minister and his parliamentary secretary have done their best but nothing has happened, and so I am mentioning the case in this chamber.
This man deserves something, and as an example, I refer to another case in which a father wrote to me about his son. He told me his son was a cadet, that he had been hurt in a football game, had suffered a shoulder injury, and he eventually got 10 per cent disability pension. This was a young fellow in his teens. But on the other hand, this old soldier who went through the war, and who never asked for anything, cannot get anything from the pension commission. I believe the benefit of the doubt provision must be changed. In fact I would eliminate it. If a good, honest veteran makes an affidavit his word should be accepted. I know the minister has plans for the veterans, for increasing pensions, etc., but I urge him to remove this benefit of the doubt-


Mr. Winkler:: Does the hon. member make with authority that statement in regard to the increases?


Allan Marcus Atkinson McLean: I beg your pardon.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Does the hon. member make with authority that statement with regard to increases in pensions?


Allan Marcus Atkinson McLean: It is on my
authority; that is what I understand.


Mr. McIntosh:: Mr. Chairman, I am as disappointed as some other hon. members with the brevity of the minister's introductory remarks yesterday. I wish to say something about a point made by the hon. member for Charlotte with reference to the benefit of the doubt provision, and I hope the minister will take note of what his own members are saying.
I cannot thoroughly agree with my colleague on this side who said he felt the minister was doing a good job. The minister has been in office for almost two years and during that time not one piece of veterans legislation has been brought before parliament. When you compare that with what was 

brought before the house while the Conservatives were in power-


An hon. Member:: Ob, oh.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I will have something to say to you fellows in just a few moments. When you compare that record of performance with what the Conservatives introduced I wonder why any veteran would vote for the party that forms the government.
We had a right to anticipate that the minister would make some reference to the legislation he says he proposes introducing, and I say that more forcefully than some other hon. members because I have been a member of the veterans affairs committee ever since it was established. We have had a very happy committee, and so far as I know no partisan politics have been played in it. We all work for the advantage of the veterans, and my main disappointment is that the minister made no reference whatsoever to the recommendations of that committee. As a matter of fact I am extremely doubtful he will take recognition of those recommendations upon which we in the committee worked so hard and so long.
I ask myself, what is the use of serving on a committee like that, digging into the facts for the minister, if he is not going to take recognition of them? I am not asking him to take recognition of all the recommendations. It is not likely any minister would do that, but we members of the committee have a right to know why the minister would not accept our recommendations. He must have a reason but, as I have said many times before in this chamber, some ministers are captive of their officials. I ask, if he is not going to take the recommendations of the committee, then whose recommendations is he taking? We are entitled to know that.
Why is it that veterans legislation has not been introduced? If the minister had given us some indication of the legislation he intends to put before parliament I am quite sure he would realize he would not have been held up this long in getting his estimates passed, because the estimates were thoroughly gone over in the standing committee. We had no intention of holding up the estimates, and I do not accept the fact that we are holding them up now. What we are trying to do is to get some information on behalf of the veterans we represent.
The minister has been vague and evasive, and I refer to the remarks he made in the standing committee on veterans affairs. When I heard him at the time I did not realize he

was so evasive, but when asked about legislation being introduced this is what he said:
Well, as I indicated in the house, I would still hope to have this before the house during the coming month. This is not a definite commitment but I will do my best to try to get it into the house before the end of October. This is my objective. It may be that it might run into November, but it will be done in the not too distant future. It will be done before the end of the year.
As members can see, he was just going on and on, and that is why I say he was evasive. Because of the few weeks left between now and Christmas, I ask even if he does introduce legislation on behalf of the veterans, does he believe for one moment that any action can be taken on it this year? So far as his department and the veterans are concerned there will be no action this year on pension increases. No action will be taken on war veterans allowances or on any of the things veterans have been writing to us about, because it will be impossible for the house to deal with the legislation which the Prime Minister said he is going to put on the order paper between now and Christmas.
What does the minister intend to do about the committee's recommendations? Someone has said our recommendations contain 14 paragraphs, but the first one dealing with anything except platitudes is paragraph six, which I wish to read. But before doing so I remind members that the veterans affairs committee is made up of members from all parties, the majority of them from the government side. There was unanimous agreement on this recommendation which reads:
With respect to the subject matter of Bill C-13, it was unanimously agreed that more effective steps should be taken to observe November 11th as a national holiday and a solemn day of remembrance in all parts of Canada.
I do not believe the minister had any intention of taking notice of this recommendation. Some few weeks ago the hon. member for Kindersley rose on a question of privilege with regard to a labour bill which was before the house, and said he thought it deplorable Canada did not recognize Remembrance day as a national holiday. Just a few days ago the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre moved an amendment to that labour bill, calling for the recognition of Remembrance day as a holiday, but not one of the members on the government side voted for it. I remind hon. members again that the majority of members on the standing committee-
Private Bills


The Chairman:: The hon. member knows that under the rules of the house he cannot reflect on a vote already taken.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. Walker:: Apology accepted.


John (Jack) McIntosh: All right. I will call it five o'clock, Mr. Chairman.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. In order that the house may proceed with the consideration of private members' business, it is my duty to leave the chair.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being five o'clock, the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely private bills; notices of motions, papers; public bills.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, October 8, consideration in committee of Bill No. S-27, respecting the Bell Telephone Company of Canada-Mr. Brown-Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
On clause 1-Number of directors.
Lucien Lamoureux: When the committee rose on October 8 last clause 1 of the bill, with an amendment proposed thereto by the hon. member for Timiskaming and an amendment to the amendment by the hon. member for Lapointe, was being considered. The question is on the amendment to the amendment.


Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Chairman, this measure has been useful in calling the attention of the public to some of the operations of this very large and very powerful corporation which controls virtually all the means of communication between the people of Ontario and Quebec. I am not sure whether it has called sufficient attention to some of their operations, indicating that the amendment presented here has some real substance, and the necessity of having some sort of watchdog over the operations of this company. I propose this afternoon to quote from two extremely interesting articles which appeared a couple of weeks ago in the Toronto Star, written by a Mr. Haggart, on the operations of the Bell Telephone Company and what he describes as its sibling company, the New York Telephone Company. These articles refer to the method by which this company disguises some of its charges to the public and the price people are asked

Private Bills
to pay for what is termed "local service and equipment". I recall that I paid my telephone bill today and this question occurred to my mind: just what is meant by "local service and equipment"? I know that it cost me quite a bit of money, but the telephone bill did not explain what I was paying for. Apparently in New York there is a public spirited gentleman called Levine who is making it his business to act as spokesman for the subscribers to the New York Telephone Company, exposing some of these charges that are made by the company without explanation. This article says:
Levine is the director and guiding spirit of an outfit called the American telephone consumer's council, which plans to join in court actions, appear before regulatory commissions, and generally raise hob with the phone company on behalf of its customers.
As most of us are customers, and few of us are shareholders, I am sure we will all cheer Mr. Levine on in his efforts:
In his current campaign against the cute concealment of extra charges on the phone bill under "local service and equipment", Levine is trying to whet the appetite of the consumer frauds branch of the New York attorney general's department.
Levine's petition laid out the complaint this way: "Undoubtedly, the New York Telephone Co. fears that if the charges were brought to the customer's attention by being itemized, the customer might cancel the luxury rentals.
"We demand an immediate investigation by the bureau of consumer frauds into this attempt by the New York Telephone Co. to mislead us as consumers"-
The charge in Toronto-
I should perhaps include this:
Levine's complaint about the concealment of monthly rental charges (he likes to call them "forever charges") -
I think that is a very nice term:
-is as true in Toronto as in New York.
The charge in Toronto for installing a princess phone-
And I am sure we would all love to have a princess phone:
-is $6.
Whether that is because you have some special connection with royalty, I do not know; or whether when you pick it up you get a princess at the other end, as when you pick up the telephone to send a telegram-


An hon. Member:: You are just dreaming.


Colin Cameron: Oh, I was afraid I would not get a princess for $6; but still I can hope. This article continues:

It also costs an extra 85 cents a month forever, and if the Princess is an extension the 85 cents is an addition to the extension charges of $1.25 a month.
A Princess extension, therefore, costs $31.20 the first year, and $25.20 for every year thereafter. In ten years, a Princess extension phone will cost the customer $258. New York dealers sell the same phone for $35 cash.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member, but I wonder whether he would enlighten the Chair and indicate how the comments he has been making are related either to the subamendment, the amendment or the bill.


Colin Cameron: I would be delighted to do so, Mr. Chairman. I am only surprised that I am required to do so; I thought it would have been self-evident. The object of this amendment is to place on the board of directors of the Bell Telephone Company individuals who will represent the people of Canada, the government of Canada and the customers of this company. I am merely advancing evidence to show how sorely needed are such inquisitors, such observers, in the operations of this company.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Colin Cameron: Would you like to hear something, sir, about coloured phones. The article continues in this way:
Regulatory commissions which are supposed to be the public watchdogs of monopoly public utilities seldom pay much attention to such charges, although they loom large both in the customer's phone bill and in the receipts of the phone companies. The single exception seems to be the state of New Jersey, where the public utilities commission recently ordered the charge for a coloured phone to be reduced to $4, and the monthly rental for an extension reduced to 90 cents. Across the river in New York, a coloured phone is $10; in Toronto it's $9. Any extension in Toronto, coloured or black, costs $1.25 a month, forever.
I suggest that this report indicates-and I presume it would not be published by the Star if it was not verified-the urgent need of some more permanent observation and surveillance of the operations of this company than can be provided by the board of transport commissioners. Hon. members will recall that in the original presentation of this bill it was stressed again and again that this is a purely Canadian company, a Canadian-owned company, with only a really minute smidgen of stock held by a nonCanadian. Of course, it is quite a small percentage; only some 2.6 per cent of the stock

is owned by a non-Canadian. But this happens to be the largest single block of stock owned by any shareholder.
Curiously enough it is owned by American Telephone & Telegraph Company, an organization which has its special contract agreement also with the Bell Telephone Company of Canada, which provides quite a little bit for the revenues of this company.
Among the interesting facts not disclosed in the propaganda pamphlet-and facts which the Bell company has no reason to be embarrassed about-is the involvement of American Telephone & Telegraph often called North America's largest company and the giant, paternal overseer of the Bell system.
The largest single shareholder in Bell of Canada is A.T. & T., with 2.6 per cent of the shares, or a total of 749,992.
This is two or three times as much Bell stock as anyone else owns.
The Bell pamphlet sent to subscribers this month does not even mention the existence of A.T.& T. Yet A.T.& T. was entitled to $1,600,000 in dividends out of Bell of Canada last year, and was paid another $4,700,000 under the terms of management contract and patent pool. (A.T. & T. takes 1 per cent off the top of Bell's gross telephone revenue.)
I suggest that this indicates the need for a very careful surveillance of the operations of this company, of the charges it is making and of the impact it has on the Canadian economy.
Specifically this bill asks us to authorize the appointment of five more directors. We were not able to get any very conclusive or definite statement out of the officers of the company when we met as to who such people would be. If one looks at the present board of directors the reason is obvious, of course. This article continues:
In fact, there is only one of these 11 directors who is not also a director of a bank. It's entirely likely that the bank just down your street is represented on the Bell board of directors-
Just as the Bell Company says that your neighbour down the street is probably a shareholder, that neighbour down the street in the form of a bank is probably represented on the board. According to this article the board of directors is composed of:
-the Bank of Montreal, the Royal Bank, the Toronto-Dominion Bank, La Banque Canadienne National each has one director on Bell; the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, has three. Montreal Trust and Royal Trust have two and three directors respectively on Bell. In addition, Sun Life, Crown Life, Norwich Union, Canada Life and Dominion Life are all represented on the Bell board of directors.
If I were one of those neighbours down the street with Bell Telephone stock myself, I'd want to ask questions about the huge amounts of new stock Bell sells to its employees at bargain-counter prices.
Private Bills
That is another method by which the illusion is created of a popularly owned and controlled organization in our midst.
It may be that eventually this house will pass this bill and the Bell Telephone Company will appoint five more directors. It may also be the case that again they will be chosen from the ranks of bank directors and directors of trust companies. But I would hope, sir, that we shall not leave the position of this company in its present state. I trust we shall not even be satisfied with appointing the sort of watchdogs of which I have been speaking, but that we have a thoroughgoing investigation into the operations of this company, an investigation which cannot be undertaken by the present regulatory body because it lacks the power to do so. If we are going to pass this bill I suggest that it is the duty of the government to bring in legislation which will increase and broaden the powers of the board of transport commissioners so that they can make a real investigation of the operations of this company, and enable the Canadian people to decide whether or not the time has come to remove from private hands altogether this octopus on which the whole of our economy in central Canada depends and from whose decisions the ordinary Canadian citizen literally has no recourse at all.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Chairman, in discussing Bill No. S-27, let me say I am greatly surprised at the helplessness of the government. This bill has been coming back before the house every Thursday for several weeks, without the slightest amendment being brought to it, although that was what we requested of the mover of the bill himself.
Mr. Chairman, I wonder who is actually inciting the government not to take into account all the arguments we have submitted up to now.
Here, I wish to congratulate the hon. member who spoke previously for the fine statement he has just made. This is further proof that the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) was right in submitting an amendment to the house to refute the words of the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Brown) who said, as reported on page 8638 of Hansard, that the mover of the amendment had good intentions. On the other hand, I doubt very much that either he or his supporters can seriously expect the Canadian parliament to pass this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I can assure you that on reading such a subsection, opposition mem-

Private Bills
bers ask themselves many questions, and the people generally have not finished asking some more. Through the amendment brought forward by the hon. member for Lapointe, we are asking the government to make the Bell Telephone Company see to it that the five directors to be added to the board of directors are not shareholders, in order that various public bodies may have their say in such a powerful organization.
This trust is especially dangerous because it seems to find favour with this government as with the previous ones, probably because of its important contribution to the election funds of the old-line parties.
Mr. Chairman, we are in favour of private enterprise, but not in favour of almighty trusts which can give orders year after year to the government and this is why the Bell Telephone Company of Canada is constantly asking for rate increases. Today, under Bill S-27, it is asking to increase by five the number of its directors.
We are fully justified in wanting to know the reasons and in imposing conditions on the company, since it is authorized to tax the entire population at will. We are concerned, however, that old-line party members do not dare to reject those ever increasing demands of the company, probably because it is one of the reasons why trusts can overpower the voice of the people.
Its funds might have contributed to the election of governments up to now, which necessarily requires silence.
But whatever the reasons, it is the people who must pay. Indeed, Mr. Chairman, the people now pay millions of dollars more for those small favours on election day. Those who were elected under this label must necessarily show their true colours by remaining the loyal servants of that company.
Am I right? Am I wrong? The facts are there to prove my statements.
Let us compare the rates charged the Bell Telephone Company of Canada's customers with those charged in other provinces. On the prairies the subscribers pay a rate of $3.90, and the rate is even lower in British Columbia, we pay more than $6.40 for the same service. And yet, in British Columbia, where there is a Social Credit government, companies' profits have increased by more than 100 per cent. Don't you think that the Bell Telephone Company of Canada can be an exception to that rule?
Therefore, I can see one reason only for increasing by five the number of the company's directors; it is to be able to deduct a 
few thousand dollars more from their income tax, depriving the government of revenues which it will have to take from the small wage earner who is unable to cheat because his income tax is deducted at the source.
I feel, then Mr. Chairman, that this is a fine opportunity for the government to take advantage of the Bell Telephone Company of Canada's request in order to require the company to choose the five new directors among the various social groups. Thus, the interests of the taxpayers will be protected.
If we grant full powers to this trust which is competition free-because, to my knowledge, the Bell Telephone Company of Canada is not faced with too much competition-the government must take every precaution to prevent the people from being frustrated of their right to fair democratic treatment.
Somebody will object saying that the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada is required to examine the balance sheet of the Bell Telephone Company of Canada. Indeed, it is that board which is responsible for representing the public in its relations with this company. But what can be done by that board, made up mostly of the mute members we find in this house, when they have been unable to stem the prohibitive prices we have now. Let us consider that, for calls from public booths, we have to pay 10 cents to unhook the receiver, instead of 5 cents as in the other provinces. That is a difference of 100 per cent, compared with other provinces, and it is the same for the whole schedule of telephone charges.
Some may say that it is because of the good service. They should ask people in the other provinces who are in a position to compare what the situation is. They will be the first ones to be disappointed by the inadequate service and the lack of control of charges to users. Indeed, if we do not check every day long-distance calls-and heaven knows how piany we have-we will have to pay for the bill of those who used our name.
One may say that when a report is made to the office, they correct the mistake quickly, but when it goes unnoticed, they also hurry to make us pay.
For all those reasons, Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment of the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire), namely that five new directors should be appointed by municipalities, school boards, unions, chambers of commerce and employers and industrialists associations, to make sure that the majority of consumers will be represented in the Bell Telephone Company of Canada.

Each of these new directors would be in a position to look into the administration of this company which, in fact, lives on the money paid to it by all the Canadian taxpayers.
If it is our duty to encourage private companies, it is also very urgent that we should protect the people against the danger of abuses from trusts that are too powerful for the government to lay down a policy for them.
The regulations must be complied with by the big fellows just like the small ones, and I am not aware that we have yet reached the stage of the law of the jungle.
That is why, to face up to some trusts, the government must assume its responsibilities and prescribe terms which, while enabling them to expand, will guarantee freedom in justice for all Canadian citizens.


Mr. Regan:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make several remarks with reference to the amendments to this bill. I originally intended to make these remarks some weeks ago but the opportunity to do so did not present itself. I may on one or two occasions repeat comments which have been made earlier by other members in respect of this matter, but repetition has not been lacking during the discussion of this bill.
I should like to commence by indicating that I am opposed to the amendment and subamendment, but that does not necessarily mean I am happy with all the aspects of the present operation of the Bell Telephone Company. First of all I think the amendment and subamendment are not proper amendments. The bill now before this house calls for an additional five directors to be appointed to the board of directors of the Bell Telephone Company, changing the powers of that board to appoint 15 directors, and allowing them to appoint 20. I suggest that any amendment which gives this house the power to appoint members to the board of directors of that company, rather than the company having the right to appoint its directors, goes to the heart of the incorporation of the company and is improper.


Mr. Peiers:: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the speaker a question?


Gerald Augustine Regan: You want to ask the Speaker a question?


William Arnold Peters: You are the speaker in this case. In view of the fact that the original charter of the Bell Telephone Company was 20220-591
Private Bills
granted by the federal parliament, is the hon. member not of the opinion that when the company seeks to change their original incorporation the manner in which this is done and the results that will flow from such action involve the same kind of situation as when the company received its original charter from parliament?


Gerald Augustine Regan: No, I am not of that opinion. I respect the hon. member's opinion in the matter but I am of the opinion that to be a proper amendment it would have to deal strictly with what is involved in the bill, an increase in the number of directors. If the amendment dealt with that I think it would be proper, but when you start to deal with who is going to make these appointments I do not consider it to be a proper amendment. However, I am not prepared to enter into a legal discussion of the matter-


Gilles Grégoire: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman


Gerald Augustine Regan: I do not believe there is a point of order.


Lucien Lamoureux: The hon. member for
Lapointe on a point of order.


Gilles Grégoire: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.
We are now considering an amendment and a sub-amendment which have been accepted by the Chair. At the beginning of the sitting at five o'clock you said yourself there were some amendments.
And now an hon. member is protesting against your ruling and states that an amendment would not be in order, whereas it already has been accepted by the Chair.
I think, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Regan) should withdraw his words which I consider an offence to you, since the said amendment has been declared in order by Your Honour.
If a member wants to object to such a ruling, it is up to him to do it at the proper time but not after several weeks have elapsed.
I am therefore asking the hon. member for Halifax to show greater respect to the chairman of this assembly.


Lucien Lamoureux: I can assure the hon. member that the chairman appreciates very much his concern but he must remind him that a point of order may be raised at any time, even at the resolution stage.
Should the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Regan) or any other member wish to rise on a

Private Bills
point of order at this stage, such a point could be considered, but I do not think this is the point made by the hon. member who has the floor.


Mr. Barnett:: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I was about to attempt to ask the hon. member a question, and in view of the fact that this point has been raised I think the hon. member should at least clarify the matter by saying whether he considers the form or the subject matter of the amendment to be improper.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Chairman, I would prefer to make my own speech and not have hon. members, as much as I appreciate their concern, assist me to such a great degree. I will move along from what I have said to give some other reasons why I feel the amendment and subamendment should not be supported by members of the house. My next point is that I do not think the Bell Telephone Company, as one of a number of utilities and monopolies operating in this country, should be singled out to have a person appointed by the government sitting on the board of directors of the company. I believe there is some precedent in Europe for such action, but if there is merit in this policy and if it is ever to be adopted in this country it should be adopted by government decision as government policy and apply to all utilities that fall under the jurisdiction of this house. I do not think it would be fair at all to single out the Bell Telephone Company in this regard and to introduce such a policy in this manner.
My next point with regard to the amendment is that if there is something wrong from the point of view of lack of supervision or the way in which the Bell Telephone Company is being directed by the board of transport commissioners, I do not think what has been suggested would effect a remedy. As a matter of fact, I think it is remarkably naive on the part of those who have proposed the amendment to suggest that one director, or indeed three directors appointed by the government would be in a position to know what was going on inside a large company. If they were appointed they would be, as a friend of mine said, little more than lobbyists with a fairly good connection.


Gilles Grégoire: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman-


Lucien Lamoureux: The hon. member for
Lapointe.
[The Chairman.]


Gilles Grégoire: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.
I think the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Regan) is now in the process of insulting the Canadian civil service, by declaring that if the government appoints civil servants to act as directors of the Bell Telephone Company of Canada, these civil servants would not be competent and would act, according to the expression he used, only as "lobbyists".
In my opinion, this is an insult to the civil servants of the Canadian government, and I ask the hon. member to withdraw his statement.


Lucien Lamoureux: The hon. member for Lapointe has raised a point of order. Would he kindly enlighten the chairman by telling him on what particular rule he is basing his point of order.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Chairman, as I might well have anticipated, the hon. member did not understand what I was saying. I never suggested that civil servants were to be appointed and I do not believe that is in the amendment. Anyone could be appointed. When I said they would act as lobbyists I meant they would act as lobbyists for the interests of the government or parliament or the taxpayers. However, they would not be effective if the company wanted to freeze them out because, as anyone who has any knowledge of corporate operations knows, a single director or a very small group of directors within a larger group of 20 would not be able to be effective for this purpose.
Let us go on to the next objection that I see to the amendment. As I understand the rules of the house with regard to a bill of this sort, if the amendment were passed the Bell Telephone Company at that stage would be in the position of being able to withdraw the legislation and therefore nothing would be accomplished and additional directors would not be appointed. Therefore I think that the question whether the Bell Telephone Company should have five additional directors to be appointed by the company should be considered by the house on the merits of whether or not more directors are needed.
Mind you, because of the size of the Bell Telephone Company, with which I will deal in a moment or two, and because the house does not have the opportunity to deal with the affairs of this company very often, I agree that those occasions when they do come to

the house seeking amendments to their charter are legitimate occasions to review their operations in a reasonable manner. I do not believe in a prolonged filibuster on the subject but I believe there should be a reasonable review. On these occasions members of the house, the elected representatives of the people, should be able to express their views and concerns with reference to the magnitude of the Bell Telephone Company and some of its practices. I think this would be very worth while. I hope the company will take note of the fact that members from all parts of the house have spoken on this bill and that this must reflect a certain concern throughout the country with regard to some of their operations. I am thinking specifically about their ownership of Northern Electric and the competition of that company with other private companies in the same field.
There is another matter on which I should like to say a word or two. I think most of the members of the house are believers in free enterprise. Sometimes the press indicates that one who criticizes such a utility or company may not support free enterprise, but I hasten to say that ever since I can remember it has been my impression that the essence of free enterprise is competition. Competition in any field makes for free enterprise that is healthy and guarantees the people of the country good service.
I remember when I had an opportunity to visit Moscow at the time of the world's ice hockey championships in 1957 I found the service in the restaurant in the hotel to be absolutely terrible. I waited for three quarters of an hour to be served because there was not another restaurant across the street to which I could go. I think this is an example of something that happens when there is no competition, and of the fact that competition is of the essence of free enterprise.
Unfortunately some enterprises must be run as monopolies. The Bell Telephone Company has become a very large monopoly. I think all members will agree that you cannot have half a dozen telephone companies stringing wires along the streets. You would be in a position of attempting to call someone and finding he was served by another company, and you would have a very complicated process to go through in order to reach him. As a consequence, a telephone company is one operation which, to be effectively run, has to be run as a monopoly. Under such circumstances there is a necessity for the government to intervene, to some extent, in the operation of the business because free 20220-591i
Private Bills
enterprise as such does not exist wherever there is a monopoly of this type.
A long time ago, it was established that the board of transport commissioners would be the body which would oversee the operations of the telephone company. They have certain terms of reference for doing that job. Now I suggest, and I think a good case could be made out, that the present powers of the board of transport commissioners are not sufficiently strong to enable them to do as efficient a job of overseeing this particular monopoly. I suggest that rather than introduce amendments which would add one or more directors appointed by the government or by parliament to the Bell Telephone Company, the proper way to deal with the question is to beef up the board of transport commissioners. If the personnel of the board are not strong enough, if more personnel is needed to do the amount of work necessary or if the powers of the board are insufficient to do the job, and I do not know this because I have not had experience with it, then let us act in that direction. I would certainly conclude from the experience I have had that the board of transport commissioners does not have sufficient power to oversee the operations of the Bell Telephone, particularly in relationship to the ownership of Northern Electric by that company. The remedy therefore lies in legislation to change the position of the board of transport commissioners and give them the power to carry out this function.
I spoke earlier for a moment, Mr. Chairman, about the ownership of Northern Electric by the Bell Telephone Company. We want to remember that we are not talking simply about a telephone company, we are talking about an empire. We are talking about an organization that had a gross income of $471 million for a year. This company has become so big that it is bigger than many governments that exist in the world today. It is a company which, even with a very strong board of transport commissioners or some other public utilities body, will need to be watched carefully at all times. In so far as the ownership of Northern Electric is concerned, other members have reviewed the fact that Bell owns all the shares of Northern Electric by virtue of the interpretation of a clause giving the company power to hold shares of or make arrangements with other companies involved in telephone business. The fact that Northern Electric owns a telephone line which stretches a short distance in the city of Montreal has been used

Private Bills
as the back door for Bell Telephone to acquire ownership of this giant Northern Electric, which provides Bell Telephone with all its wire, cable and other such supplies.
I do not necessarily argue over the question that the Bell Telephone Company is manufacturing wire and cable for its own use. Let us remember also that Northern Electric are not content with supplying the big market offered by the Bell Telephone monopoly, but all Bell's customers have no opportunity to go anywhere else. Bell then uses its subsidiary, Northern Electric, to supply its requirements for this vast market and then Northern turns around and competes in the ordinary market with the smaller companies that exist in Canada which are manufacturing wire, cable and so on. I suggest that they have little chance of being able to compete with Northern in those circumstances.
I questioned the officials of the Bell Telephone Company on this matter during the hearings before the committee. They were quick to make the point that Bell Telephone bought all their supplies from Northern Electric at a rate that was much lower than the market cost, and therefore the public interest was being served. However, Mr. Chairman, the representatives of the other companies in Canada quickly made the point that this was not true. They said that, certainly, the rate that was being paid for these goods would appear to be lower than the market price, but when you consider the quantity discount other companies might offer, this may not be the case. They never had the opportunity of competing for these supplies to Bell Telephone. They say, give us a chance to compete for Bell's supplies along with Northern Electric and we will quote a price on these goods that will be lower than that which the Bell Telephone Company is presently paying Northern Electric. These companies make what appears to me to be a very valid point. Therefore Bell is paying an artificially high rate for these supplies to Northern Electric. Since the rate for telephones is set on the basis of allowing the company a reasonable profit after costs this means, in effect, that the telephone subscribers of this country are, to a substantial extent, helping Northern Electric provide unfair competition to companies that are operating the same type of business as Northern Electric in this country today. It is to this aspect of the matter that I object.

I feel that any court examination, and there has not been any, of the power of the Bell Telephone to own Northern Electric would result in a finding that such ownership was ultra vires of the powers of Bell Telephone.
I would strongly urge, Mr. Chairman, that the only way this matter can get before the Supreme Court of Canada is by a reference.
I feel it is in the public interest that the government should refer to the supreme court the question of whether or not the ownership of Northern Electric is proper, when it depends upon the ownership by Northern of this one wire. In my opinion, it may well turn out that Bell Telephone would be required to divest itself of its interest in Northern Electric, as has been done in other nations under similar circumstances. If Bell Telephone wanted to retain Northern Electric to do their manufacturing of their supplies, they could quite legally do that and not enter the competitive field with other companies manufacturing the same line of goods. It seems to me, and I will admit that I may be wrong, that only the Supreme Court of Canada is in a position to say-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I must interrupt the hon. member as his time has expired.


Gerald Augustine Regan: There were quite a number of interruptions, Mr. Chairman, and I wonder if I might be permitted two minutes to finish.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gerald Augustine Regan: I am not exactly sure where I was.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gerald Augustine Regan: But I was saying that the ownership of the vast Northern Electric Company surely cannot be valid on this pretext. I would join with many other people who suggest it is in the national interest, and for the sake of the protection of the small companies in the same business, and the protection of the telephone subscribers, that the government make a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada to determine the validity of this ownership.
Just before concluding I would like to comment on one or two practices of Bell Telephone Company. In the past it had a practice of charging extra for coloured telephones. I gather this is not the case now, but it charges a monthly fee for putting a light in your telephone, and has other charges of this type. I feel these charges should be one time

charges, covered by an amount paid when a phone is installed-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. Would the hon. member be kind enough to relate this particular point to the subamendment and the bill before us?


Gerald Augustine Regan: That would be extremely difficult, Mr. Chairman, so I shall leave it. I conclude my remarks by saying that for the reasons I have outlined I think the committee should vote down both the subamendment and the amendment. I think the bill should be passed giving Bell Telephone their five extra directors, or else it should be refused on a vote on the basis that the company does not need them. I believe the bill should be considered on its merits, and that every consideration should be given in the future to changing the method of checking the operations of Bell Telephone so that this can be done more efficiently.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to make any prolonged remarks. I have not heard all the debate but I was most impressed with the remarks made by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Regan). His proposal that at the instance of the government a reference be made to the Supreme Court of Canada would clear up a problem which has been concerning us through the course of this rather protracted debate.
I have had the advantage of reading about 400 pages of the evidence on this matter when it came before the board of transport commissioners. I must say I found that material very interesting, but I thought a serious legal question arose as to the right of the Bell Telephone Company to hold the shares of Northern Electric. It is a very important question that affects the whole basis of this company's operation. It is a question which has many complicated problems of law and fact. It is one which I feel should be reviewed, not by the board of transport commissioners, who may be highly expert in their own field, but by the highest court in the land. I wish to commend the suggestion made by the hon. member.
As I recall, this issue of the connection between these two companies was raised in the hearings before the committee on private bills. It was also raised earlier in this debate, and I must say I think a solution to the problem could only be secured in the manner suggested by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Regan).
Having made that observation I must add I am greatly interested in the subamendment moved by the hon. member for Lapointe. I
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion thought the original amendment had tremendous merit, but the subamendment seems to improve on it. It suggests an even broader representation of the public interest, enabling the government to appoint representatives of consumers, of labour, and of other groups in the community who are deeply interested in the operations of this company. I feel the subamendment has a great deal of merit and I hope it will commend itself to the committee.


Mr. Cowan:: Mr. Chairman, in rising to take part in the discussion on the increase in the number of directors of the Bell Telephone Company I would point out that I have spoken on this subject in the past. In my first remarks I commented on a situation involving the C.B.C., in which they gave a contract for the sound carried for 195 radio stations in Canada to the Bell Telephone Company, which had submitted a tender 25 per cent below that submitted by the joint operation of the C.P.R. and C.N.R. telecommunications system.
I pointed out at that time that the C.P.R. and the C.N.R. had 30 years experience in the operation of this radio sound system, yet an outsider came in and undercut them by 25 per cent, and the C.B.C. granted a ten year contract. At that time the two railroads sent a joint letter to the government, signed by President Donald Gordon of the C.N.R. and the then executive assistant to the president of the C.P.R. but now president, Mr. Emerson, pointing out that they did not think it was fair one company should be able to adjust its rates higher and higher in certain fields of endeavour, while at the same time undercutting other organizations in the competitive rates field.
I have in my hand a clipping from the Quebec city Chronicle-Telegraph of May 22 last-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business has expired.
Progress reported.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the question to be raised at ten o'clock this evening is the following:

Supply-Veterans Affairs [Translation]


Gérard Laprise: rain making in northwestern Quebec and the Saguenay region.
[ T ext]
The house will now resume the business interrupted at five o'clock.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 1. Departmental administration, $6,491,400.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, prior to the private members' hour I was making reference to recommendations that the committee on veterans affairs had made to the minister of the department. I had almost completed my remarks in regard to the first recommendation; that is, in regard to Remembrance day. I would say to the minister at this time *that I regret finding myself in the position where I must state my mind, on behalf of the people whom I represent and particularly on behalf of the veterans whom I represent, *in regard to the inaction, I might say, of the minister of this department. In saying that I would also like to remind the minister Ahat if he would put himself in my position, .being a member of that standing committee and having the feeling that the recommen-. dations on which we spent so many hours are going to be disregarded altogether by him and his department, he would understand my resentment, if he wishes to take it that way.
I now come to the second recommendation made by the committee, which was in regard to amendments to the Pension Act. I am of the opinion that several sections of that act should be reviewed with a view to changing them. I admit that perhaps up to the present time they have been necessary, and were necessary particularly in the years immediately after world war II. I refer to section 5 (5) in which full power with regard to the interpretation of the act is given to the commission. This is an extraordinary type of act in Canadian justice. I believe there are very few other acts that have been passed by this parliament and our predecessors that are not subject to interpretation and decision


by the courts. This act happens to be one exception. As many hon. members have informed the minister in this debate on his estimates, we believe it is now time this act was reviewed. I refer to one hon. member who spoke in the house yesterday afternoon and who is in fact a non-veteran; therefore I compliment him for saying this. I have reference to the remarks of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, who said:
What we are really seeking is not a basic change in much of that legislation, but rather the kind of improvement which will meet the situation existing today.
I think that is all the members of the veterans affairs committee were trying to do when we asked the minister to review section 70, which is commonly known as the benefit of the doubt section. Any review of Hansard will show that from time to time members of parliament have tried to change the interpretation which the Canadian pension commission has been putting on this particular section. Another section we have been trying to change is 13 (2). In this regard I would point out that there has been one change that I know of in regard to the phrase "arising out of and directly connected with". The word "and" in that section has been changed to "or", and it now reads, "arising out of or directly connected with".
I maintain that this is significant, in that prior to the change from "and" to "or" the pension commission felt they had to be satisfied that the applicant qualified in regard to both those terms. It was the intent of parliament that he only had to qualify under one. We maintain that the members of the pension commission do not recognize this, or so it seems to us who are fighting these cases. I do not say this just as a member of the opposition, because hon. members opposite have made reference to this particular section, as well as to section 70. In this connection I would refer to the problem the British government had in regard to this particular type of act. I could say some very harsh words about the Canadian pension commission, and perhaps I have already said some very harsh words about that body; but I hope those on that commission as well as the officials of the department realize that I must attack all officials rather than perhaps one or two who are responsible for the block, if I may call it that, which apparently exists between what members of parliament are trying to do-the intent of parliament, if you want to put it that way-and the way in

which they are actually administering the act.
As the hon. member for Comox-Alberni said, we believe we must keep up to date; and if the minister has not brought in or is not going to bring in any changes to this act,
I think it is high time he considered changing some of its sections. I repeat again, Mr. Chairman, that section 5 (5) should be reviewed, section 13 (2) should be reviewed, section 63 (5) should be reviewed and section 70 should be reviewed.
I mentioned that I would say something about what happened in the United Kingdom. During the committee discussion on section 70 and section 13 (2) I had something to say because at that time I believe I had a bill dealing with this very matter referred to the committee on veterans affairs for investigation. At that time the most convincing argument that I think was put forward was in connection with the maiden speech of Lord Denning in the United Kingdom House of Lords. I should like to put part of that speech on the record, not only for the minister's benefit but for the benefit of the veterans who will read the contents of Hansard. Lord Denning said at that time:
My Lords, it has been my lot as a judge to review the decisions of many tribunals, and may I say how welcome it is that this important report should be accepted by all parties in the state, because it contains and reaffirms a constitutional principle of the first importance-namely that these tribunals are not part of the administrative machinery of government under the control of departments; they are part of the judicial system of the land under the rule of law. This report shows how that principle should be put into practice. These tribunals should, whenever appropriate, give reasons for their decisions, and their decisions should be subject to appeal to the courts on points of law.
This is what I have always maintained, that the commission is not capable of determining points of law. It so happens that in my opinion a precedent is set by some decision of a member of the commission and that precedent is followed throughout in practically every case.
Then later on His Lordship said:
I will tell Your Lordships something about an appeal structure with which I had some connection-namely the pensions appeals tribunal. After the war the late Lord Jowitt, of honoured memory, appointed me as the nominated judge to hear all appeals from ex-servicemen. The machinery of appeal is this. The ministry look into a case, and say whether or not it is a proper case for a pension. If they reject it, there is an appeal to the high court on points of law. I was nominated as the judge to hear all these appeals.
See how the course of justice may unknowingly go wrong. I had not been sitting for two or three weeks, when I realized that the tribunals had been
Supply-Veterans Affairs putting the burden of proof the wrong way-they were putting it on the service man to prove his disability was attributable to war service.
The hon. member for Charlotte mentioned this afternoon that the benefit of the doubt was put the wrong way by the commission. Parliament in Canada has been contending for a number of years that this is wrong, but no action has been taken by the minister's department to change the section of the act and to spell this out to the commission. It seems to me that the commissioners themselves pay no attention to what is the intent of parliament. We have tried in every possible manner. I would say, to impress upon these people that this is what we mean; but apparently there is someone on the commission who, in my opinion, has said that we do not know what we are talking about and that the present way is the way it is going to be.
Lord Denning went on to say this:
That had been the law before 1943; but in 1943 the royal warrant was amended to say that if a man was fit when he went into the service and disabled when he came out, there should be a presumption, and a compelling presumption, that his disablement was due to war service and that the burden was on the ministry, if they could, to prove the contrary. So far as I could see, despite the change in the royal warrant, the tribunals had gone on in the old way. They were saying in their reasons, "We cannot find sufficient ground for saying that this was attributable to war service".
I hope I was right, but in every case I allowed the appeal.
Further than that, there arose the question of those people whose cases had been decided in the last two years on a wrong basis.
I would say that we have many such cases in Canada which have been decided on a wrong basis.
Application was made to extend the time limit for an appeal. The attorney general of the day argued that a judge had no power to give an extension of time. I held that am extension of time was permissible, and made it reasonably clear that in every case the time would be extended; whereupon the government of the day, very properly, set up a special review tribunal which reviewed all those cases. As a result, many men got the pensions to which they were entitled, and counsel for the British Legion, addressing me afterwards, told me how admirably the review tribunal had done their work.
I say it is time that we in Canada recognized what has happened in the United Kingdom and amended our act accordingly.
His Lordship goes on:
What I have said shows how, quite unconsciously and unmeaningly, a tribunal may slip into error and may need to be corrected. But that is not the only purpose of an appeal. Another purpose is to get uniform decisions. There were 14 or 15 tribunals operating all over the country, and one might come to a decision different from that of another. There

Supply-Veterans Affairs
were difficult cases. Cancer, for example, is a very difficult and arguable case. On the one hand, doctors could not say what was the cause of cancer, so how could it be said that it was not due to war service? On the other hand, it was said that cancer is just as prevalent in civilian life as it is in the army, and that there is no possibility of its being due to war service. One tribunal would decide a case in one way and another tribunal would decide in quite a different way. How unfortunate for all the widows and other dependants. We arranged to have test cases in which the medical evidence and the legal position in a typical case of cancer could be settled and decided, so that that might act as a signpost for all other cases of that type. That was done in regard to cancer, leukaemia, varicose veins and other ailments which continually arose, so we achieved uniformity of decision. That, then, is the other value of an appeal.
I might say here that I personally in the past year have had a couple of cases of exservicemen who had developed multiple sclerosis, and in neither one was I successful in getting a settlement for the applicant, although I knew full well that others of my colleagues had had more success in getting these cases through the Canadian pension commission. I wonder why I was not successful. I think my cases were just as valid as any of the others. In fact the records of one case showed that the first symptoms of multiple sclerosis appeared while this serviceman was in the service, and as a result he was discharged. I understand from the medical profession that no one knows how multiple sclerosis starts. Therefore how can it be determined whether or not it was attributable to war service in this case? Similarly with cancer, and I think His Lordship said something about that in the course of his remarks. In some cases of cancer it has been found in later years that owing to a bump received a cyst or growth formed and turned out to be malignant. No one knows how cancer starts. No one knows how multiple sclerosis starts. Therefore how can the Canadian pension commission in their wisdom say that this sort of thing is not attributable to war service? That is my point. However, if a ruling were made that all multiple sclerosis cases were not to be considered for pension, perhaps I would accept it; but when the commission accepts one case and not another I wonder why.
His Lordship goes on to say:
As a result of this experience, I would ask that, if appeals are to be limited to points of law, a liberal interpretation should be given as to what constitutes a point of law. I would give Your Lordships one illustration. Gunner Lee had suffered a great deal from stomach trouble while in the army. He had reported to army doctors, and they had pooh-poohed him and put the case on one side. One suggested that he was malingering. When


he went to a civilian hospital it was found that his condition was by then inoperable and he died. His widow brought the case which eventually came to me. She conducted it in person. The man's captain, his comrades and his wife herself proved how he had reported sick to the army doctors and not been given attention; and the tribunal had decided against him simply because nothing appeared in his medical history sheet in regard to his complaints. Medical history sheets, however, may be incomplete. Rightly or wrongly, I held that if a tribunal comes to an unreasonable conclusion, that is a point of law with which courts can interfere. I am glad to say that only a year ago this house, in its judicial capacity, held that if a tribunal comes to a conclusion to which no reasonable man could come, that is a point of law on which the courts can interfere. In passing, may I express the hope that in any structure which is made in future the jurisdiction of this house in its judicial capacity will be preserved. Those who remember the workmen's compensation cases which came to this house will recall the liberal interpretation then given by the house in its judicial capacity-that the burden should not be on the workman who is injured but on his employer.
I could present many cases in respect of this benefit of the doubt clause, although I do not think that is necessary. Perhaps I should just ask the minister to read the remarks of hon. members who have spoken during our consideration of his estimates yesterday and today, counting the number of times the benefit of the doubt clause has been mentioned. I do not refer to the comments of members of the opposition only, but also to those remarks made by members of his own party. Perhaps the minister will consider the many briefs he has received from the various veterans organizations in Canada and count the number of references in those briefs to this same clause.
In view of the number of times the benefit of the doubt aspect of veterans problems has been referred to one must come to the conclusion that there is something wrong in its interpretation. I feel that parliament has done almost everything possible to bring this situation to the attention of the minister and his department. I do not believe the commissioners are carrying out the intent of parliament. Perhaps we should take some action to change the type of commission we now have. Mr. Chairman, I have said some very harsh things about the pension commission, and I must warn the house that unless some change takes place in the interpretation of this clause by that commission, as long as I am a member of this house I will have to use similar terms.
In view of the experience we have gained over the past number of years in respect of veterans pensions, I think it is time we paid attention to what Lord Denning of the United

Kingdom, said in this regard. It is time this legislation was changed. We have tried to make a change but apparently the commission has seen fit not to accept or follow our suggestions.
Several other things mentioned by members of the veterans affairs committee are worthy of repetition. First, I should like to refer to that committee's recommendation in respect of Remembrance day. What happened to that recommendation? Second, I should like to refer again to the benefit of the doubt clause and the committee's recommendation in relation to it. I think enough has been said about that particular aspect of veterans affairs problems.
Paragraph 13 of the recommendations of the committee on veterans affairs is related to increases in pensions. The minister implied, or at least I am under this impression, that there may be something done in this regard in the near future. I had hoped the minister would be more specific in his statement, because he must have received many letters of the type we have received from veterans, complaining that their pensions as of two years ago are no longer adequate in view of the increased cost of living and the decreased purchasing value of the dollar. I feel there should be automatic adjustments in those pensions. This point has been raised by several members during our consideration of the minister's estimates. Perhaps every three years the officials of the minister's department should appraise the cost of living and adjust these pensions accordingly. It should not be necessary for members of parliament to take up the time of this house in an attempt to impress upon the minister that because of increasing costs pensions should be adjusted. Surely that was the intent of the Canadian people when, through their elected representatives, they offered these pensions to veterans, whether they be disability pensions or veterans allowances. The people of Canada have felt that Canadian veterans should be taken care of, and I think it is the minister's duty to see that that wish is carried out.
Mr. Chairman, as a member of parliament it is my duty to impress upon the minister of this department the merits of the many suggestions made by myself and by other members. I should like to say a word or two in respect of the clause in the War Veterans Allowances Act which refers to the 365 day duty period in the United Kingdom. I did sponsor a bill which embodied certain changes in that clause, but unfortunately that 20220-592
Supply-Veterans Affairs bill was talked out. Many members of this house will agree that the intention behind the bill was to eliminate discrimination by the Canadian government in respect of veterans receiving these allowances. Apparently we are not looking after our own veterans so far as pensions are concerned because of the application of the 365 day limit. At the same time we are recognizing individuals as veterans eligible for allowances who were veterans in allied forces. Any individual who was a member of the armed forces of any allied country such as Russia, Italy, Belgium, France and many others, who lived in Canada for a period of ten years, can qualify under the War Veterans Allowances Act. On the other hand, if one of our own Canadian veterans served in the United Kingdom for a period of only 364 days he cannot qualify. That is discrimination and I hope the minister will give some consideration to this situation.
As a result of reports I have received I understand that an announcement was made on the C.B.C. yesterday morning to the effect that the Sunnybrook hospital in Toronto is under new management. I have heard rumours to the effect that the Ste. Foy hospital in Quebec city is either now under new management or will be under new management very shortly. In fairness to members of parliament, announcements of this kind should be made in parliament rather than through the news media, availing members of parliament an opportunity of informing their constituents of these changes.
The minister made a commitment to the standing committee on veterans affairs that before changes, of the nature to which I have referred, took place there would be consultations with veterans organizations concerned with the changes. Whether that took place or not I am not in a position to know, because the first word I heard in this regard was in the form of a report about that C.B.C. broadcast.
The minister also said in his opening remarks that he would answer any reasonable question asked. I have one question to ask him. Will the minister tell the house what legislation he proposes to bring into this house before the end of this session in respect of veterans affairs?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Mr. Chairman, I should like to commend hon. members for the very excellent suggestions and remarks they have made during the course of this debate. I think they have been most helpful. When I have

Supply-Veterans Affairs been chided reasonably I have not complained. Because of the nature of our parliamentary system it is for opposition members to press the government to take action at perhaps a faster rate than usual. As I have said earlier, I have been very gratified in this department by the temper and spirit of hon. members both in this committee and in the standing committee on veterans affairs. I think all hon. members, with little exception, have dealt with my estimates in a nonpartisan manner, and I accept all the comments that have been made in that spirit.
Mr. Chairman, I should like to deal with a number of things to which reference has been made, and perhaps I should commence by outlining the main subjects referred to by hon. members yesterday and today. First is the question of the adjustments of rates of war veterans allowances and disability pensions, the adjustment of the Veterans Land Act lending ceiling, and the treatment accorded the Hong Kong veterans. Those are the four subjects to which most hon. members have directed their remarks.
As I outlined to the standing committee, and I repeat now, proposals in respect of war veterans allowances, disability pensions and the Veterans Land Act are in the offing. I am not in the position tonight, as I had hoped, to outline the definite proposals to be made, but I will reiterate what I said. I hope to bring these proposals forward at an early date. I know that will perhaps be a little disappointing to hon. members but I think they will also understand that my responsibilities require me to acquire certain authority to achieve certain things before I can make an announcement of policy to the house. However, I am not going back on the commitment I have made not only to the standing committee but also in response to the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition a week or ten days ago.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Myself too.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: And there were other hon. members. In the matter of the Hong Kong veterans, here again this question has been taken up as a result of the recommendations of the committee and other representations, and I think we did inform the house some time ago that an inquiry had been undertaken under the direction of Dr. Richardson. This inquiry has now been under way for some little time. I think one should appreciate some of the difficulties involved in gathering the kind of information which will put the treatment service branch in a position to make the
IMr. TeiUet.]
kind of recommendation they feel will meet the circumstances of the Hong Kong veterans adequately.
Let it be said first of all that no Hong Kong veteran is ever refused the services of any of the departmental hospitals unless there is an absolutely clearcut situation where the illness or treatment requirement cannot possibly be connected with service or with imprisonment in Hong Kong. Generally speaking, and almost without exception, the doors of our treatment service centres or hospitals are open to our Hong Kong veterans. This is not new, and I certainly claim no personal credit for it because it has been going on for some time. I believe it is also correct that something in excess of 90 per cent of the Hong Kong veterans are now pensioned. An effort has been made in order to meet their special requirements, and I think hon. members will accept the fact that my immediate predecessor in this office and I, do have a very special sympathy for these people because we had a little bit of a taste of something which was considerably worse in their circumstances. We are looking forward to the report of this inquiry in order to make sure that we can adequately take care of the requirements of these veterans.
With regard to the question of the hospitals, on repeated occasions I have informed the house that it is extremely difficult to be able to forecast what will happen in any given situation in any given locality. I have tried to inform people of what has taken place. I also suggested that this was a long term development and that one step would be taken at a time. I was delighted to hear this afternoon the comments of the hon. member for Edmonton West about the arrangements in Edmonton, and I quite agree with him that this should be the kind of thing we should be working toward, the kind of objective that would solve our treatment difficulties and would ensure that we can carry out our responsibility to maintain that level and standard of treatment for our veterans which I am sure not only we, but all Canadians desire them to have.
I hope this arrangement, which appears very satisfactory to us, will work out. It consists in the main of two or three elements. One is that the operation of that hospital is in the hands of a university. They operate the hospital and we say what veterans are entitled to be admitted or discharged. In other words, we control that factor. We have adequate safeguards. In addition, plans are now under way to have adequate, modern facil-

ities for domiciliary care. I think that is of great importance. I think it must also be said, and in this regard I must agree again with the hon. member for Edmonton West, that at the moment Alberta is perhaps in a much better situation to meet these circumstances than is the case elsewhere, but that does not mean we should not do our best to achieve ;his kind of objective in other areas.
Sunnybrook and Ste. Foy were mentioned by the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek. I can say to the hon. member that no arrangements have been concluded with respect to Sunnybrook or Ste. Foy and I can also say to him that wherever that press story originated I have no idea and no knowledge, but I am certain it did not come from this department.
I think it might be useful at this time to reiterate the undertaking I gave to the Royal Canadian Legion, and repeated to other veterans organizations, that I will consult with them. It may be helpful to the committee to know that at the moment an advisory veterans committee is being established by the Royal Canadian Legion and the national council of veterans in order that they may be in immediate contact with any developments that may take place.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot let pass the remarks made by the hon. member for Rober-val (Mr. Gauthier) before the six o'clock adjournment.
I understood that he was talking about a veteran, whom he called a martyr and who had a great deal of difficulties, but I could not understand whether the Department of National Defence or the Department of Veterans Affairs was involved in this case.
However, after the very serious charges he has brought forth, I would suggest that the hon. member should submit to me this information in writing and that he should substantiate his charges, with dates, names, etc., because I can assure the house and the hon. member that the Department of Veterans Affairs never allowed such reprehensible actions to be committed, and I am quite sure that the Department of National Defence never permitted that either.
I do not know what department is involved at present, but I would ask the hon. member to give me, as soon as possible, the necessary information so that I can clear up the situation, because this concerns the goodwill of officials, the good understanding and the good operation of veterans hospitals.
20220-592i
Supply-Veterans Affairs

I was very interested this afternoon in some of the suggestions made by the hon. member for Edmonton West with respect to the projections in regard to our disability pensioners, war veterans allowance recipients, veterans requiring treatment, and one other subject I will deal with in a moment. We do have some projections at the moment, and with regard to the figures he used this afternoon the experience of 20 years with first world war veterans involving a rising curve for about 20 years and then going down appears to be repeating itself with world war II veterans.
It seems to us that in the case of disability pensioners we have perhaps reached a plateau, with the tendency now being for the curve to go down, which is in effect a repetition of the previous experience. In the case of war veterans allowance recipients, if we use past experience to project a curve into the future it will probably be about 1985 when the top of the curve is reached when it will likely be at a considerably higher figure than anything projected in earlier years, in terms of numbers.
I think I must agree there, as well, that there are so many uncertain factors in this that the curve could be different from one which is constructed on past experience. There is a question, as the hon. member has suggested, of social security measures, better hospital facilities and perhaps a different attitude on the part of some men who may want to be looked after within their own communities. There are so many imponderables there, it is really difficult to project a curve.
In the case of treatment services, of course to some extent the same considerations apply. Our curve of active treatment patients is of course a downward one, while the chronic and domiciliary care of patients is still on the increase and is likely to continue. By the way, I do regret the delay in the printing of the annual report. I am now informed it was signed and presented to the printers in the normal fashion, in the normal time, but apparently there has been some difficulty which is attributed-this is hearsay-to the fact that this house has not recessed as it formerly did at this time of year. I am told it will be possible perhaps to have a projection for five or ten years for disability pensioners. In so far as such a curve can be established, and there are qualifications to it, perhaps we may be able to present it in the way we do the annual report. Certainly I

Supply-Veterans Affairs hope we may be able to supply this information for the use of hon. members who may desire it.
There is one last point, Mr. Chairman, and I am extremely interested in it. I refer to veterans, not in the legal sense we use that term, as referring to ex-combatants, but to people leaving the services as well as those who are taking part in the peace keeping operations on behalf of Canada. I refer to such circumstances as we now have in Cyprus. I think I must agree that a new concept has to be evolved here. I think we have to treat these people differently, perhaps, than we did the veterans of world wars I and II and the Korean war. The concept of that time, if I can recall the situation correctly, related to the question of rehabilitation of people perhaps in an economy that everyone really thought might present difficulties. There were large numbers of people, and the circumstances of their service certainly were very different, in terms of benefits, from the circumstances of today. I must agree that a new look must be taken at this situation. As the hon. member mentioned this afternoon, he and I have had at least one conversation about this matter. I have had some conversations with other members and with some officials in my own department, with a view to trying to assess this situation and assess what kind of policy may emerge from the situation. We hope that something useful will emerge. I believe we are moving into an era in which we have to think of these people in a different way than we have. We have been thinking about rehabilitation as it related to the masses who went forward under the banners of the army, navy and air force to do their part under extremely difficult circumstances, when there were many casualties, a great deal of suffering and a great requirement for rehabilitation afterwards. I think this is something which should be undertaken, and I must agree with that.
There have been a number of other points raised, Mr. Chairman, but I believe I have largely answered the main comments that have been made here. I do want to assure the members of the standing committee that their recommendations are taken very seriously and given serious consideration. As time develops I think you will find that most of them will have been accepted. As I said this afternoon, I agree that hon. members are entitled to have the recommendations accepted or reasons given for the refusal to
[Mr. Teillet.)
accept them. Again I want to express my appreciation for the suggestions and remarks that have been made during the course of this debate. I think they have been most helpful. I am sure the officials of the department and myself will take careful note of the things that have been said this afternoon and yesterday in attempting to meet the wishes of parliament with regard to veterans legislation.


Norman Platt Lambert: I want to thank the minister for his remarks. There was one point overlooked and that was the specific point related to the potential responsibility for war veterans living in the United Kingdom. This is a difficulty I pointed out, and would the minister consider that?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Mr. Chairman, I know we have had a number of discussions about this matter. There are, as you know, considerable difficulties in the way of this kind of thing. I am sure the hon. member is very familiar with those difficulties.
I have discussed the question of the benefit of doubt with a number of officers of the various veterans organizations. While I must accept the fact they are unanimous on one point, that something has to be done about it, the manner of doing it is not clear. I, frankly, voice a fear about changing that section without being absolutely certain what the result will be. At the same time I will say that I have checked quite a number of cases and I appreciate what hon. members have said so far. I believe those I have checked indicate that the benefit of doubt was given to the veteran. I know there are cases where that is not admitted. However, I feel that tinkering with that section, and perhaps making it more difficult-


John (Jack) McIntosh: It could not be.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: -than it is, would be extremely dangerous. I am still looking at it. I confess readily I have not reached a conclusion on it because I would not want to do anything here that would handicap the veteran in later years. I think hon. members will agree that everyone in the department, perhaps largely because they are still all veterans-has one objective in mind and that is to give the veteran every possible benefit of the law and the regulations passed by parliament. I think that is the intent. I suggest that perhaps where it has not been actually applied it has been the result of a misunderstanding of some kind. I agree with hon. gentlemen that there have been

cases that are difficult to understand. On the other hand I have investigated a large number of them and I would want to be very sure that if anything is done to that section we are going to improve the situation rather than make it more difficult.
I have not reached a conclusion on that and I would not like to leave members with the impression that we are going to amend it immediately. Perhaps I am not so astute as I might be in this, but though recognizing a desire to change the situation, the manner of doing so is by no means clear.
There is a problem in the matter of 365 days residence and this also is being examined. Hon. members will recall that not too long ago we did, in a relatively modest manner, assist Canadian veterans in receipt of assistance in the United Kingdom in order to bring their allowances a little closer to the level they would be if they were living in Canada.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, in order that it might be officially recorded in Hansard, I should like to complete the statement made this afternoon by the hon. member for Ro-berval (Mr. Gauthier). He is not in the house this evening. This afternoon he drew to the minister's attention a rather special case. The minister asked him for the name of the serviceman concerned as well as the service to which he belonged; he also implied that there was a possibility of exaggeration, and that it was a case of trying to make a martyr of the fellow.
It is true that the hon. member for Rober-val did not mention any name this afternoon. However, may I say that the case did occur 20 years ago. A soldier was wounded in battle in Germany; he came back to Canada where he underwent an operation in a military hospital. There he was called a crybaby, he always howled, and when his plaster cast was removed, it was discovered that his wound had become infected and that decomposition had set in to such an extent that his body was nothing but rotten flesh. This afternoon the hon. member for Roberval did not report everything which happened then, because he was too greatly affected by this case, and it was probably the first time he ever told about it.
I can now say to the minister that the serviceman who suffered this agony was the brother of the member for Roberval. He was present when this happened, and he has personal knowledge of the whole matter.
Supply-Veterans Affairs
That is why the hon. member for Roberval did not want to mention any name. I am saying this for the benefit of the minister and to keep the record straight. The minister himself is not to blame because he was not then a minister. However, the hon. member for Roberval wanted to mention that case so that the responsible authorities should be more careful when dealing with specific cases.
Certain patients should not be considered as cry-babies when, upon removal of their casts, it is found that gangrene has set in.
I think it was a distressing and pitiful case. The hon. member for Roberval did not want to mention any name because the person in question was one of his brothers and because at that time the hon. member for Roberval was, in a sense, disgusted with the manner in which this wounded man had been treated.
I am making this statement in the absence of the hon. member for Roberval so that it may be printed in Hansard at the same time as the answer given by the minister.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I regret that owing to my having to attend two committees this afternoon and evening I was for some time absent during discussion of the minister's estimates. I do not intend to prolong the debate unnecessarily but I understand some hon. members, including the hon. member for Edmonton West, made representations with respect to the contents of the brief submitted by Canadian veterans living in the United Kingdom, with respect to the War Veterans Allowance Act and the necessity under its provisions for those veterans to return to Canada in order to qualify for war veterans allowances.
I fully appreciate the difficulties involved in remedying the situation, but I simply rise to ask the minister, when he is considering it that he consider it in the light of the fact that it does provide an opportunity for this parliament to recognize, almost in a symbolic way, the value of residence within the commonwealth.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, I was particularly interested in the minister's remarks with regard to section 70 of the Canada Pension Act, which is the benefit of doubt section. In the recommendations of the veterans affairs committee there was a paragraph dealing with this benefit of doubt section which said:

Supply-Veterans Affairs
We suggest that the word "doubt" in the phrase "benefit of doubt" be interpreted to mean "a reasonable doubt" as might be expected to arise in the mind of a reasonable man in the street.
I come back to the classic example that we are always confronted with in decisions of the commission. I refer to the case that was brought up before the committee by one of the officials, who was asked how narrow are these decisions. He referred to a case where a serviceman was ordered by his commanding officer to go from the camp into a village and post a letter. The serviceman did so, but unfortunately coming out of the post office he Stepped off the curb, was hit by a vehicle and killed. In the reasons which they gave for their ruling the commission said that if the man had been hit going into the post office before he delivered the letter he would have been pensionable, but as he had delivered the letter and was hit coming out, he was not pensionable.
I do not know how much narrower a decision could be, because a trained serviceman knows that if he is given an order he must go to the point he is directed to, and return, and he has not completed the order until he returns to camp. I could mention another classical case with which I am dealing at present, and in which the decision is just as narrow. However, as it is coming before another board I shall refrain from going into the details.
The representations which the minister has received with regard to section 70 must mean something to him. Where the minister gets his ideas I do not know; it must be from his officials. As parliamentarians it is our duty to change this; and it is the duty of the officials to administer, not make, policy. I am sorry the minister made that statement.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: In fairness, Mr. Chairman, I must say I am sorry I left the impression with the hon. gentleman that my mind is closed to this. It is not by any means. I fully admit the necessity of doing something in this regard and I accept that necessity. The only question I posed was about the method. There is no question in my mind that there is a need to make an adjustment of some sort, whether administrative or legislative. The method of making it is the one thing which is still open and I confess to the committee that I have reached no conclusions as yet.
I am very conscious of the recommendation made by the committee, and also of numerous other recommendations and of consultations and meetings with the officials of various veterans organizations.


John (Jack) McIntosh: In reply may I just say that in a couple of cases I had which came under section 70 the applicants have since died. I hope the minister does not leave it too long, until all the applicants are dead, before he makes up his mind.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
15. Other benefits including treatment and related allowances, burials and memorials, the training of certain pensioners under regulations approved by the governor in council and repayments under subsection (3) of section 12 of the Veterans Rehabilitation Act in such amounts as the Minister of Veterans Affairs determines, not exceeding the whole of amounts equivalent to the compensating adjustments or payments made under that act, where the persons who made the compensating adjustments or payments received no benefits under the Veterans Land Act, or where, having had financial assistance under the Veterans Land Act, are deemed by the minister on termination of their Veterans Land Act contracts or agreements to have derived thereunder either no benefits or benefits that are less than the amounts of the compensating adjustments or payments, $5,340,100.
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I refrained from rising at the conclusion of the minister's comments. All I will say is that I was unimpressed. I had reserved some remarks with regard to vote No. 15. The details of this vote are shown on page 503 of the blue book and at the bottom of the page there are some apparently minor items which seldom receive any attention. They deal with such things as books of remembrance, battlefields memorials, and over the page you find maintenance of departmental cemeteries and plots, and commonwealth war graves commission. I think it is the function of the Department of Veterans Affairs to acquaint the people of Canada with the work of the commonwealth war graves commission and some of the other things I have mentioned, so that the people will realize the sacrifice that was involved in the various wars.
The extent of the work of the commonwealth war graves commission is not generally known. I asked the officials of the department, when they published the report of 1961 and the one in the following year, to pay some attention to that matter and list the number of areas in which our Canadian dead of both world wars are buried. It is a very large figure; 137 cemeteries scattered around the world, but chiefly in northwest Europe. There are three outstanding memorials of world war I and three of world war II in countries overseas, where the names of the missing have been engraved. Canada's prestige in countries that were liberated in world wars I and II stands very high, and the memorials are there for the people of those coun-

tries to see, in France, Belgium and Holland in particular. The people of those countries participate in ceremonies each year at some of the cemeteries in which Canadians are buried and at the memorials where the names of the missing are engraved.
Unfortunately the Canadian people seldom, unless they travel overseas, see these memorials or the cemeteries. It is a very depressing visit to motor through that strip of Belgium and Holland where so many people died and were buried in both world wars, and I think it should not be carried too far. On the other hand, I think it is important that the war graves commission should continue its work; it is important that these memorials should be maintained and it is important that some of these battlefields should be kept in a state whereby they are available for visiting Canadians. The Department of Veterans Affairs, with the co-operation of the national film board, had produced a film called "The Fields of Sacrifice" in order to bring to the Canadian people pictures of these memorials, some of the cemeteries and the areas in which Canadians fought and died, so their relatives who cannot travel overseas will at least have some idea of where their loved ones served. I hoped the minister would say something about that film. It is not a possession of the Department of Veterans Affairs but the idea originated with that department. I would like to know-and the minister can answer later-how many of those films have been made available and have been taken up by Legion branches and educational institutions across this country. It is now October 22. The film was designed to prepare the way for Remembrance day, which should be a day of dedication and memory for Canadian citizens. I would like to know how useful this film has been. Last year there were displays in some of the theatres in Ottawa and some of the major cities across the country. In the 16 millimetre version this film was to be made available in very large numbers. I would like to know what the facts are in this regard.
I would also like to know what the department is doing with regard to a project which was started when I had some responsibility for the Department of Veterans Affairs. This was a project with regard to the Vimy Ridge battlefield in France, an area of 250 acres given by France to Canada; it is Canadian soil. I suggest that plans be made to put that battlefield area in somewhat better condition, and that this should be done after the fashion
Supply

Veterans Affairs of the field of Gettysburg in the United States, which has been restored to the appearance it had 100 years ago and which is visited by about 1J million tourists every year. In 1967 we will have the anniversary of the battle of Vimy Ridge; that year is the year in which we will be celebrating confederation.
I took some tentative steps toward having work done at Vimy Ridge, looking forward to 1967. I hope the minister can give us a report on that project.
The last I heard about it, we had photographs taken over there by the Canadian army, with the co-operation of the air force, a model was constructed here in Ottawa and various plans were undertaken to improve the roads there. I suggested that the commonwealth war graves commission be asked to improve the general area, which has been covered with a forest of trees and does not resemble the area as it was 50 years ago.
I suggested that a great many of those trees should be cut down and that steps should be taken to beautify more than has been done up to the present, although a great deal has been done, the general area around the Vimy memorial itself, the approaches to it, and so on. I suggested that the seven craters, which are the only surviving craters of the first world war as far as I know, should all be marked, because they had names at the time of the battle of Vimy Ridge.
The front line trench system of years ago was cemented in and is a great attraction to tourists. I suggested that one of the communications trenches be restored as a reminder of the conditions under which people fought in that war. I would like to know what, if anything, has been done in this regard. At the battle area of Beaumont-Hamel a very excellent undertaking was completed, or virtually completed, one or two years ago. There at Beaumont-Hamel you can see the area over which the Royal Newfoundland regiment advanced from their front line trenches, the gaps in the wire through which they attempted to move and where they were mown down. I think that about 90 per cent of the regiment were either killed or wounded. These places are far away. Nevertheless 100,000 Canadians visit Europe each year and if they were aware of these memorials I think being tourists and being proud to be Canadians, they would visit them. There is Beaumont-Hamel, Vimy Ridge, the Menin gate, the monument at Saint-Julien recalling the first gas attack in the history of the world where the Canadians gained great distinction; these places have a special significance for Canada
9350	HOUSE OF
Supply-Veterans Affairs and should be more thoroughly known. Then of course there are memorials and cemeteries in other parts of the world. I should like the minister to tell us something about this matter.
I should like to take another minute or two to go to another subject. There is no government department keenly interested in a military museum. We have, of course, a military museum in Ottawa which I described years ago as the smallest museum in the world, and plans are under way to erect other buildings which will give Canadians some idea of their past history. I should like to know from the minister whether representatives of the Department of Veterans Affairs are sitting in with the planners of the other museums which are going to be constructed in Ottawa over the years, and are they going to see that the military history of Canada is adequately presented? Somebody has to take an interest in this. It cannot be left to the Department of National Defence, although their historical section will give co-operation. I think the Department of Veterans Affairs is the one to take the lead in influencing those who will have some responsibility for the portraying of Canada's military history. We have a military history going back for over 300 years. It is a fascinating history. But it has been played down to a great extent in Canada and I think it should be emphasized. Other countries take note of their military history; they have military museums as well as the preservation of battlefield areas. I hope the minister can tell us something about this also.
One other project I had hoped to advance which I think would be a good confederation celebration project is the publication of the military history of Canada from the earliest times to the present. I do not know whether the two years remaining are sufficient for this to be done, but here again the Department of Veterans Affairs, in addition to its duties about which we have been talking tonight, could play a leading part on behalf of Canadian veterans and their relatives. It is a great story. It is the story of Canada's military history, and I hazard the guess that if someone would undertake to write the story of the land settlement of Canada it would be a story of settlement of this country very largely by veterans. In the Atlantic provinces, the province of Quebec, the province of Ontario and particularly British Columbia the opening up of the country and the settlement of the land was done I think very 

largely by veterans. There is a story which should be told and which should be incorporated in our history books. Out in the prairie provinces once again you will find that a great deal of the opening up of that territory was done by veterans. Land grants were made. People on discharge made their contribution in days of peace toward opening up this country.
I have drawn the committee's attention to these matters, Mr. Chairman. I do not want to prolong the discussion but I should like to have a comment from the minister if he has information on these subjects.


Mr. Ricard:: Mr. Chairman, coming from a province that gave an impressive number of war heroes, I cannot but seize the opportunity of the discussion on the estimates of the Department of Veterans Affairs to make a few remarks.
First I want to recall that I had opportunity, in 1959, to go to Europe with the parliamentary secretary of the minister (Mr. Carter) to participate in a NATO conference. At that time, accompanied by the Canadian delegation, we visited some cemeteries where the remains of our compatriots are interred.
Accompanied by the parliamentary secretary of the minister, I bowed before the tomb of those who gave their lives so that we, on this side of the ocean, might enjoy the peace and freedom which exist on the North American continent.
The hon. member for Burin-Burgeo and myself noted that perhaps we do not have for those who gave their lives in order to protect our freedom, all the respect due to veterans.
And even if it is somewhat against the rules, Mr. Chairman, I take the opportunity to ask the minister (Mr. Teillet) to study carefully and with kindness the problems which veterans and their representatives submit to him.
Since my election as a member for St. Hya-cinthe-Bagot, I had the opportunity to submit to the proper authorities the views and recommendations of veterans who felt their case had not been properly considered when it was first referred to the authorities.
I remember in particular one of my countrymen who had been refused admittance to the medical unit of the Department of Veterans Affairs.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, this matter has been fully discussed at the beginning. Could we not limit ourselves to the item under discussion?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, if the minister is unwilling to listen to the complaints of former servicemen from St. Hyacinthe-Bagot, I shall resume my seat, but I feel duty bound to act as spokesman in the House of Commons for those who fought for our freedom.
However, if the hon. minister is unwilling to entertain this complaint, I shall resume my seat because at the beginning of my remarks I said that I certainly believed that I was out of order, but due to the fact that previous duties prevented me from being present when item No. 1 was called, I hoped that the hon. minister would be kind enough to listen to the claims I wished to put forward on behalf of the veterans in my riding.
Once more, Mr. Chairman, if the hon. minister is unwilling to listen to what the veterans-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: -from St. Hyacinthe-Bagot wish to express, then I will resume my seat.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Mr. Chairman, I call upon you to bring the hon. member back to order.
I do not intend to gag him any more than any other member, but this matter was discussed extensively yesterday afternoon, this afternoon and tonight. On the other hand, he may submit his complaints later, when another item is examined.
It is altogether unfair to say that I am unwilling to entertain the complaints from veterans of his riding.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, I have no alternative but to accept the decision of the hon. minister to the effect that he does not wish to hear what-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Order, please.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: -the veterans wish to say. [Text]


Norman Platt Lambert: Mr. Chairman, I had hoped that we would be able to hear the remarks of the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot. I am sure we all understand that he is serving as a member on a committee which is sitting three times a day, and on reflection it would have been easier to allow him to complete his remarks. It is rather sharp on the part of hon. members to call him to order,
Supply-Veterans Affairs because I felt the minister was quite prepared to allow him to continue. If other members were working as assiduously as that hon. gentleman they would perhaps be a little more careful in calling him to order.
I should like to express my appreciation to the minister for the pleasure of accompanying him during the past summer to Normandy, Belgium and Holland, to observe the fine work done by the commonwealth graves commission. I was much impressed by what has been done by our representatives there during the past year in honour of Canadians who died during the wars.
For the benefit of hon. members who have not seen these memorials at Vimy, Ypres and Saint-Julien, I urge them to make a pilgrimage to these areas because they are so soul stirring, and we can be very proud of them. These memorials were erected in memory of the sacrifices of a generation that preceded me. I hope that each successive generation will not find it necessary to make a pilgrimage to visit the graves of soldiers of each preceding generation.
Perhaps the minister will be able to outline specifically some of the proposals he has in mind in regard to the Vimy memorial. In this connection I should like to pay tribute to a man who has devoted a lifetime to this Canadian memorial. This individual is now retired, and I am sure that many members will have seen his name in an article which appeared in a recent Week End magazine. Usually I do not mention individuals by name in this chamber, but I think I should depart from that practice and refer specifically to Mr. Paul Piroson, whose devotion to the development of the Vimy memorial is epic. Canadians owe this man a great debt of gratitude. I personally was very pleased to be his guest for a short period of time this summer.
Again I should like to echo the remarks of my colleague from Winnipeg South Centre about the film "Fields of Sacrifice". I hope that private distribution of this film is now possible, following the restrictions placed on its distribution by commercial outlets. This film is an extremely commendable production by the national film board and officials of the Department of Veterans Affairs. I congratulate them for their efforts.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Mr. Chairman, I am sure that many hon. members could wax eloquently about the memorials at Vimy, at Saint-Julien as well as others, and I certainly want to add my tribute to those people who have made them possible.
9352	HOUSE OF
Supply-Veterans Affairs
If I have not done so before in this chamber, and I may say I have done so in public, I should like to compliment my predecessors in office for the tremendous job in respect of the production of the film "Fields of Sacrifice". I should also like to commend the officials of the Department of Veterans Affairs and the national film board for this really outstanding film which won a prize at the Toronto festival last summer as a documentary. The film has been extremely well prepared and is a tremendous production. I am sure it is the kind of thing that the veterans in Canada want to see created to remind the people of this country of the sacrifices made by those who lost their lives during the wars.
Since the beginning of June a 16 millimetre film has been available for distribution. Seventy prints are in existence for distribution by the national film board throughout Canada. I have been given to understand that its distribution throughout Canada is extensive, and the comment of members of various branches of the Royal Canadian Legion who have seen the film have been favourable. So it is receiving very wide distribution. I think I should also add that a little while ago Colonel Wood began the task of preparation for publication of a book on the memorials and cemeteries in Europe, and the battles surrounding these memorials. I also thank my hon. friend for the very kind comments about the trip to Europe. Perhaps I too should express my gratitude and thanks for the very kind and effective co-operation I received from him in representing Canada. I think he will also agree with me that this might be a good occasion to pay tribute to General Simonds who did a very effective job of representing Canada on some of these occasions and also to Senator Power who, as you know, is a veteran who took part in the battle of Ypres. I should like to have the time to dwell on this visit.
Mention was made of the memorial at Saint Julien. I do not think there is a sculpture anywhere in the world that is as impressive. I think all will agree that the commonwealth war graves commission is doing the kind of job that makes us very proud when we visit the cemeteries in Europe. I think this might be a good occasion to pay tribute to the Royal Canadian Legion on the organization of their maple leaf tour this summer which gave us the opportunity to take part in a pilgrimage to the battlefields and last resting places of our comrades. If I were to attempt to develop any one of these topics I could say so much that I think it is better


for me not to attempt to go beyond what I have said and try to make my remarks general.
Mention was made of the Vimy memorial. This is probably one of the greatest memorials in Europe. There is some damage to the memorial and research is being done on how to correct it. It is suspected at the moment that the damage has been caused by chemicals drifting through the air toward the monument. It is a most impressive sight and I want to add my words of tribute to Mr. Paul Piroson who has done such a magnificent job and who will be retiring shortly. There is a great deal of work to be done at Vimy. As was mentioned, a plan was developed a little while ago which involves arranging for the relocation of a road, some fencing and I think some general landscaping. In that regard I think we will need an expert to give advice on how that should be done. There is so much that needs to be done there.
Again, one could spend a great deal of time in talking about the memorial and the communication trenches. Some of these have been completed within the last two or three years but the galleries, the underground areas, are not fully reconstructed. The damage of the war of 1939-45 has not been completely corrected and a lot of work needs to be done. There is a story to be told about Vimy and anyone with any degree of eloquence could spend hours talking about the underground passages. We know so little about these things in Canada and I heartily agree we must make every effort to make sure that the Canadian people know what is there. We must organize things in such a way that Vimy will serve as a place of honour, a show window for Canada. I could not agree more and I can only say that I pledge myself to undertake to the best of my ability, with the full co-operation of the department, I am sure, to continue this work to make of Vimy that which we all hope it will be. Whether we can complete the whole project by 1967 is a little difficult to say. I do not know whether such a target can be reached but at least the work certainly will go forward.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman:: This completes the estimates of the Department of Veterans Affairs.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Mr. Chairman, may I again express my very heartfelt thanks for the cooperation, the suggestions, commendations

and criticisms I have received yesterday and today. I accept them in the spirit in which they were offered and I am sure that it we go forward in that same spirit the veterans of Canada will receive their justly due. I wish to express my gratitude to the committee.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. The committee will now discuss the estimates of the Department of Defence Production and subsidiary agencies. Vote No. 20.


Gordon Minto Churchill: What page is that?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, for the benefit of members of the committee may I say we will be looking at page 86 of the estimates, section 8, emergency measures organization. Hon. members will recall that consideration and approval were given to sections A and C of the Department of Defence Production but section B, emergency measures organization, was allowed to stand.
department of defence production
Emergency measures organization-
20. Administration and operation, $2,600,000.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, as minister responsible for the emergency measures organization I would recall to hon. members that evidence was given to the special parliamentary committee on defence both by myself and the staff of the emergency measures organization on July 18 and again on July 23 at which times the program of the emergency measures organization was outlined and an indication was given of the intentions with regard to emergency measures and also as to the priorities which would be observed in the implementation of this program.
The objectives of the civil emergency planning program remain the same as disclosed to the committee, namely to make preparations to help ensure maximum survival of the Canadian population and resources in a nuclear or conventional war, and to assist the provincial governments and through them the municipalities in coping not only with a war emergency but also with peacetime disasters whenever requested to do so and when the damage is beyond the capabilities of these local governments. We would like to encourage local civil defence organizations to publicize their preparedness and availability for any type of disaster. We hope that nuclear war will never occur, but there is no guarantee that the present international climate will not degenerate into cold war or actual conflict. Also we know that peacetime disasters do occur periodically and in either context civil emergency planning is a good
Supply-Defence Production insurance policy. We believe that as long as military defence is required so too will civil defence be required.
Civil defence planning is still being actively pursued in the United Kingdom and the United States and other NATO countries, and there is continued close consultation between the NATO countries, including Canada, on this matter.
I believe that adequate progress is being made in civil emergency planning in Canada. Vote 20 covers the administrative costs of the emergency measures organization, including the civil defence college at Arnprior. The total staff remains modest in size, numbering approximately 90, including the staff of the 10 regional offices, and 96 at the civil defence college. Vote 25 includes the program for the provision of radiac instruments to provinces on a cost sharing basis, the provinces reimbursing 25 per cent of the cost. These instruments would be used for the detection and measuring of radioactive fallout. Again good progress has been made, with six provinces having agreed to participate in the new program.
Vote 30, which provides for financial assistance programs to the provinces and from them to the municipalities, indicates a slight increase over last year. I believe that the provinces are progressing satisfactorily in this field. I may say we are pleased to note that there is a greater tendency in the provinces to group municipalities into larger county organizations, which the federal emergency organization encourages as it provides for a more efficient and economic organization.
To ensure the continued adequacy and effectiveness of civil defence preparations, the emergency measures organization and national defence have reviewed the effective decision to increase the emphasis on purely military training in relation to the militia. It will be recalled that the regular army will have as its second role responsibility for preparing for civil defence operation. As stated in the terms of reference of the Suttie committee, and I quote:
It must be recognized that in the event of an all-out nuclear war, all military forces would be employed on survival operations. Therefore, the militia, with all available regulars, would be required to provide a framework for the conduct of survival operations, using a large number of civilians.
The terms of reference also state that the militia will assist in fulfilling the army's national survival responsibilities. On the basis of the latest assumptions and require-

Supply-Defence Production ments, national defence will continue to maintain or improve:
(i)	the warning system against possible enemy attacks;
(ii)	the system for the location of nuclear detonations in likely target areas and the forecasting and determining of fallout and warning to the public;
(iii)	its plans for re-entry operations into damaged areas or areas of serious fallout;
(iv)	the emergency government communications network, which is part of the peacetime Canadian army signal system. A survey will be carried out in the near future, under the direction of the emergency measures organization, to prepare plans for the provision of regional emergency government headquarters in the four provinces where these are not already available, New Brunswick, Saskatchewan, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland. The completion of these headquarters will then permit the installation of the communications equipment, most of which has already been acquired.
The Canadian army, through its command and area headquarters, will maintain emergency readiness plans up to date, so that all units of the regular army and militia would be capable of carrying out survival operations on short notice. It is intended to include the necessary funds to continue the implementation of such a program in the national defence five year budgetary estimates.
The fourth report of the special committee on defence, I am pleased to see, contains chapter 3 which has been devoted entirely to civil emergency planning. We have noted the recommendations of the committee. I should like to review briefly these recommendations. I would agree generally with the three aims stated for the emergency measures organization by the committee in paragraph 30, that is, to help insure continuity of civilian government, the identification and allocation of resources after an attack, and that the civilian population be informed and able to make use of any existing protective facilities.
I concur with the statement in paragraph 31 to the effect that a fundamental task is to ensure the availability of an effective communications system across the country in the event of an emergency. To ensure such communications in protected facilities in all provinces, we are considering the completion of the regional headquarters network in the remaining four provinces of New Brunswick, Saskatchewan, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland. Also discussions are being con-

tinued with all communications companies to ensure maximum utilization of all networks in an emergency.
Although, as stated in paragraph 32 of the report, it would be desirable to have a civil defence organization in all municipalities, I am not satisfied that we should consider it a priority. The important aspect at this time is to provide a capability in and around larger populated areas, making maximum use of the funds available through the financial assistance program. Such larger municipalities could provide assistance to smaller ones as required, whether in peacetime or wartime disasters. Also, it is our belief that planning is more effective and economical if smaller municipalities are grouped into county organizations.
As stated in paragraph 33 of the report, and I quote:
It is important that the responsibilities and the authorities at each level of government be defined under these varying conditions.
With regard to peacetime disasters, and in respect of this definition of responsibility, a very careful study was initiated some time ago and we are now consulting informally with the provinces and comparing notes with the United States. Specific recommendations can be expected to emerge from these discussions.
With regard to wartime responsibilities, the emergency measures organization has had under discussion with all departments and all provinces for some time, a specific outline of division of responsibilities. Work in this direction will continue.
With reference to the further observation in the report of the committee that there has not been a meeting of the federal-provincial conference on emergency measures since December, 1962, I must say this statement is correct. Now that the government has reviewed its policy and prepared a program on a basis of priorities, it is our belief that the time is opportune to hold a federal-provincial conference. I am proposing that such a conference be held in mid February of 1965. It is my belief that with adequate preparation made prior to the conference, it should be the best and most successful yet held.
It was observed also that there has been no national exercise for a number of years. It is true that the last national exercise was held in November, 1961. Preparations were made for a TOCSIN exercise in 1963, but it was not actually held. However, all studies made for the exercise, preparations and reporting, were carried through as if there had

*been an exercise. A thorough review was made of the results obtained. We are satisfied that the main aims of the exercise were met, that is, a compilation of the resources remaining at 48 hours after an attack, a review of war books and a review of emergency legislation and other similar objectives. Furthermore, studies by the provinces or by the federal emergency measures organization, in dose collaboration with the provinces, are carried on on a continuing basis. As a matter *of fact, we believe that the time has come to establish a cycle of exercises, starting at the municipal level, through to regional or provincial and finally the central level. This [DOT]allows for a much better identification and analysis of problems at each level, especially those requiring decision at the national level.
With respect to the statement in the report that this lack of continuing liaison and exercise with the provinces has seriously impaired the validity of the planning, I regret to say that I cannot entirely agree. There has been *during the period a close and continuing collaboration with the provinces although there has, as I mentioned earlier, been no formal federal-provincial conference. There has, however, been no lack of continuing discussion, [DOT]dialogue and liaison. This indeed has been sufficiently successful to warrant the holding [DOT]of the proposed federal-provincial conference next February.
Reference was made to the fact that the home shelter program has not been successful. Members of the committee will recall that this was a view put forward by the emergency measures organization itself. However, although the invitation to construct home shelters at individual expense has not been taken up by the general public, we do not believe that the government should discontinue to make available C.M.H.C. loans to those individuals who may wish to build a home shelter for their families. These, I "would remind the committee, are only loans.
No effort will be made in the future to stimulate such a program, but I believe we should make literature available to those who request it. This can be done at very little cost to the government. Already the E.M.O. has made available, in its literature, the necessary information to provide home protection [DOT]quickly with materials at hand. A pamphlet called "Simpler Shelter" is ready for distribution if the situation so warrants and the public interest demands. I believe it would be wise to continue a modest research program in this field.
Supply-Defence Production
However, the answer to the fallout problem appears to be the provision of public fallout shelters in existing buildings. Although we cannot yet evaluate the costs of modifications to buildings, on the basis of a survey completed in Alberta we can estimate that it would cost approximately 5 cents per head of the population to carry out a national fallout shelter survey across Canada, for a total of approximately $800,000.
All federal buildings have already been surveyed and over one million spaces have been identified. We are hopeful that a national survey of all large buildings will identify enough spaces to provide protection to a good percentage of the population, and this at a reasonable cost. However, before initiating such a national survey the conclusions of the Alberta survey will be very carefuly considered.
As recommended in paragraph 37, expenditures in civil emergency planning should be limited generally to priorities outlined to the special committee on defence for communications, warning system, central planning function, field co-ordinating agencies, and research on fallout and blast protection and, as stated above, fallout protection for the public if this is found to be relatively inexpensive. I can, therefore, state with confidence that the E.M.O. is in general agreement with the special committee on defence.
The staff of the organization and I were pleased to appear before the committee and would like to express our appreciation to its members for the time they devoted to this difficult but important program. I would recommend to hon. members that the estimates for E.M.O. be approved so that civil emergency planning may be adequately carried out in Canada.


Norman Platt Lambert: Mr. Chairman, there is very little time remaining this evening but I will try to condense my remarks into the period between now and ten o'clock. It seems the minister concentrated his remarks on the observations of the special committee on defence which devoted a considerable amount of time and a rather difficult chapter of its report to the difficult-because it is rather nebulous -proposition of civil defence. I say nebulous because there seems to be a lack of public consciousness of the vital necessity for civil defence.
This reminds me that during wartime there was never anything but an actual air raid, which brought air raid drill to function efficiently among units in the field, where

Supply-Defence Production one went through the experience, and all the practice you had tried to instil into yourself and your men came to the fore and they saw the value of it. The general public have a tendency to sweep the requirements of civil defence under the rug.
Several years ago when national programs of civil emergency planning were launched one of the pamphlets issued was "Eleven Steps to Survival." At that time there was a great consciousness of the necessity for civil defence, and I believe there is much to be said in favour of reviving national exercises.
I participated as a regional commissioner in both the national exercises that were held. At the beginning we were groping in the dark, with the exception of certain people involved, but by the time the second exercise was held most of the people involved had some idea what they were doing, and facilities were being prepared for them. I thought TOCSIN II accomplished a great deal, but it was held back in 1961, and a lot of the personnel involved have changed since. I would like an indication that another TOCSIN exercise will be held.
Some of the siren systems installed in certain communities seem to have been left dormant. I know other communities test their sirens every week or two at a specified time, which overcomes the nonsensical situation that occurred in Ottawa a little while ago. In fact I thought the minister should have said something to clear up that comic opera situation, when no one was home and no one could find anyone to determine why the sirens were sounding.


Gilles Grégoire: Ten o'clock.


Norman Platt Lambert: I would also like the minister to tell us how many persons are brought down to Arnprior for training, because Arn-prior is a good college. The municipal officials brought there have always expressed their satisfaction.


Gilles Grégoire: Ten o'clock.


Norman Platt Lambert: It is too bad the hon. member for Lapointe can't be put through Arnprior; he might learn a few manners. When the minister continues his remarks at some indeterminate date in the future I hope he will tell us more about the training at Arnprior.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the vote carry?


Norman Platt Lambert: No. I am calling it ten
o'clock.
Item stands.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.
LMr. Lambert.]



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: May I inquire with regard to the business tomorrow and the early part of next week?


Mr. MacNaughl:: The first item of business tomorrow will be consideration of interim supply. It is the intention of the government to ask for two months supply. Then we will take up the estimates relating to the Department of Industry, and the balance of the estimates of trade and commerce, citizenship and immigration and public works.


Gordon Minto Churchill: What about Monday?


John Watson MacNaught: I cannot give any outline at this time for Monday.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The government has rather sprung interim supply on us. It is too bad we could not have more notice and it is regrettable we cannot hear something about Monday and Tuesday.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved.
Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, I directed a question to the right hon. Prime Minister in order to find out if licences had been issued to the Weather Engineering Corporation of Canada, in Montreal for rainmaking over a given area.
I hope that tonight the Prime Minister or his representative will be in a position to tell us if individuals can take it upon themselves to throw the whole economy of an area out of gear in order to favour one sector, while we do not know on what authority they are acting and for whom.
I want this information, Mr. Speaker, because I have received numerous complaints from farmers in my constituency and in Temiscamingue and also in the light of an investigation carried out by a citizen of Rouyn, echoed in the local press, and after reading in the newspaper La Terre de Chez Nous that the Saguenay region was also being affected and that the Catholic farmers' union of that area was threatening to take legal action to protect farmers.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we have had a year of very bad weather in northwestern Quebec

where it rained a total of 112 days, 69 of them consecutively.
Everybody knows that agriculture is in the doldrums in eastern Canada but, in that region where normal weather conditions are not at their best, I think we should let Providence look after rainfall.
Mr. Speaker, according to some reports more than 130 of those "rainmaking machines" have been distributed across northwestern Quebec with the result that farmers in that area have been in an extremely difficult situation since the end of July. In fact, several of them will have to forsake the land unless they receive some compensation for the losses incurred as a result of rains this year.
Last year part of my region was devastated by a hurricane, a natural phenomenon; this year it was rainmaking. This doubtless, might help the forest industry by eliminating the threat of forest fires, and be of benefit to some other companies, but it is very harmful for the farmer, ever the victim.
Last year I asked for help. Nothing was granted, for Quebec did not deem it advisable to request assistance from Ottawa.
Yesterday I asked if the government would take the necessary steps to help the farmers whose crops were a failure this year, and whose lowlands, especially, have been damaged for many years to come. They did not even bother to reply.
It is easy to see that the present federal government is not the least bit interested in the welfare of eastern farmers.
Mr. Speaker, I should like the secretary to the Prime Minister to tell us, this evening, if the Weather Engineering Corporation of Canada in Montreal, operates under a federal government permit. If not, I should like the government to have an inquiry made to determine who pays that corporation and on whose behalf it is carrying out this work.
I feel, Mr. Speaker, that the people in the areas affected are entitled to know what is happening.


Mr. B. S. Beer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for bringing this important matter to the attention of the house. I regret my inability to reply in his native tongue, but I am sure he will understand. There are two points I wish to make in connection with the remarks of the hon. member. One was with regard to licensing. I think if anyone is licensed to operate these
Supply-Items Passed
machines which are alleged to be operating in that particular area this would be a matter for provincial jurisdiction.
Second, with regard to the question of relief for farmers who have been flooded or affected by excessive rains, this again is a provincial matter and would have to be brought by the provincial authorities to the federal government, who I am sure would be glad to assist if there is need in excess of the ability of the province to meet that need. As regards the matter of the corporation the hon. member has mentioned, I am unable to provide him with any authentic information as to whether or not this does or does not exist. I am in possession of the copy of Le Devoir from which he quoted and I am familiar with the article. I note from the article that there is no confirmation that these machines are in the area. I can only assure the hon. member that this matter will receive immediate attention and that an inquiry will be made.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.09 p.m.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply this day]:



DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration, $6,491,400. la. Departmental administration, $42,000.
Welfare services, allowances and other benefits- 5. Administration, including the expenses of the war veterans allowance board, and grants as detailed in the estimates, $4,097,200.
10. War veterans allowances, civilian war allowances and assistance in accordance with the provisions of the assistance fund (war veterans allowances) regulations, $88,975,000.
15. Other benefits including treatment and related allowances, burials and memorials, the training of certain pensioners under regulations approved by the governor in council and repayments under subsection (3) of section 12 of the Veterans' Rehabilitation Act in such amounts as the Minister of Veterans Affairs determines, not exceeding the whole of amounts equivalent to the compensating adjustments or payments made under that act, where the persons who made the compensating adjustment or payments received no benefits under the Veterans' Land Act, or where, having had financial assistance under the Veterans' Land Act, are deemed by the minister on termination of their Veterans' Land Act contracts or agreements to have derived thereunder either no benefits or benefits that are less than the amounts of the compensating adjustments or payments, $5,340,100.
15a. Other benefits including treatment and related allowances, burials and memorials, the training of certain pensioners under regulations approved by the governor in council and repayments under subsection (3) of section 12 of the Veterans' Rehabilitation Act, $45,000.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Items Passed
Pensions-
20. Administration, $2,634,300.
25. Pensions for disability and death, including pensions granted under the authority of the civilian governement employees (war) compensation order, P.C. 45/8848 of November 22, 144, which shall be subject to the Pension Act; Newfoundland special awards, and gallantry awards (world war II and special force), $170,826,000.
Treatment services-
30. Operation and maintenance including authority notwithstanding the Financial Administration Act, to spend revenue received during the year for hospital, prosthetic and related services, $44,223,900.
35. Hospital construction, improvements, equipment and acquisition of land, $3,294,000.
Soldier settlement and Veterans' Land Act-
40. Administration of Veterans' Land Act: Soldier settlement and British family settlement; 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; and to authorize, subject to the approval of the governor in council, necessary remedial work on properties constructed under individual firm price contracts and sold under the Veterans' Land Act and 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, $4,330,600.
45. Grants to veterans settled on provincial lands in accordance with agreements with provincial governments under section 38 of the Veterans' Land Act, 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 and grants to Indian veterans settled on Indian reserve lands under section 39 of the Veterans' Land Act, $150,000.
Loans, investments and advances-
Veterans Affairs-
Soldier Settlement and Veterans' Land Act-
L55. Purchase of land and permanent improvements; cost of permanent improvements to be effected; removal of encumbrances; stock and equipment; and protection of security under the Soldier Settlement Act and the Veterans' Land Act, $38,400,000.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, Ociober 23, 1964