1. What was the total expenditure for the medical care of ex-service men, under orders in council P.C. 1842 and P.C. 91, for the fiscal years 1935-36, 1936-37, and 1937-38?

National Parks Act

2. What was the total expenditure for hospital allowances for ex-service men, under orders in council P.C. 1842 and P.C. 91, for the fiscal years 1935-36, 1936-37, and 1937-38?

3. What were the total admissions to hospitals of ex-service men, under orders in council P.C. 1842 and P.C. 91, for the fiscal years 1935-36, 1936-37, and 1937-38?

4. How many ex-service men were granted treatment as class 1 patients, under orders in council P.C. 1842 and P.C. 91, for the fiscal years 1935-36, 1936-37, and 1937-38?

1.

1935- 36 1936- 37 1937- 38 .... $1,548,643 61 .... 1,392,321 43 .. .. 1,461,855 96

T otal .... $4,402,821 00

2. 1935- 36 1936- 37 1937- 38 .. .. $1,315,347 09 .. .. 1,083,919 42 .. .. 943,430 68

Total .... $3,342,697 19

3. 1935- 36 1936- 37 1937- 38 12,678 11,527 11,031

Total 35,236

4. 1Q3r*-3fi 7,562

lQ3fi-37 5.990

1937-38 4,571

Total 18,123

MONTREAL POSTAL EXAMINATIONS

Mr. DENIS:

1. How many persons were candidates at the examinations held in Montreal, in June, 1937, for: (a) postal clerks; (b) letter carriers and mail porters?

2. How many were successful in the said examinations for: (a) postal clerks; (b) letter carriers and mail porters?

3. How many of the successful candidates

were appointed since as: (a) postal clerks;

(b) letter carriers and mail porters?

4. How many returned soldiers were successful in the said examinations for: (a) postal

clerks; (b) letter carriers and mail porters?

1. (a) 1,767; (b) 2,593.

2. (a) 402; (b) 824.

3. (a) 63 (full time); 41 (part time), (b) 10 (full time); 42 (part time).

4. (a) 1; (b) ?8.

1. What is the total amount of premiums paid on the life insurance policies that have lapsed during the calendar years 1930 to 1937 inclusive?

2. What is the approximate average length of time the above policies have been in force?

1. The information required is not available from the annual statements received from the various life insurance companies registered at the Department of Insurance.

2. Answered by No. 1.

Mr. BENNETT:

With respect to Elk

Island, is it proposed to vest in the crown in the right of the province the lands not required?

Mr. CRERAR:

Yes; they are transferred

to the province. They are really for road purposes, to permit some slight change the provincial authorities wish to make in a road.

Mr. BENNETT:

The section says "are

hereby declared to be no longer required for park purposes." I do not see that it is vested in the crown in the right of the province of Alberta; however, as in the case of Prince Edward Island, I should think it would be proper to vest it in the crown in the right of the province.

Mr. CRERAR:

Is that suggestion for purposes of clarity, or is it essential?

Mr. BENNETT:

It struck me that it

might be essential, though I am uncertain as to that. When the natural resources agreements were made the reservation for park purposes was made also, as the hon. gentleman

Excise Act

said yesterday; and in the case of Prince Edward Island, as will be observed, we have stated that the lands are hereby vested in his majesty in the right of the province of Prince Edward Island. I suggest that somewhat similar words should be used with respect to the two areas mentioned in subsections (3) and (4) of section 2. Whether or not it is essential would be seen only by going back over the various statutes to find whether that was done. But it is simple to add the words, "hereby vested in the crown in the right of the province of Alberta." I think it may be essential, but it may not. I am asking the minister for information.

Mr. CRERAR:

I cannot say definitely at the moment, but my impression is that it is covered in the natural resources transfer agreements. I think I am correct in saying that there is some provision somewhere in the agreements that lands which may be no longer required for park purposes shall return to the province. However, I have no objection to adding-

Mr. BENNETT:

No; I was just asking the minister for information.