Mr. Herridge:

I want to ask just one

question, because I have had an experience very similar to that mentioned by the two previous speakers. Has the minister's department notified the national office of the Canadian Legion, or the national offices of other veterans' bodies, advising them to advertise pr inform their membership that those who intend to apply should list their names immediately, and so on?

Mr. Gregg:

There has been no official

advice, but the executives of the two organizations concerned, that is the imperial division of the Canadian Legion and the British-Canadian veterans' association, were in close touch with my department all the way through, and I believe hon. members will recall that some weeks ago the legion had an editorial giving advice to its membership. I know Mr. Jones of the British-Canadian organization has also notified his membership to get their applications in without delay, and to get proof of service and proof of their arrival in Canada.

Mr. Quelch:

At the time the Veterans Land Act was before the veterans committee the minister was strongly urged that merchant seamen should be made eligible for its benefits. I recall that the minister at that time stated that in view of the fact that the merchant seamen would be needed on their ships at the end of the war he did not think it would be wise then to bring them under that act. On the other hand, however, he said that some years after the war the situation might be entirely different. At that time there might be unemployed merchant seamen, and it might be possible then to give further consideration to the request that merchant seamen be made eligible under the Veterans Land Act. I am wondering, now

that many merchant seamen are unemployed, whether the government has given consideration to bringing them under that legislation.

Mr. Gregg:

No, Mr. Chairman; no such consideration has been given.

Mr. Ross (Souris):

A short time ago the minister announced a plan under which veterans other than pensioners could go to military hospitals throughout the country, such as Deer Lodge in Winnipeg, and pay for the treatment they received. I should like to know whether those veterans would have any choice in the matter of the medical practitioner who would look after them, or whether they would simply go there, pay for their treatment, and take whatever medical people were allotted to their cases. Would they have any choice in the matter at all?

Mr. Gregg:

Mr. Chairman, when my estimates were before the committee a week or so ago the hon. member for Nanaimo delivered an address on item 528, the administration item. That is quite customary; that was the first item, and we are still on it. I am quite prepared to answer questions, but if my hon. friend would permit I should prefer to answer them when I have my officials before me, and in this case when we come to the item covering treatment.

Mr. Ross (Souris):

I should be quite happy to leave it at that; but the difficulty, which I experienced in another matter this morning, is that we have so many committees meeting now; we are sitting morning, afternoon and night, and it is pretty difficult to be in two or three places at the same time. It might happen that I would not be in the committee when these estimates came up. That is the only reason I raised the question now. It is difficult to follow the matters in which you are interested when the committees are meeting and you cannot be in the house all the time.

Mr. Gregg:

Then if my hon. friend will accept my answer, which is given without consultation with my officials, it would be that the veteran who elects to go to a D.V.A. hospital for special treatment or service for which he is prepared to pay will be entitled only to the services of the doctors in attendance at that hospital.

Mr. Harkness:

There still seem to be a very large number of temporary employees in this department. In the two or three years immediately after the war, when the activity of the department was at a peak, naturally it employed a large number of people whom it could not be expected to retain when that activity declined, so that a great many of the employees were not in

Supply-Veterans Affairs the permanent civil service. However, it is now five years since the war ended, and the work of the department has declined as is indicated by the fact that the number of employees has been considerably reduced. Under practically every item, however, I see that the number of temporary employees is still very large in comparison with the number who are permanent.

Under this item there has been a reduction of some 74 employees, but at the same time the number of permanent employees has increased by almost 60; and the temporary employees still number 802 out of a total staff of 1,008. It seems to me that by this time the direction in which the department is going, the number of people who will be required as permanent employees, and those who have proved themselves to be efficient, should have been pretty well determined, and there should not be such a large number of temporary employees compared with the number of permanent employees as we have at the present time. It seems to me that it would give a greater feeling of security to the employees, which would result in greater efficiency in the operations of the department, if a much larger number of those in the department were put on the permanent staff, so they would know they were paying into the superannuation fund regularly, and so on. Would the minister comment on that situation?

Mr. Gregg:

I hasten to thank the hon. member for his constructive suggestion, and I can assure him that the point he raises is under constant review. He will bear in mind, however, that my department has had a special type of experience during the last five years. My distinguished predecessor and the deputy minister had to expand the department very rapidly in a very short time at the end of the war. That expansion, as reflected in the estimates, continued from year to year. Now we are in the midst of quite drastic reductions, particularly in certain phases of the work of the department, while at the same time making changes and reclassifications in others. As that work is being carried on we are attempting to decide those positions which will be more or less permanent in nature as compared with those of a temporary character; and while we have not made a great deal of progress we have made some. Running over the whole picture on page 312 of the estimates, it will be noticed that as the hon. member has suggested there are some 74 fewer employees coming under departmental administration here at Ottawa.

May I pause here to refer to the point made by the hon. member for Nanaimo the

Supply-Veterans Affairs other evening, as to why the decrease had not been greater in Ottawa as compared with the districts.

One factor, amongst others which are in the same category, is the fact that the $80,000 in a single item appears in the total under Ottawa administration, which last year was part of the item referred to on page 67 under the heading "terminable services". It will be noted at the bottom of the column, "appropriation not required for 1950-51, $2,176,000". That was the large item for medals, production and distribution. The remainder to carry through that task this year has been transferred into headquarters administration under the item of $80,000.

Referring to personnel again, it will be noted that under departmental administration some improvement has been made in permanencies at a time when 74 have been let out. Under "district administration" there is a total of 194 less this year than last, and again some permanencies have been obtained. Under "veterans welfare services", which is a reorientation of the old rehabilitation services, the lesser number of employees is marked. There is a total of 349 less than last year. Under "treatment services" we were perhaps a little optimistic in our estimate. I shall explain that situation more thoroughly when we come to the supplemen-taries. I think we shall have to ask for more than we have in the main estimate there, but as shown in the book there are 487 less. Under "prosthetic services" there is only 1 less. In the Canadian pension commission there are 22 less. The war veterans allowance board has 8 more than last year, accounted for by the fact that we will need a few more junior staff to cope with the large number of applications this year. Veterans insurance has 5 less; soldier settlement and Veterans Land Act has 168 less.

I should like to say that, in making those reductions in staff, and this is related to the point made by my hon. friend, particularly for those who are getting along in years, we are undertaking to utilize all the resources of the national employment service and in our own department to assist them in finding new employment. We have had a reasonable amount of success in doing so. The younger veterans of this last war who have been let out have found little difficulty in finding other employment.

Mr. Harkness:

Just to be more specific on this point, could the minister tell us how many of those people who are listed as temporary employees this year are likely to become permanent employees before the year is out? Are there any estimates of that?

Mr. Gregg:

Perhaps I could take that question as notice, and attempt to answer it later?

Mr. Harkness:

The minister has mentioned the older employees of the department who are now being let out. During the past two years a considerable number of cases of this kind have come to my attention, men who were veterans of the first war and who got jobs in the Department of Veterans Affairs during this last war or at the end of it. They are now being let out. It seems to me this is a course of action which should be kept to a minimum. I know there are bound to be some cases of men who are not suitable and perhaps have to be let out, but the department itself maintains a bureau to encourage industry to hire older men, particularly older veterans. A lot of propaganda has been put out, and I think it is something which needs even greater attention than has been given to it. The older veterans have extreme difficulty in securing employment. It would seem to me the department should make every effort possible to retain those employees rather than put them out. As the minister says, there is an attempt to find jobs for them through the employment service, but in many cases that attempt is not very successful.

Has the minister any figures concerning the older veterans who have been released from his department, and how many of them have succeeded in finding other employment?

Mr. Gregg:

Mr. Chairman, a survey of the older veterans was completed for the year 1948-49. Perhaps that would answer my friend's question. During that period the older veterans whose services were terminated numbered 193; the number placed in alternative employment, 151. A summary of the remainder is as follows: Declined

employment offered, 4; inherited a legacy, 1; over 65 years of age, 9; under treatment, that is in hospital, 3; granted war veterans allowance, 3; considered unemployable, 2; left the district and we have no information, 4; on part-time employment for the present and will go on war veterans allowance, 3; apparently unemployed, 13.

Mr. McCusker:

I should like to ask the minister if the department has had sufficient experience with that new type of patient that is being admitted, the one who can afford to pay, to determine whether the department is able to collect from that man? I doubt very much whether any veteran, having availed himself of the facilities of the hospital, will pay for them when he is leaving. He will think he is entitled to that, and therefore the department is going to open it up to all veterans who will demand free treatment.

I would rather have seen them admit more patients, if it is patients they require. Evidently it is their desire to control the medical services, the teaching, and the whole medical profession of the country. It would have been better to admit the lower salaried group. I do not think the department will be able to collect from these men anyway, but you might as well give the advantage to those who can least afford to pay for hospitalization.

I should also like to ask whether it is the intention to expand these hospitals. The war has been over for a considerable period of time, and the demand for hospitalization Should be diminishing. I am wondering if the number of hospitals is to be increased, and if so why? I believe the civilian institutions can operate hospitals more economically than the military authorities.

Mr. Gregg:

I would prefer to have both questions deferred until the appropriate item in the estimate. I should like, however, to challenge the statement at once that those veterans who are earning their own living, and have completely rehabilitated themselves and have no eligibility due to their service, will not be willing to pay for their hospitalization treatment. They will demand the right to pay the same as a citizen who goes to a civilian hospital.

Mr. McCusker:

Has the minister had

sufficient experience to enable him to say that? I know it is a fine theory, but has there been sufficient experience with these people to find out?

Mr. Gregg:

Our experience has been very short, Mr. Chairman, but we have had no experience to indicate that the fear expressed by the member for Regina City is justified.

Mr. Ross (Souris):

I am bound to agree with the question that the hon. member for Regina has raised. In cases quite recently at Winnipeg, at Deer Lodge, I think his suspicion is being borne out as a fact. Our veterans are not all rehabilitated and making good money to that extent. Some of these people will not be able to pay for some time. I feel sure of that. I do not know how many cases there are, but I think that is going to be the question.

This is a follow-up of remarks of the hon. member for Calgary East, as to why the staffs are not being reduced. It is a build-up all through. There is the other item where they are asking for a vote now for hospital accommodation and facilities, and to authorize commitments against future years in the amount of $11,314,414. I do not expect the minister to explain all that at this stage, but I think that is a huge amount to be asking for in a vote at this time for future years when we have certainly been over the peak, I would think, in

Supply-Veterans Affairs all of these military hospitals throughout the country. There apparently is a deliberate attempt on the part of the department now to retain the present staff. I think it indicates that the matter I asked questions about a while ago and to which the hon. member has just referred is part of the plan.

They are going to accommodate all the old veterans who wish to apply now. I agree with the minister that in the vast majority of cases, where they can, they would certainly want the privilege of paying; they would pay if they could. But he and I and others know many of our comrades who will not find themselves in a position to pay that amount of money. We all know from actual experience that they just will not be able to do it. That is something you are going to have to face up to. Then in a time like this to be asking for another $11 million and more for future years for hospital development I think will require some explanation.

I think the minister himself will admit that the peak for hospital administration and the consideration of these veterans has been passed and the trend is certainly well on the downgrade. I think you will find many veterans who will not be able to pay for that hospital accommodation. I know of others again, on the question that I raised, who are in a position to pay but they feel that they should have some choice as to the medical attendants they might have looking after their particular cases. I have met applicants in Winnipeg going to Deer Lodge who are not satisfied on that basis, and they are veterans who are in a position to pay. They think they should have some choice as to their medical practitioner. They have pointed out the fact which the hon. member for Regina City has mentioned, that that was simply the department endeavouring to maintain that staff of medical practitioners and other staff now that their real usefulness has passed in this country for the time being.

Mr. Gregg:

The matter of hospital accommodation to which my hon. friend has referred is one that I shall deal with when we come to the appropriate item.