1943-07-14

[Stage Direction]
Third report of special committee on social security.-Mr. Macmillan.
Fourth and final report of standing committee on public accounts.-Mr. Fraser (Northumberland).

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. WINKLER:: 1.	Have steps been taken to accept into field ambulance and field hospital units those whose religious beliefs prevent them from bearing arms, and to form a new military category to make this possible?
2.	Is this done by other allied nations?


Mr. MACDONALD (Halifax):: 1.	It has been decided to make arrangements so that they will be eligible for employment as required in military hospitals in Canada.

Questions
2.	In the United States, according to the Selective Service Act of 1940, those, who, by reason of religious belief, are conscientiously opposed to participation in war and whose claims are sustained by the local board, if inducted into the forces, are assigned to noncombatant service. Conscientious objectors who volunteer may be allotted to medical units in the field.
In the United Kingdom according to the National Service (Armed Forces) Act 1939, conscientious objectors are directed into noncombatant corps for employment only in noncombatant duties. Those having a civilian trade peculiar to the Royal Army Medical Corps are directed into that corps for employment in any unit according to their medical category.


INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE ON EMPLOYMENT AND REHABILITATION
Mr. MacNICOL:: 1.	Is there an interdepartmental committee representative of the defence departments, pensions and national health, and labour, the function of such committee being to plan employment and rehabilitation of ex-service men and others?
2.	If so, (a) who are the members of this committee; (b) are they all civil servants;
(c)	are there any temporary civil servants on the committee? If so, who are they?
3.	What has this committee recommended with regard to, (a) the continuance of national selective service for civilian purposes in time of peace; (b) extension of employment service of Canada control over civil employment; (c) compulsory filing by employers of lists of vacancies; '
(d)	national selective service alone sending persons to fill such lists?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) Chairman of the Canadian pension commission (chairman); associate deputy minister of pensions and national health (vicechairman)'; chairman, civil service commission; deputy minister of labour or representative; deputy minister of public works or representative ; director of auxiliary services, Department of National Defence; representatives of the services, Department of National Defence; deputy minister of pensions and national health; representative of the Department of Finance; representative of the Department of Agriculture; dominion statistician.
(b)	Yes.
(c)	No.
3.	(a), (b), (c) and (d) All recommendations of this committee are made confidentially to cabinet committee which refers them to cabinet council when decision as to policy is to be reached. Policies are announced by the government in the usual way.


SELECTIVE SERVICE-C. F. NEEDHAM
Mr. STOKES:: 1.	Is C. F. Needham employed in national selective service?
2.	If so, what is his official position?
3.	What duties or functions does he perform as such?
4.	Has he any other position?
5.	What is his total yearly salary?
6.	Is he entitled to any living or travelling allowances and expenses in addition to said salary?
7.	If so, how much has been paid to him for such living or travelling allowances and expenses since he was appointed to his present post?
8.	What governmental posts did he hold prior to his appointment to the said position?
9.	What experience and qualifications does he possess for the discharge of his present duties?


Mr. MARTIN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Associate director of national selective service, civilian.
3.	Assists director of N.S.S. in handling matters pertaining to civilian side of N.S.S. including labour supply problems, and in consultation with other government departments concerned deals with the establishment of labour priorities for industries and occupations, curtailment of non-essential industries for manpower, encourages dilution of labour by use of women, upgrading of employees, etc., organizes a manpower advisory committee in any industry where thought necessary with approval of the director of N.S.S. and collaborates with the director of employment service branch and unemployment insurance to draft the necessary instructions in regard to carrying out manpower policies and procedures relating to labour supply problems.
4.	No.
5.	$6,500.
6.	Yes; actual and reasonable travelling and living expenses while absent from Toronto in the performance of his duties.
7.	$1,643.70.
8.	None.
9.	For over forty years employed by Grand Trunk Railway and later Canadian National Railways in dealing with labour and associated matters and other railway subjects.



SELECTIVE SERVICE-LABOUR SUPPLY BRANCH

Mr. CARDIFF:: 1.	What are the functions of the labour supply branch of national selective service?
2.	To what extent have these functions been performed to date?


Mr. MARTIN:: 1. Makes recommendations on labour supply matters referred to it and in consultation with
Questions as Orders jor Returns

other government departments concerned deals with the establishment of labour priorities for industries and occupations, curtailment of nonessential industries for man-power, encourages dilution of labour by use of women, upgrading of employees, etc., organizes a man-power advisory committee in any industry where thought necessary with approval of the director of national selective service and collaborates with the director of employment service branch and unemployment insurance to draft the necessary instructions in regard to carrying out man-power policies and procedures relating to labour supply problems.
2. The functions referred to have been carried out.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. BRUCE:: 1.	How many veterans of the last war are still patients at Christie street hospital?
2.	How many sick or wounded men returned from overseas since 1939 are now patients at Christie street hospital?
3.	How many sick or wounded serving in, (a) the home defence army; (b) the reserve army, are now patients in Christie street hospital ?
4.	How many cases of venereal disease are now being treated at Christie street hospital as, (a) in-patients; (b) out-patients?
5.	How many of these are male, and how many female?


PENSIONS AND NATIONAL HEALTH-HOSPITALS
Mr. BRUCE:: 1.	How many hospitals are operated by the Department of Pensions and National Health in Canada?
2.	Where are these hospitals situated, and what is t'he bed capacity of each?
3.	Do all or any of these hospitals receive casualties direct returning from overseas?
4.	If so, which hospitals?
5.	Do they receive patients from the home defence army, the reserve army and auxiliary services ?
6.	Is Christie street hospital reserved for any special type of patient?
7.	If so, for what cases?


NATIONAL DEFENCE-HOSPITALS
Mr. BRUCE:: 1.	How many hospitals are operated in Canada by the Department of National Defence?
2.	Where are these hospitals situated?
3.	What is the bed capacity in each case?
4.	Are all casualties returning from overseas admitted to one or other of these hospitals?
5.	Are casualties occurring in the home defence army, reserve army and auxiliary services admitted to these hospitals?
6.	If not, what other provision is made for these patients?

7.	How many beds are held in reserve in the hospitals operated by the Department of National Defence?
8.	Is this reserve accommodation sufficient to take care of the anticipated casualties for the coming year?
9.	If not, what provision has been made for additional accommodation?


AIR RAID PRECAUTIONS
Mr. BRUCE:: 1.	How much has been spent by the federal government in A.R.P. in each province up to March 31, 1943?
2.	How much money has been spent by the federal government in the headquarters offices in each province since the inception of A.R.P. service and up to the end of March, 1943?
3.	What are the names of the officials in charge of this A.R.P. work in each of the provinces?
4.	What military rank, if any, has each of these officials?
5.	What salary or other emolument does each officer at headquarters in each province receive?
6.	What were the travelling expenses of each officer in charge of this work in each province for the fiscal year 1942-43?
7.	Is the position of director of the A.R.P. service in any province a full-time position?
8.	If so, in what province?
9.	If not, what other positions are held by each A.R.P. director in each province?
19. How long will this expensive organization in the interior provinces of Canada be continued?


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: When may we expect the information in respect to the preceding four questions to be brought down?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: I should think almost immediately, but they were not ready for to-day. I shall see to it that the information is brought down just as soon as possible.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: For a copy of all censorship orders, regulations or instructions issued under government authority since the outbreak of war.
Mr. LaFLECHE: Stand.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: How long is this going to stand, Mr. Speaker?
Mr. LaFLECHE: I have stated three times, I think, last week and earlier this week, that the gentleman concerned is expected back in town to-morrow. As soon as he arrives I shall see him.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Would the minister be good enough to explain why this has to await the return of Colonel Biggar?


Mr. GRAYDON:: When does the minister expect to bring down this information?

Sussex Military Camp
Mr. LaFLECHE: I shall give the answer as soon as I can possibly arrange to do so; as soon as I can consult this gentleman.


Mr. CHURCH:: And where is the return on the same subject which was ordered last week?
Mr. LaFLECHE: I shall then explain to the house.
Motion stands.



CHRISTIE STREET HOSPITAL-VOLUNTARY NURSING AIDES

Mr. BRUCE:: For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between	the	Department	of	Pensions	and
National Health and, (a) war veterans' associations; (b) other organizations or boards of trade; (c) private individuals, since January 1, 1943, in regard to Christie street hospital.
Also a copy of reports of inspections made of Christie street hospital since 1938.
Also a copy of all correspondence passing between	the	Department	of	Pensions	and
National Health and the national commandant of the nursing auxiliary of the Canadian Red Cross Society and the lady-superintendent-inchief of St. John Ambulance brigade in Canada, since January 1, 1943, regarding the employment of voluntary nursing aides in the Department of Pensions and National Health hospitals.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In regard to the first part of the motion I must make the usual reservation in regard to any confidential documents. I do not think there are any, but that will apply in case there should be. This seems to be a sort of double motion; there is no connection between the second portion and the first part; I think perhaps there should be two separate returns, though it really does not matter.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Is it the pleasure of the
house to adopt the motion subject to the observations of the minister?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance, in view of the fact that many public bodies and private citizens have been protesting against what they believe to be a hardship occasioned by a recent ruling of the Department of Justice which means that, a parent supporting an illegitimate child cannot claim income tax
exemption in respect of such child. I understand the minister has the matter under consideration at the moment. Will he inform the house what steps, if any, he is taking to amend the law in this regard?


Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):: The only answer I can give is that this is a matter of government policy which will be announced in due course. However, I have advised those who have written me that I did not think it would be practicable to open up the Income War Tax Act again this session.



CANADIAN ARMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Burpee Hanson: I
should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence with respect to the recent unpleasant occurrence at Camp Sussex. He will recall that on at least two previous occasions I made inquiry about this matter, at which times I was told that it was still under investigation. When may we expect some statement with respect to that affair?


Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Minister of National Defence):: I can make a statement now as
to the progress that has been made. The government of the province of New Brunswick advised that after investigation they had not sufficient evidence to warrant them in going ahead with any criminal charge, and left it to the military authorities to take such steps as they thought advisable. The military authorities immediately reconvened the court of inquiry; as a matter of fact I think there were some new officers on it from headquarters, in order to elicit the facts as fully as possible, not only with regard to the shooting incident but also with regard to the matter of discipline. That court of inquiry has reported; the matter now I think is in this stage, that charges are being laid and I am not sure that the court martial has not been constituted. Charges are being made against a number of individuals and I think one officer with respect to the matter of discipline in the camp and offences which may have been committed with reference to internal organization, as they appear to have arisen out of that unfortunate occurrence. The matter is being carried forward with the utmost celerity. It may seem to have taken a long time, but I can assure hon. members of the house that no time has been wasted. I have

The War-Sicily

taken a personal interest in the matter, and when I say it has involved the examination of at least a hundred individuals, if not more, I think hon. members will understand that a considerable amount of time has had to be taken..



THE WAR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Alexander Bruce: May I
ask the Minister of National Defence if he is prepared as yet to announce the officer in charge of Canadian forces in Sicily?


James Layton Ralston: No, I am. not able to do that, I
am sorry to say. That is not because of any reluctance to give the information, naturally, because I should be very happy to give it if I could. It is because of the arrangement that exists, as between the various forces concerned, with the commander in chief, under which announcements of the kind are not made until the commander in chief advises that in the interests of security he is able to do so.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is a remarkable situation, because I have read in the press the names of all the allied commanders and Canada just is not in that picture. I do not understand it, and I do not think that should be the case. I hope there is a Canadian commander of some prominence and standing, so that we may not be left out of this show altogether.


James Layton Ralston: I do not think Canada
can complain of being left out of the show altogether, in view of the publicity she has been given-


Richard Burpee Hanson: I mean
with respect to commanders.


James Layton Ralston: -and the fact that Canada's participation was fully announced at the very beginning. As a matter of fact I think perhaps the Prime Minister's statement was made before the leader of any other government made a similar announcement. With regard to the names of the officers in charge, of course hon. members will note that the announcement was not made with regard to the officers commanding formations but with regard to staff officers in charge of the whole operation. That is to say, there is the commander of the allied forces and the deputy commander; there is the commander of the combined British and Canadian forces, and the

commander of the United States forces, but the announcement did not go down even to commanders of corps or commanders of divisions, in any case. I do not want to add fuel to the flame of public desire, but I must say that sometimes I am irked at the security regulations which it is thought necessary to enforce. Like the rest of us I have to trust that those in charge of this matter will realize how anxious the public are not only for the name of the commander but for the names of the units involved; and I have to believe that just as soon as they consider the interests of security permit, the announcement will be made.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I am not sorry the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) has asked the question he has just asked. I should like to supplement what my colleague the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) has said, by a word with respect to making announcements on the progress of the war, on matters pertaining to our own troops in particular, and also on many matters which pertain to Canada's participation in the war.
I wish to say quite frankly that repeatedly I find myself in extremely difficult positions. From time to time, along with others, I have received confidential information as to what was about to take place, so that I might be fully informed. But I have also at the same time received word that this information on no account was to be released until receipt of further word. Such further word does not always come as rapidly as one might like it to come.
There is the fact that other nations, and other parts of the empire, are also engaged in this war. They also have troops on active service, and in some instances, of necessity, announcements have therefore to be restricted to those who are recognized as being in supreme control of the direction of the war. I believe we are all only too ready and too happy to recognize that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Mr. Churchill, and the President of the United States, Mr. Roosevelt, are the two men to whom all parts of the united nations and of the empire look as the two who have under their control the supreme direction of the war. Announcements will undoubtedly from time to time be made by these two gentlemen. Members of the house and people throughout Canada may say to themselves that it is rather singular that the Prime Minister of Canada has not

War Appropriation-Finance-Wool Board
made an announcement on this point, seeing that Canadian forces are so immediately involved and concerned. I have to choose between recognizing that other parts of the empire and others of the united nations would not wish to have Canada placed in a position more favourable than that which they occupy in connection with announcements of the kind, and leave those announcements either to Mr. Churchill, to the President or to both, or- as the other alternative-make a fuss about it, and see if the matter cannot be changed. I have felt that at least one of the greatest services I could render to all concerned at this time is to find as little fault as I can, and do as much as I can to avoid embarrassment. From time to time I have had to take that position, at the risk of great misunderstanding.
I do not mind telling the house, now that the event has passed, that all day Friday I had full knowledge of what was being planned. I was waiting for an opportunity to make an announcement on Friday, and until eleven o'clock at night I had hoped to be able to make it before the house adjourned. I had received a communication pointing out that for reasons of security no mention was to be made at all of the participation of the Canadian forces. And I might say that it was even contrary to the request I had received that no word was to be given respecting the participation of the Canadian forces in the invasion of Sicily until late Saturday-I say it was in spite of that that I made the announcement shortly after midnight on Friday. I made it because an announcement that Canadian troops were involved came, over the air, from military headquarters in the United States.
In justice to myself, and with a view to possible future situations, I feel I should make it clear that sometimes we in Canada are placed in very difficult positions. Let it be understood that I am not criticizing anyone. I do say that perhaps those who felt reasons of security would demand that there should be no mention of the participation of Canadian troops took that position for the best. But I have been asking myself what the House of Commons and the country would have had to say about the Prime Minister of Canada if he had not made any mention of the participation by Canadian troops in the attack upon Sicily until midnight on Saturday, instead of making it immediately after midnight on Friday.



WAR APPROPRIATION BILL


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, July 13, consideration in committee of a resolution to grant to his majesty certain sums of money for the carrying out of measures consequent upon the existence of a state of war.- Mr. Usley-Mr. Bradette in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
Canadian -wool board, administration, $500,000.
Mr. BLACKMORE:: May we have a breakdown showing how it is proposed that the $500,000 will be spent?


James Lorimer Ilsley: This is merely an estimate of possible losses in the operation of the Canadian wool board. There is no break-down.


John Horne Blackmore: What is the policy of this board? What good is it to Canada? What is it really going to do?


James Lorimer Ilsley: 
Richard Burpee Hanson: What has been the result of the attempt to stimulate increased production of wool in Canada? I am tempted to ask this question because one of my colleagues suggested to me-I think I communicated the suggestion to the Minister of Agriculture'-that there should be a prohibition of the slaughter of ewe lambs in Canada at least until the flocks can be built up. Is the minister able to say whether any effect has been given to a suggestion of the kind?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The production of wool in Canada has increased substantially, but I have not the figures before me. I presume
[Mr. Ilsley.j
Canadian production was discussed when the agriculture estimates were before the committee.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What steps have been taken by this board to increase production? That is stated to be one of the objectives.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It provides a ready and staple market for Canadian produced wool.


Mr. ISNOR:: Where is that market?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The Canadian wool board buys all wool of the proper grades that is produced in Canada. It also imports a lot of wool, but it is not the exclusive importer. It is the exclusive buyer of domestic production.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister is not able to tell me what steps this board has taken in that regard.


James Lorimer Ilsley: A bonus of four cents per pound on graded wool is paid through the Department of Agriculture, not through this board.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Has the minister any information as to what these import subsidies amount to?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The amount of subsidy on wool as defined in tariff items 549 and 549a, from the inception to March 31, 1943, was $135,000.


John Horne Blackmore: On imported wool?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Right; to be exact $135,913.08. Those are the subsidies that are being paid out by the Commodity Prices Stabilization Corporation. No subsidies are being paid by the Canadian wool board. They would receive part of that subsidy as an importer. It includes all importers. I do not know how much of that amount the Canadian wool board received.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is any of it paid to the board? Is not the subsidy paid to the manufacturers or processors?


James Lorimer Ilsley: We are talking now about importers, and the wool board assumes the position of any private importer as regards import subsidies.


Richard Burpee Hanson: But they are not wool growers.


James Lorimer Ilsley: No.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The wool centre for imports is in Boston; I think that is well understood. What is the modus operandi of getting foreign wool, say Australian wool, into Canada? I understand

War Appropriation-Finance-Wool Board
that the British government controls the wool clip and that a certain portion finds its way into the United States. So far as I know none of it is imported direct into Canada, or formerly was not so imported. If I as a wool manufacturer decide to import through the Boston market, do I get a subsidy, or is it only when the wool is imported through the agency of the wool board or this government corporation?


James Lorimer Ilsley: There are some importations by private importers, and they would be entitled to a subsidy if the price that it was necessary for them to pay was higher than the price provided under the ceiling at which they were obliged to sell.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is the factor, the ceiling price?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: How does the existing price of wool under the Canadian wool board compare with the price say in 1918? I have in mind the relation of the price to-day to the ceiling price on goods. With further reference to the question raised by the hon. member for York-Sunbury as to importations by private manufacturers, is it necessary for the private importer to secure a permit to import wool? My third question is as to grading and warehousing. In what sections of Canada are the warehouses located? Is the grading working out satisfactorily in all sections of the dominion?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The private importers can import only under permit.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Permit from whom?


James Lorimer Ilsley: From the wool administrator. I will answer the other two questions in a moment.


Mr. ROWE:: 
James Lorimer Ilsley: There is no half million dollar figure. The amount of the subsidies was 8135,000.


William Earl Rowe: There is $500,000 for Canadian wool board administration.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is possible losses, and it is just an estimate. That would all be on domestic wool. In reply to the senior member for Halifax, the best figure I can give as to the relative price of wool during the last war at the same stage is a percentage figure, not the actual price. In December 1917 the index number representing the raw wool price was 329-9 as against 100 for the year before the war, August, 1913, to August, 1914.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: What was the index price for the three years before that?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I have not the prices for 1914 to 1917, but I have the percentage increase. It increased by three times.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: What I wished to bring out was that owing to the wool board's operations there has been this very beneficial effect on prices of manufactured articles containing wool, and if the minister would ascertain the figures I think he would have a good point in favour of the wool board. Now may I follow the suggestion made by the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe in regard to prices? In his statement the minister referred to the. fact that they were purchasing rayon and other types of thread to be interwoven with wool, but these were being used by the United States spinning operators, if I recall rightly. Does that mean that they are being sent to the United States to be produced?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Some.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: My thought was as to whether we could not have this spinning done in Canada. There are operators and very fine mills throughout every part of Canada. In eastern Canada, we have Stanfields, one of the finest firms in the dominion dealing not alone with woollen products but with rayons as well. Perhaps the Canadian wool board could investigate these with the thought in mind of encouraging our home spinners to enlarge and thus make use of the rayons and other threads in the manufacture of woollen, and rayon and woollen, underwear.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is wool for the most part, practically altogether, that is sent to the
4764	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Finance-Wool Board
United States for conversion, and it is sent there to be converted into woollen cloth. There may be some inter-mixture of these other fibres, but that would be very incidental. The reason we are availing ourselves of the United States facilities is that Canadian facilities are operating at capacity, and in order to get the cloth made-mostly or wholly, I think, for work clothing-we have to avail ourselves of such facilities as there are on this continent.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Yes, that is an answer in part, but I still feel that if the wool board would make a survey of the possibility of enlarging some of these plants it would be a good thing from the general Canadian point of view as well as for the operators.


Richard Burpee Hanson: With
respect to the price of wool and the index figure which the minister gave, I think the whole picture ought to be shown. In 1917 the United States was not in the war. The wool trade on the north American continent is centred in the United States. Boston is the great mart for the whole of North America. There was much inflation in the United States owing to largely increased buying power, resulting largely from the mass of treasure which was poured into the United States by Britain for the purchase of armaments. There was no control of prices in the United States, and prices in Canada, without any control over there, naturally had to soar to a point commensurate with the level in the United States. When my hon. friends across the way are drawing comparisons between prices today and prices in the last war of the same articles, they should never lose sight of the fact that conditions are entirely dissimilar. I commend to hon. gentlemen the reading of a letter written by Sir Thomas White which appeared in the Toronto Globe and Mail a few weeks ago, setting out clearly the whole position. We have to keep it in mind. The intention of course is to show how much better the Murphys are than the O'Rourkes.


John Horne Blackmore: May I tell the minister that I think his wool board this year has not done for Canada what it should have done. It has left the price to the producer of wool altogether too low.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is 119 per cent greater.


John Horne Blackmore: May I read to the minister a few figures to show what that means?


William Earl Rowe: It was 100 per cent too low before.
I Mr. Ilsley.]


John Horne Blackmore: I should like to read figures showing prices paid in Canada and the United States during the past few years. They have been given to me by Mr. W. S. Benson, of the Southern Alberta Sheep Breeders Association, whose headquarters are at Lethbridge, a man who I believe is quite dependable. The following prices per pound obtained: The United States between 1930 and 1939 was paying on the average 23-6 cents, and Canada was paying 10-59 cents. In 1939 United States was paying 22-3 cents while Canada was paying 11-8 cents-much to be proud of, our country has! The average price for 1942 in the United States was 39 cents, and in Canada 25-9 cents. So that with all the great percentage increase in prices of -wool to Canadian producers, they still were being neglected as compared with their fellow wool producers across the line. The increase in the United States over 1939 was only 74-4 per cent; the increase in Canada was 119-4 per cent, but even at that, the United States was paying in 1942 practically 14 cents per pound more for wool than Canada was. I think the minister will recognize that these figures disclose a situation which is not to the credit of the Canadian wool board. It is a situation which it is difficult to find language to describe adequately.
I am going to give a few more figures for the minister to think about. I have here from the same gentleman, Mr. Benson, a set of prices taken from the books of a Manitoba sheep grower. These prices go back over the years. The 1923 price was 20-6 cents. The 1924 price was evidently not recorded. Then follow: 1925, 22-4 cents; 1926, 16-1 cents; 1927, 19-8 cents; 1928, 33-7 cents; 1929, 16-5 cents; 1930, 7-5 cents; 1931, 3 cents. I believe the wool board would at least have done itself justice had it taken into consideration some such matters as these, but evidently it did not. I continue: 1932, 3-1 cents; 1933, 12-1 cents; 1934. 6-7 cents; 1935, 12 cents; 1936, 14-5 cents; 1937, 13-8 cents; 1938, 10-7 cents; 1939, 15-6 cents; 1940, 19-8 cents; 1941, 24-3 cents; 1942, 27-1 cents. This return of course is based on Manitoba conditions. I believe the minister himself will be astonished to find that such a set of prices prevailed in Canada. I am not blaming the minister; probably it has never been brought to his attention what questionable practices his wool board have been guilty of during the last year or so.
I am going to draw to his attention one or two other small matters which probably will be food for thought. In the first place I notice he said that the price for wool in 1943 was to be the same as the price for wool in 1942. Has it been brought to his attention -he is an exceedingly busy man and probably

War Appropriation-
-Finance-
-Wool Board
it has not-how greatly the costs of producing wool have increased during the last year?
I have here a letter dated March 16, 1943, from the gentleman to whom I referred a moment ago, Mr. W. S. Benson, secretary-treasurer of Southern Alberta Sheep Breeders Limited, in which he points out to me several important increases in the cost of producing wool. In the first place the 1942 wages for farm help have increased tremendously, in some cases as much as 100 per cent. The growers would be prepared to pay these increased wages if they were obtaining increased efficiency, but unfortunately the reverse is the case, because experienced men are very difficult to obtain. One has to rely on inexperienced and inefficient help. ' This fact, however, did not register with the wool board although it was brought forcibly to their attention. Secondly, "The cost per head of shearing has practically doubled during the last two years and growers feel that the coming season they will have to pay a 25 per cent increase in order to get their shearing done." That is another matter that did not register with the representatives of the wool board when they visited Lethbridge.


Mr. REID:: What is the cost of shearing?


John Horne Blackmore: I have a letter in
which it is given, but I cannot state it offhand. I read again:
During the present winter, ranchers have been put to much more expense than usual on account of the long feeding periods as a result of the unfavourable winter.
That is another point which apparently entirely escaped the doctrinaires who have been called to responsible positions on the Canadian wool board, men who apparently have no contacts with the producers. The fourth point is this. The people generally in the Lethbridge area-and, if I am correctly informed, all through Alberta and other parts of the west-asked that the price be increased at least ten cents per pound over what they received in 1942. I know that this request was made of the representatives of the wool board at Lethbridge and was completely disregarded, in many cases without much respect being shown.
This quotation is important:
The present income tax schedule as outlined in the budget does not give the rancher a chance to pay off his debt, even if he were so inclined.
I do not wish to take up the time of the committee by reading the minister a lecture on the inequities and the injustice of his income tax structure, but I will draw that statement to his attention with the request that he think it over before he builds his
next budget. The minister, in fixing his income tax rates for the sheep growers in Canada, made no allowance at all for the tremendous losses suffered and the debts incurred by sheep growers when they were passing through the dreadful times in which they received 3 cents, 3-1 cents and 6-7 cents per pound. He simply clamped on a tax that would ruin them, and if the war goes on for five or six or seven years, and the men continue to be treated as they are at the present time under the income tax, the minister will squeeze them out of existence. If that is what he wants to do, he is on the high road to the achievement of his goal.
These matters are weighty; they have been entirely overlooked by the wool board, which has been travelling around the country and telling the farmers what they ought to be able to do. I would call the minister's attention to this fact. The main wool producers, the representatives of sheep producers' organizations, have been outspoken on this question of price in several parts of Canada. I would refer the minister to a little publication called "Country Life in British Columbia," of March, 1943, at page 16, wherein there is printed an article entitled "Words from President Harrison re treatment of B.C. sheep industry." In the fifth line of the first paragraph these words are attributed to Mr. Harrison:
Bluntly he states that the producers of wool were not receiving a fair price for this essential commodity,'that the price of lambs had been reduced unduly last summer, and that if the dominion government's urgent request for the raising of a million more sheep in Canada was to be satisfied, something had to be done about assuring a supply of labour, prices in line with costs of production, and protection against predatory animals.
We have nothing to do with the first and last of the list at this stage, but we have a good deal to do with the matter of price. I call attention too to an article in "Country Life in British Columbia," March, 1943, at page 17:	"Wool price too low, so sheep
breeders charge." I quote from the second main article on the page:
At the annual meeting of the Ontario Sheep Breeders' Association, about the only complaint heard was that the price of wool was too low. The sheep breeders thought they should have 50 cents a pound.
In order to get some idea of the situation, all the minister has to do is to compare 50 cents a pound with the contemptible 25^4 which now is paid. If it were a purely western voice speaking, the voice of British Columbia, probably the officials at Ottawa would use their habitual restraint towards that province. But here is a statement from Ontario which
4766	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Finance-Wool Board
should sound loud in the ears of the men at Ottawa. How a statement like this could have missed the attention of members of the wool board, I am not at the moment able to conjecture. May I also call attention to an article which appears in the Farm and Ranch Review of January, 1943. This article appears under the title, " Sheep industry is stifled," and is written by T. C. Glaspell, vice-president of the Canadian Sheep Breeders' association. It was written for the Farmers' Advocate and is quoted in the Farm and Ranch Review. I would call attention particularly to the words near the end of the article:
I challenge our agricultural supply board to prove to the sheep breeders of Canada that wool can be raised under 50 cents per pound under present conditions.
We have here two voices, each one estimating 50 cents as the lowest suitable price. The Alberta request to raise the price ten cents a pound is in the light of the other two exceedingly moderate, and should have merited some respect from the visiting wool board representatives. But it did not.
In view of these statements the minister would be well advised to call the chairman of the wool board on the carpet and have a serious talk with him and point out to him that not long ago there were passed, at the Hot Springs conference, a number of resolutions, which demanded, and practically agreed, that all those who were going to cooperate were to do everything in their power to increase agricultural production of all kinds. The report of this Hot Springs conference has been published and was distributed recently to the members of the House of Commons. It is called, " International Conference on Food and Agriculture." The minister would do well to pass a copy of that report to each member of the wool board, and ask them to give the matter more than ordinary consideration or at least a great deal more consideration than they gave the request from the wool growers of Alberta this year. I think perhaps that is as much as it is necessary to say just now. May I repeat that in my judgment the wool board has failed in its trust this year and is not entitled to be reemployed next year. As was indicated by the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe, $500,000 was spent in subsidizing Australian and New Zealand production and distribution.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is not correct.


William Earl Rowe: I do not think I made that
statement.


John Horne Blackmore: I believe I said the
hon. gentleman indicated that; but such

money as was used of the $500,000 to help any producers was used to help others and not Canadians.


James Lorimer Ilsley: No, that is not correct
either.


John Horne Blackmore: Then was any of this money used to help Canadian wool producers?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, most of it.


John Horne Blackmore: Then I should like to know about that.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The trading losses of the
Canadian wool board were practically all on account of Canadian wool. I do not know that I want to follow my hon. friend in detail-


William Earl Rowe: The hon. member means the Canadian subsidies.


John Horne Blackmore: It might be a hard
thing to follow me, and it is also rather bad practice to laugh too often.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Well, my hon. friend frequently makes remarks like that in the house. If ministers do not answer him it is not because they have been tremendously impressed with his arguments; it is becau.se of the reverse, and they assume that the impression on others will be the same. The hon. gentleman talked about the doctrinaires who composed the wool board. The president is Mr. D. C. Dick, who has had a lifetime of experience in the wool trade.


John Horne Blackmore: Did he ever produce
sheep?	^


James Lorimer Ilsley: He is an official of the wartime prices and trade board. I do not know that he ever produced sheep.


John Horne Blackmore: That is the point;
he never raised sheep.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not know that we would be justified in appointing a wool board composed entirely of producers of sheep, because the main purpose of the board is to see that we get a supply of wool at reasonable prices to meet civilian and war demands, which the board has been most successful in doing. The wool supply situation is very satisfactory indeed.


John Horne Blackmore: People are producing in spite of the board.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The next doctrinaire is Mr. G. E. O'Brien, who I think is president of the Cooperative Wool Growers' Association.


John Horne Blackmore: Has he ever produced wool?

War Appropriation-Finance-Wool Board


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not know about that,
but he is an official of the cooperative. Then we have another official of the cooperative, Mr. W. H. J. Tisdale; I suppose he is a doctrinaire.


John Horne Blackmore: What is his record?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The hon .gentleman should
know as well as I do. Then I find that this matter of prices was considered and thoroughly argued when the estimates of the Minister of Agriculture were before the committee. Apparently it is true that prices in the United States have always been higher than prices in Canada, but as I have said before we simply cannot tie our economy to that of the United States any more than we can tie it to that of Australia or New Zealand, where the prices of wool are very much lower than in Canada. For 1942-43 the average price of wool in Australia was 21 cents, when their currency was converted into Canadian funds. In New Zealand it was 22 cents and in Canada 25 [DOT] 9 cents. The percentage increase in Canada since the low prices of the thirties is 119-4, or more than double. In the United States, prices have gone up by 74-4 per cent, in New Zealand by 53-5 per cent and in Australia by 49-5 per cent.


John Horne Blackmore: But the price in the United States was pretty high before; I mentioned the figures.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, but I think the hon.
gentleman would have to talk quite a long time before he could make a prima facie case against the wool board for injustice or failure of trust, when it is found that they have increased the price to the farmer in Canada by 119-4 per cent as against an increase of 74-4 per cent in the United States, 53-5 per cent in New Zealand and 49-5 per cent in Australia.


John Horne Blackmore: The price before the increase is important.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is a matter as to which there could be endless argument. All I can say is that at the moment the supply situation is very good indeed. We are able to get the wool. We do get it at a little lower cost by buying from Australia and New Zealand, even though we have to pay these very heavy charges for wnr risk insurance and freight rates. In addition to the price I have mentioned we are also paying a subsidy of four cents per pound, which brings the price up to 30 cents. Our price is such that, quoting my colleague the Minister of Agriculture, while the price in the United States for the same grade wool runs from 37 to 40 cents a pound, when we consider freight charges, duty and
everything else, the return to the Canadian farmer is slightly better than it would be if he sold his wool in the United States. The price to the farmer in Canada has more than doubled, while the price of woollen goods to the consumer has been kept down remarkably well when we consider the experience of the other war.


William Earl Rowe: There appears to be some
misunderstanding about my statement in regard to the $500,000. I thought I made it clear that $500,000 had been spent under that item covering the administration of the wool board. I also mentioned that $130,000, which is the minister's figure, had been spent for the subsidization of imported wool.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is not right; $500,000 is the estimate of total requirements for the current year.


William Earl Rowe: I cannot subscribe fully to the suggestion of the hon. member for Lethbridge that the wool board should be discontinued.


John Horne Blackmore: No, not discontinued- replaced.


William Earl Rowe: Or even replaced at this time. However, I must say that I take the remarks of the hon. member much more seriously than the minister appears to take them. I followed his words closely, and I agree with a great deal of what he has said in regard to this issue. As he pointed out, very little consideration is given to the rancher so far as income tax is concerned. If a man invests his money in industrial stocks or gold stocks and there is a substantial increase in the value of those stocks, he can put that away as capital gain and pay no income tax on it. But if he has $5,000 worth of sheep held at ridiculously low prices, he is not even afforded a living wage when he looks after them. The minister has mentioned an increase of 119 per cent, but if a man makes an investment in a range, and finds that he has a gain, doubling his value, he must pay an income tax, as he turns those sheep into money. Therefore I say he does not receive the same privilege in that regard as is accorded to others. I find myself in agreement with the hon. member for Lethbridge when he says we should be fair to the sheep growers of Canada.
I believe the wool board should be urged to increase the price of wool. For many years in this as in other countries, sheep have been recognized as the golden hoof of agriculture. Yet in Canada to-day we have very few more sheep than we had in 1896 or 1898. It is true that we have a few more than we had in 1890, but between the nineties and this date there has been no substantial increase in the

4768	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Finance-Wool Board
sheep population of Canada. Any increase there may have been has been effected in the hope of receiving a higher price for wool, in view of the development of the Canadian textile industry under the imperial preference of the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier.
In recent years we have been practically at a standstill so far as our sheep industry is concerned. It has been almost static; there has been scarcely any increase at all, with the exception of the last year or two. I must say in fairness that I have no fault to find with the wool board's administration. But I am in agreement with the hon. member for Lethbridge in what he has said about the general policy of the government with respect to agriculture. I believe it is necessary to have a wool board, because every other industry in Canada is regulated, controlled and strait-jacketed and. whether it is sound or unsound, it would not be fair to leave one out from under the cover of the strait-jacketing machinery. I do suggest however that careful consideration of the matters in hand should be given by these boards, and that more men with a knowledge of agricultural production, men who understand the different branches of agriculture, should be given places on them.
To compare prices received back in pre-war days with prices received to-day and say that they have increased by 119 per cent is not a fair statement. I do not know all there is to know about sheep production, but for many years I have kept sheep, and I know something about their cost of production. It is ridiculous to compare production costs in Canada with those in Australia, a country where the sheep may roam over land worth only a fraction of what a similar area would be wort-h in Canada. Then, in Australia housing is not required the year round.


Thomas Reid: It might help if the minister took the income tax off sheep and put it on dogs running at large.


William Earl Rowe: Yes. Well, there have been a lot of hounds who have hurt the sheep industry. We have witnessed several setbacks, and most of them have developed because of government policies.


Gordon Graydon: Sheep dogs.


William Earl Rowe: Someone says they are sheep dogs. Often they are watch-dogs of the treasury. There is no class of live stock more indigenous to Canada than sheep. We have a cold country. We must build expensive farm buildings to house other types of live stock, in which sheep could be housed. They can be oroduced in this cold country

more economically than any other type of live stock. We have plenty of pasture land. There is no country in the world with such vast areas of pasture, and in such a cold climate, that has such few sheep.
All hon. members know that Canada needs foodstuffs. We have meatless Tuesdays and, if the war goes on much longer, we may have meatless Wednesdays, Thursdays and Fridays. We compare ourselves with Australia w'ith a sheep population of 40,000,000, while ours is only around 4,000,000, and for many years it was only about 3,500,000. That is our sheep population, in a country so vast. There must be some reason for this. I am not going to say what the price increase should be. We have been told for many years that we would have a great opportunity to sell our live stock if we had free trade with the United States. We have been told what a great outlet that would be. We find to-day however that in the United States farmers are receiving around 17 or 18 cents a pound for their beef, while in Canada we receive only 12 to 13 cents for the same quality. The hon. member for Lethbridge has pointed out that in the United States market they are receiving 14 cents a pound more for wool than is received in Canada-and this at a time when we need wool for our armed forces, and despite the fact that in Canada we have a cold climate and require woollen clothing. For half a century we have failed to increase the flocks of one of the most important branches of our live stock industry-sheep raising. We have failed to increase our sheep population for almost half a century.
I suggest the government should give careful consideration to increasing the ceiling price on wool. Other ceilings have been broken and have been increased. I am confident we will increase the production of wool in Canada much faster if we give the farmers some encouragement through an increased price than we would by following what I believe is going to be a most vicious policy if carried much further, namely that of handing out huge subsidies and bonuses. Some consideration should be given along these lines.


Thomas Langton Church: I notice that in this item the cost of administration has gone up from $200,000 to $500,000.


The CHAIRMAN:: We are dealing with wool at the present time, and the hon. member's observations are not in order.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Well, we are dealing with the wool board, for which there was an allotment of $200,000 last year and for which there is one of S500.000 this year. I suggest that perhaps the hon. member is in order.

War Appropriation-Finance-Wool Board


Thomas Langton Church: My objection is that there have been some changes in this wool board. For some time Mr. Dick of Cobourg was chairman of it, but changes have been made, and I should like to know why. Why did Mr. Dick retire? What is the representation on the board of practical men in the industry, men who are engaged in this very important branch of agriculture? I have watched the ups and downs of sheep raising in Ontario for years. Many attempts have been made to increase production in that province, and to follow the development of the textile industry there. I remember that some years ago the Hon. George Washington Ross, then premier of Ontario, referred to his dream-"Ye who have sheep on a thousand hills." Well, I go around through Ontario quite a bit, and I have failed to see any evidence of increased sheep production on those hills.
What is the set-up in connection with this $500,000 item? How many of the men on the board are practical men? The other day inquiry was made as to whether a report is submitted to each separate minister and what minister of the crown is responsible for these announcements and public utterances. I said that I did not expect him to know it all but the answer was that the wartime prices and trade board, of which this is a sub-board, was responsible and that public addresses, and I suppose reports and announcements, are not normally first submitted to the minister. 1 fail to see where there has been any effect in the way of increased, production on the sheep market in Toronto or Montreal, for instance. I notice from the Globe and Mail of this morning that prices are holding back and the market is very dull. The prices in Chicago yesterday were dull at $8.50. Buffalo is down to $8.50. Montreal was stationary and very little offering. The market was quite dull for live stock. The Toronto figures for sheep were:
13, 130 pounds, $10; 7, 130 pounds, $9; 4, 120, $8; 1, 250. $7.50; 3, 120, $7; 1, 120, $5.
There has been very little expansion in production. My last objection is that in the dying days of this parliament a report like this is brought down. Are we to carry on like we have in the last few days, like we did yesterday? Are we just a sounding board, are we to be a Charlie McCarthy for some outside ceiling control board that should be criticized far more than I am criticizing it this morning? We passed an item for another board all day yesterday and this morning they had the band playing outside the buildings, they were taking moving pictures and putting out propaganda to the public. This committee should have some control over expenditures of this kind; we are not getting the return we 72537-3021
should for the money expended, because the market remains very shaky, dull and unsteady. If this matter had been treated in the proper light by practical men in the industry production in Ontario would be far better.
They are talking about closing the house and we might just as well close to-night for all the control we have over these expenditures. We are simply sounding boards, we are simply Charley McCarthys for the ventriloquists on the treasury benches and their control system. Some of them do not know any more about it than I do, and I am not an expert on agriculture. However, I am just as much of a farmer, I know just as much about farming as some of the gentlemen sitting in front of the minister this morning. I doubt if they know anything about sheep, I doubt if they can quote the scriptures on it. The scriptures say, "Feed my sheep", and I think the minister is treating us as though we were a lot of sheep. We may as well go home because we have no control over the administration of affairs or over all these expenditures. We are sitting here to-day and to-morrow morning they will probably be taking moving pictures of the sheep in front of the parliament buildings. The hon. member for Davenport has not spoken for five days, I believe, and I have no doubt that when we pass this item his picture will be among those taken to-morrow, as are Charlie McCarthys to control.


Mr. FAIR:: As the hon. member for Broadview has now exhausted his second wind, perhaps we can proceed with the shearing of the sheep. I am in agreement w'ith the hon. member for Lethbridge and the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe. This question was discussed when the Minister of Agriculture was before us on at least two occasions, but we have not made much progress as far as dollars and cents for the producers are concerned. The percentages which have been quoted by the minister will not mislead the producers in any way. Two wrongs never yet have made a right. The fact that a certain percentage of an increase has been paid for wool does not justify anybody standing up in this house and saying that the producers are getting their cost of production. The argument made or attempted to be made the other night by the Minister of Agriculture was based entirely upon what the Canadian wool grower could get if he sold his wool in the United States. That does not convince any of us that we should have to go to the United States in order to find a basis for the cost of production in Canada. Surely there are statisticians here who can figure the cost of
4770	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Finance-Wool Board
producing wool just as they can figure the cost of producing ships and planes and guns and bullets. I feel satisfied from the information I have received from wool growers in my constituency that the amount received last year, which varied from 25 to 26 cents per pound, plus the fact that the dominion government is paying half of the four cents subsidy on wool, does not satisfy the producers of this commodity. The figures given a few days ago by the Minister of Agriculture were to the effect that the price paid for wool this year, including the subsidy, would be 34 cents per pound. I hope that is correct. I should like to see the price increased to return the cost of production without the use of a subsidy. I do not say this because I am opposed to subsidies as such, but because I believe that if the producers of wool were given that to which they are entitled, there would be no need for a subsidy and there would be a better return in dollars and cents.


Mr. WRIGHT:: Has the minister the total amount of wool imported last year and what it cost the government in the way of subsidies and other payments? I should like to know also the amount of wool produced in Canada last year and what it cost the government for subsidies and other payments.


James Lorimer Ilsley: From the beginning of the price ceiling up until March 31, 1943, the amount of the subsidy was $135,000. That will be found on page 105 of the report of the wartime prices and trade board.


Percy Ellis Wright: And the amount of wool?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The officials tell me that the figures are not published.


Percy Ellis Wright: What is the rate per pound of the subsidy?


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is the difference between what it costs the importer to lay it down in Canada at the time of importation and what it cost him to lay it down in the basic period.


Percy Ellis Wright: What was the production in Canada?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I thought the hon. member was talking about imported wool.


Percy Ellis Wright: I asked two questions, one with regard to imports and the other with regard to wool produced in Canada. I wanted to make a comparison between the two.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The only payment in the nature of a subsidy for which the Canadian wool board is responsible is the trading losses.

These amounted to $34,246.67 for the period from March 18, 1942, the date of the incorporation of the Canadian wool board, to March 31, 1943. That is largely losses in the handling of domestic wool. The four cents subsidy by the Department of Agriculture is an entirely different thing.
Mr. BLACIvMORE: There are one or two matters I should like to discuss a little further. The minister thought that probably I was speaking a little too harshly. I am going to read to him a letter from a wool growler in my constituency, and he will find that I was speaking for my constituency, which is one of the best wool growing constituencies in Canada. There was a meeting in Lethbridge last year. I heard that what went on at that meeting probably should have been a little different, and so I wrote this man for details of the meeting. He says in his letter to me of March 5:
At the meeting you refer to Dick, O'Brien and Brown were present. Mr. Longman, deputy minister, presented the ease very well for the sheep men and asked for a 10 cents raise, 35 cents against the present price average of about 24i cents. J. II. Walker-
He is the member for Warner constituency in the Alberta legislature:
J. H. Walker told how wages had practically doubled, shearing was 50 per cent up and lumber and posts were much higher, as was hay. We had to pay very high wages to put up feed this year. Help was scarce. The concentration camp at Lethbridge got most of our help. Ninety cents for jack carpenters and 50 cents an hour for common labourers. Two of my sheep herders left and went to work there.
This man Dick when he rose to speak told the wool growers to "shoot all they had as his hide was thick." He and O'Brien ignored everything that was said and continued to talk back. We got nowhere. They just came out west for a trip.
That is the impression which this gentleman made on men who were present at that meeting, and the men who were present were sober, solid substantial citizens of the Leth-brige federal riding. The writer goes on:
The sheep men at the meeting were mostly all large flock owners. The man across Canada with 15 or 20 ewes isn't much interested.
The minister will find that probably a good deal of his increase is coming from that source, from the small flocks:
Their costs are about the same but the range men feel the "pinch."
Jack Bowden, M.L.A., only received 22 cents for his wool as did many others present but all the satisfaction they got wrns that they shipped to the wrong grading house.
May I interrupt the reading of this letter to ask the minister, what kind of management of the wool situation in Canada he

War Appropriation-Finance-Wool Board
thinks this is when the individual wool producer does not know to what wool buyer to ship-his wool? Does that indicate orderly management of the whole affair? If there are different buyers throughout Canada who are buying wool and paying different prices, while we have a wool board in Canada which is supposed to be taking care of the whole matter of buying wool, that stands as a condemnation of the wool board or condemnation of the powers given to the board when constituted. The board seems to have plenty of power with respect to everything else; the marvel is that it could not take caTe of marketing. The writer of this letter continues:
Dick did promise to investigate the 50 odd licensed dealers. Many of the growers got a raw deal. Bowlen shipped to a dealer in Saskatoon.
The range men supply most of the foundation stock to farmers, small breeders, et cetera. Put the range men out of business and what is left of the "sheep industry" in the west would collapse. The small man is an "in and outer" in the prairie provinces. As a rule the man with one or more bands is taking an awful walloping right now because of high wages, scarcity of help, et cetera.
I hope the minister will grant that my remarks were no more heated than the spirit of that letter, and if he knew this man and how calm he ordinarily is and how fully experienced he is in raising sheep, I think the minister would be impressed too.
I wish to say a word or two more about this whole matter, because we are not finished with it yet. May I pause here to say that it is too bad to have to talk to the minister about these things, because I know what a lot he has to think about, and he should not have to be worried about matters pertaining to agriculture. But it so happens that the wool board appropriation is under his department; consequently he is in a measure responsible for it. The only thing I can do is to turn to the man who is responsible. One reason why we did not urge this matter further upon the Minister of Agriculture is that during the last three years he has reminded me of a horse tied up helpless to a post with children beating him. He has no choice but to take the blows, because somebody else is tying him up. I have pretty well grown weary of talking to the Minister of Agriculture, and I am talking now to the man who perhaps has authority to do something about this matter.
The Minister of Finance said something about agriculture being tied to Canada's economy. There is plenty of evidence of that. I do not think you will find in any other civilized country of the world the treatment that Canada is according to her farmers,
although the United States comes a close second, or did until a short time ago. The trouble is that the United States and Canada and a great many other nations have for a number of generations been scanting their farmers, shoving them and kicking them around, and then thinking the farmers ought to take it smiling and continue to do good work! The minister says that we are getting the produce, and I will grant that, but it is killing the farmer, and just as soon as they get a chance to move, the minister will have a hard time to keep them on the land.
In connection with this food and agriculture meeting at Hot Springs, I want to urge the minister to reconsider his attitude towards agriculture. May I show him what the results of Canada's method of dealing with her farmers have been. I have in my hand the latest copy of "U.F.C. Information," a booklet published in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, for the month of June, 1943. At page 3 of that booklet there is a discussion of the debt question, which the minister still has ahead of him. This is the matter to which particularly I wish to direct his attention. It says:
It had been said that agriculture with about a third of the population of Canada had received only 17-8 per cent of the national income in 1926, 5 per cent in 1932 and 15 per cent in 1940-42.
If the minister thinks that is good enough, ma3r I respectfully tell him that he has quite a lot to learn yet. Professor Hope, of the university of Saskatchewan, takes these figures and considers them probably a little too dark and gloomy, and so he proceeds to apply four correctives to them. He finds this after he applies his four correctives to these figures, which in no way reflect credit upon Canada:
Taking these adjustments into account, it appeared that agriculture's share of the national income during the period 1926 to 1942 was at its highest point of 26'1 per cent in 1926. In 1929 it was 22 per cent, and thereafter it dropped to the low point of 13-1 per cent in 1932.
One thing which, among others, I was particularly anxious to impress upon the minister was that the agriculture industry, and particularly the wool industry, has gone through a terribly hard experience. Not sufficient allowance is being made for that. If Canada's economy is definitely arranged on the basis that the agricultural population of the dominion, large as it is, is to receive in normal times only 26-1 per cent of the national income of Canada, then Canada has to revise her ways a great deal before she is ready to qualify under the recommendations of the Hot Springs conference.
4772	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Finance-Wool Board
May I read a brief statement from the most recent letter, that of June, 1943, of the Royal Bank of Canada, to show where the minister's policy is getting Canada:
Whereas in Canada at the beginning of the century 63-5 per cent of the total population was engaged in agriculture or living on farms, in the census of 1941 this proportion had declined to 45 per cent.
True, a lot of things enter in: I could give them all. I was born and raised on a farm and I know a good deal about the farm. I am not talking entirely without contact with these matters. Even though there has been a great deal of industrialization, the trend away from the farm is not a healthy trend, and certainly is not the kind of trend to be-


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Order. The hon. member himself has mentioned that we have already discussed wool on three or four occasions. I do not think it should be permissible under this item to raise again all the problems of agriculture in Canada. I ask the support of every member of this committee to see to it that we remain in order in discussing the items which are before the committee.


John Horne Blackmore: I bow to your ruling, Mr. Chairman. I would not have mentioned it at all except that the minister made a remark about Canada's particular policy, her economy.


Mr. GRANT:: It is too hot.


John Horne Blackmore: I know it is too hot, but the farmers on the land, though they find it hot, are toiling; the sheep rearers and sheep shearers are toiling too.
I wish to bring one other matter to the minister's attention. Is there a surplus of wool in Canada? Has Canada more wool than she needs?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Not so far as I know. The supply situation is satisfactory.


John Horne Blackmore: That is, we need an increase in wool, do we?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not think we do, particularly.


Thomas Vincent Grant: Not this summer.


John Horne Blackmore: Well now, the information I have indicates that there is a surplus of wool in Canada. I have under my hand a letter signed by one of the very members whom I have been talking about. I did not make a few minutes ago extravagant and ill-considered remarks about the wool board. The letter right here indicates that they have so much wool in store that they do not know where to put it.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not know, Mr. Chairman, whether the letter shows that or not. They have taken pains to accumulate quite a lot of wool because they know they will need it. How can you say it is a surplus? Certainly there is wool in the country all the time, and I have said repeatedly that the supply situation is satisfactory at the moment.


John Horne Blackmore: The reason I mention it is this, that the member in writing this letter is trying to excuse the board for its indifference to the farmers' feelings with respect to price; in other words, endeavouring to conve,y to the man to whom this was written that after all the wool board is not particularly concerned about increasing the quantity of wool in Canada, that we have all the wool we need and that we do not require to take any special measures to get more wool.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I think that is correct.


John Horne Blackmore: All right; I should not be surprised. That is one thing I wanted to get. I gathered that from the statement of the Minister of Agriculture. Now I want to ask the minister this question: was the amount of wool which Canadian consumers could use restricted in 1942? In other words, were the manufacturers forbidden to use the wool which they would normally have used in 1942?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The use of wool for
processing is controlled by permit. Processors can process only subject to permit. I do not know whether any particular processor wanted to get more than he was able to get a permit for. There was some sort of rationed distribution of wool among producers.


John Horne Blackmore: What I want to find out is whether or not the processors of wool were limited in the matter of the amount of wool they could use.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


John Horne Blackmore: That is, did they run short of wool? Was there an artificial scarcity of wool induced among the manufacturers in Canada in 1942?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I will have to get the information for the hon. member, if I can.


Mr. NOSEWORTHY:: Is it not true that there was a scarcity of wool in retail stores throughout the country? That has been generally accepted, that certain yarns- certainly could not be bought.


Mr. ABBOTT:: That is hand-knitting wool?


Joseph William Noseworthy: Yes.

War Appropriation-Finance-Wool Board


John Horne Blackmore: I may tell the
minister that there was an artificially induced scarcity of wool.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Artificially induced by
whom?


John Horne Blackmore: Well, that is what I want to find out.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Facilities in the country are limited; there are only so many. I said that before. We have only so much capacity, and that is the reason we are getting some of our stuff made in the United States.


John Horne Blackmore: I think the minister will be astonished to learn that the very same gentlemen who were storing wool, apparently getting ready for a condition under which they could restrict the price advance and resist the request of the producer for an advance, are the same gentlemen who are restricting the amount of wool that the Canadian people can use.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I think that is utter nonsense, and I believe I shall be able to say so definitely at three o'clock.


John Horne Blackmore: I shall be right here to hear the minister say that.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at three o'clock.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The hon. member for Lethbridge suggested before one o'clock that the wool administrator or the Canadian wool board, or both, had curtailed or limited the production of woollen goods in 1942 for the purpose of accumulating a large surplus of raw wool so that they might use that fact as a means of keeping down the price to the Canadian farmer. I indicated that I thought there was nothing in that contention. I believe the figures of production of woollen goods in Canada from 1935 on, up to and including 1943, furnish a conclusive answer to that statement. The yards of wool cloth produced in 1935 were 16,767,000; in 1936, 17,542,000; in 1937, 18,088,000; in 1938, 14,346,000; in 1939, 17,190,000; in 1940, 26,394,000; in 1941, 24,693,000; in 1942, 26,850,000; in 1943, estimated, 27,500,000. The figure of 26,850,000 shows the largest yardage since 1935. I have not the figures for the years prior to 1935, but that figure indicates what was the fact, namely, that the woollen mills were running to full capacity.
The object of the permit system which was instituted in 1942 was not in any way to curtail output. It was to allocate output as between military requirements and civilian requirements and as between what were regarded as more essential and less essential civilian requirements. The capacity of the country was fully utilized, and that being true, there was of course no curtailment of the production of woollen goods for the purpose of accumulating a stockpile of wool. A stockpile of wool has been accumulated for very good reasons. One has not known right along, and one is not yet sure, whether the supply lines between Australia and Canada will not be cut. If the Japanese got a little further south we would not get any more wool, and for that reason the Canadian wool board did the sensible thing. They aimed to get two years' supply of wool in Canada so that they would have the wool. They had a hard time getting wool in 1939, and since that time the situation has been kept well in hand. I think the Canadian wool board are entitled to the appreciative gratitude of the Canadian people for the way they handled it.


John Horne Blackmore: Can the minister tell us whether the 26,000,000 yards were strictly for civilian use or for civilian and military?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Civilian and military.


John Horne Blackmore: There is a great
difference.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It does not make any difference whatever. My hon. friend's contention was that a stockpile of wool was accumulated by the curtailment of production in Canada, and the complete answer to that is the fact that the full capacity was utilized. Whether it was utilized for military or civilian purposes has no relevancy whatever, and the suggestion that the board would deliberately curtail production for the sake of accumulating a stockpile, with the sinister view of beating the Canadian farmer down, is a wholly unworthy suggestion.


John Horne Blackmore: What is difficult to understand is why the wool board, or some member of the board, used the fact that we had such a store in Canada to produce upon certain wool producers this very effect, to give them the idea that the wool board was being generous to them in accepting their wool. I have a letter which will indicate that very thing. I am not disagreeing with the minister with regard to the wisdom of the board in accumulating a supply of wool. I agree that that is wise. They should have two years' supply of wool on hand, and above all things there should be production of wool
4774	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Finance-Wool Board
in Canada at maximum capacity, which we certainly have not. That ought to be perfectly clear. As to restriction of the use of wool, I think the minister will agree with me that there was such a restriction.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I said for certain purposes.


John Horne Blackmore: One thing I cannot understand is why persons who were writing apparently with the authority of the board would indicate to the producers that the fact that there was so much wool on hand was pretty good evidence that the price ofight not to be raised.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I suppose someone said: You want to get wool; you have to have wool, and you have to pay the price. That is the argument frequently used by a good many Canadian citizens-we will not produce unless we get more money. It seems to be regarded as a perfectly legitimate argument. I cannot see it myself, though I have adapted myself to it. It is used by member after member as a legitimate demand: You don't get us to produce unless you pay more money. I suppose something like that was said to the wool board and they replied: In your particular case we have a surplus of the product already, so that the argument does not carry there. And so far as I am concerned I am glad we can say that once in a while.


John Horne Blackmore: Hon. members will remember that the prospective and potential producers of war materials were the very first to say: We won't produce unless we get so much, and five per cent is not enough.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am not singling out any particular class of Canadian, mind you.


John Horne Blackmore: What would be a thoroughly legitimate thing for the producers of war goods, munitions, to say, ought to be a thoroughly legitimate argument in the case of the producers of wool. There is no answer to that. I wish to indicate to what extent some of the producers and manufacturers were restricted in the matter of wool. I will read an excerpt or two from a letter.


James Lorimer Ilsley: After this I wiant my hon. friend to put his letters on the table of the house.


John Horne Blackmore: It is right here; you can come and see it.


James Lorimer Ilsley: No. I want him to lay them on the table.


John Horne Blackmore: That is not necessary. All that is necessary is that I should vouch for the letters, and I do vouch for them.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I rise to a point of order. If my hon. friend is going to read from letters, which he has been doing freely, and I have not insisted on the rules, he should produce the letters.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is not the rule.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Isn't that the rule?


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is a rule made by the government since the war began. The rule is that if a member of the government reads from an official document, he must table it, but the reverse is not the ease. I can quote from a letter if I want to and I do not have to put it on the table. That _ rule has been made by gentlemen opposite to suit their own convenience.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is not correct.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is
correct.


Mr. QUELCH:: Paragraph 316 of Beauchesne reads:
It has been admitted that a document which has been cited ought to be laid upon the table ot the house, if it can be done "without injury to the public interest. The same rule, however, cannot be held to apply to private letters or memoranda. On the 18th May, 1805, the attorney-general, on being asked by Mr. Perrard if he would lay upon the table a written statement and a letter to which he had referred on a previous day, in assuming a question relative to the Leeds bankruptcy court, replied that he had made a statement to the house upon his own responsibility, and that the documents he had referred to being private, he could not lay them upon the table. Lord Robert Cecil contended that the papers, having been cited, should be produced; but the Speaker declared that this rule applied to public documents only.


Richard Burpee Hanson: And that is the general rule.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I have stated previously that I hold very strong views on this matter. Personally I feel that any member of the committee quoting from a letter should give the source of his information. A year or two ago the hon. member for North Battle-ford was compelled to produce a letter which she had read in committee; and I am sincere in my conviction that any members of the committee quoting from letters should give the names of the writers, for the information of the committee.


John Horne Blackmore: It is a question of
what is the rule.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What is
the justification for your decision, Mr. Chairman, based on the rules? I know that has

War Appropriation-Finance-Wool Board
been the practice since 1940, but I should like to say to you, sir, with great respect, that prior to 1935 that rule was never even suggested in this house, and there is no affirmative rule to support that position.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: To a large extent it is
a question of precedent.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Then that means we make the rules as we go along.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I believe it would be
in the interests of the "ommittee that members quoting from letters should give the sources of their information.


Mr. COLDWELL:: It is not a matter of
opinion, Mr. Chairman; it is a question of the rules. While we may not like to have long letters read in the house, if an hon. member takes the responsibility of quoting a letter, under the rules that ends the matter so far as this house is concerned. I do not think there is any doubt about that, nor do I think the opinion of the chairman can decide an issue of this description, which should be dealt with under a rule of the house.


John Horne Blackmore: I am prepared to
table the document if necessary; there is nothing secret about it, but I would just as soon keep out the names as far as possible. Now I want to read this little excerpt from the letter:	.
Mr. Moore, manager of the Golden Fleece Woollen Mill, told me he was only allowed to put twenty per cent of wool in blankets for civilian use, the rest had to be shoddy. . . . No wool, no underwear, say the manufacturers. I could send you a dozen letters from firms who have no wool.
This is from the manager of a department store. Then he gave me two letters from other firms. One is dated February 8, 1943, in which it is stated:
. Production of civilian goods will be restricted in 1943 for two reasons. First, army requirements will be larger than in 1942. Second, wool available for the production of civilian goods has been restricted by the government to sixty per cent of the quantity of wool used by this firm for civilian production in 1941.
Then from another letter dated January 29, 1943, I quote the following:
We are now prohibited by the wool administration from making a reversible blanket, and as a matter of fact have no stock whatever, and our wool ration is used up for the balance of this period.
The point that is interesting to me, and which I think ought to be interesting to the committee, is that whereas in Canada the wool production could be greatly increased
by a few common sense devices, such as raising the price in order to permit producers to operate at a profit, nothing is done. Production of wool in Canada is restricted, apparently deliberately; at the same time consumption in Canada is restricted, also apparently deliberately. The two do not go together and make sense.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I have said, and I suppose
I shall have to repeat, that the over-all production was not restricted in 1942. I think in that year it was the highest in the history of Canada, or certainly far higher than in any year since 1935. In 1943 it will .be slightly higher again. The full capacity of the wool-producing industry has 'been used in those years, and the limitations placed upon the use of wool for certain purposes is simply in order that more facilities may be available for other purposes. That is the reason for the restriction,.


John Horne Blackmore: When the minister
mentions production I presume he means production by the factories, not by the sheep producers. I have positive knowledge of at least a dozen men in my own constituency, whom I could name right now, who have restricted their flocks by as many as one or two thousand sheep simply because of the intolerable situation in which they find themselves, and they will further restrict their production. Certainly this is a dangerous situation to have existing in Canada. I say the wool productive capacity of Canada is not being used as it should be, and that is so as a result of the activities of1 the wool board, or the activities of Donald Gordon or someone else who is dictating to the wool board. If that board has full authority with regard to prices it must accept full responsibility. If it has not full authority, then whoever has that authority must accept responsibility. It is a serious responsibility, because if the contingency to which the minister refers should develop; if some difficulty should arise as a result of which Canada was cut off from supplies from Australia and New Zealand; if we should be thrown upon our own resources, many people in Canada would suffer from the cold because of a shortage of clothing. That would be the result of foolish, shortsighted mismanagement by whoever is in charge of Canadian wool production.
I have very little more to say, but I should like to put on record a set of figures to show the validity of my contention that the price of wool is too low. These figures were prepared by the executive of the Canadian Sheep
4776	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Finance-Wool Board
Bi-eeders' association and used by Mr. T. C. Glaspell in his article, "Sheep Industry is Stifled," printed in Farm and Ranch Review, of January, 1943, which in turn reproduced the article from the Farmer's Advocate. The article is on page 13. These are significant words, coming from the vice-president of the Canadian Sheep Breeders' association:
Here is a table showing the cost of raising a sheep for a year, prepared by the executive of the Canadian Sheep Breeders' Association:
Min. Max.
Purchase priqe of good ewe. .. . $12	00	$15	00Depreciation yearly	
1	66	2	00Ram service	
60	75Interest on investment	
60	75Grain 150 to 200 lbs	
3	00	4	00Hay 400 to 600 lbs	
3	00	4	50Veterinarian, worming, etc. ..	50	75Pasture	
1	50	1	80Labour	
3	00	4	00Building investment	
1	00	1	50Shearing	
25	25$15 01	$20 30
$15.01 plus $20.30 divided by 2 equals $17.65. Death loss will balance ewe at 6 years.
Average cost to keep a ewe	 $17 65
Sale of lamb crop at 125 per cent
90 lbs. lamb at 12 cents	 10 80
Plus 1	 2 70

$13.50 from $17.65	 4 15
Fleece should sell for at least $4.15.
Average for Canadian fleece 8 lbs. should be 50 cents per lb.
The above table shows that lamb at 12 cents and wool at 31 cents does not yield a profit.
I have no more to say on this matter, but I urge upon the minister that he take it up earnestly with the wool board, and point out to them that in the interests of Canada there should be an increase this year of 10 cents a pound in the price of wool. That price should go to the producer-right straight to him, whether he has sold his wool, or whether he has not. Because it is not altogether a matter of whether or not the producer is going to make a profit this year; it is a matter of whether he will be encouraged to raise sheep next year. That is the vital question.
In addition, I suggest that the minister take steps at an early day to see to it that the actual producers of wool are represented on the wool board. I refer to producers of wool such as the man who wrote this article I have just quoted. And I want one more thing: I do not believe the price to the consumer should be increased in any way. In my opinion this whole matter should be taken care of by bonus and by subsidy, so that the cost to the consumer will not increase, but the price to the 
producer will be increased, so that he may have something in addition to his cost of production.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Sundries, $102,000.
Thomas Reid: I do not know whether I might ask my question properly under this item, but for two years I have been endeavouring to get an answer from the Minister of Finance in connection with the 10 per Cent discount on Canadian funds as against the United States dollar. It has been stated on fairly good authority by people in the U-nited States that this is a matter entirely for the Canadian government. The United States is perfectly willing that our dollar should be equal to their dollar in value. When one considers we are all in this war together, and that last year it cost us upwards of $50,000,000 to balance our accounts, I think it is time the minister gave some statement to the house and country as to why our dollar cannot be on a par with the United States dollar.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I know that on one occasion the hon. member indicated that at a later stage in the session he would ask me for a statement in respect of this matter. I must say however the matter is a most delicate one, and one does not like to make an impromptu statement. I am not prepared to make one to-day. The only position I can take, when people talk about exchange between Canada and the United States, is a perfectly noncommittal one, because any indication of what might or might not happen can be used so widely both by hon. members and by the public in both countries. It is not a matter about which I should like to say very much. I might point out however that naturally a change in the final exchange rate would cause a vast amount of dislocation. I cannot myself see how it would affect the position of the Dominion of Canada as a whole, in any way. A change in the rate of exchange would certainly affect the position of many industries; some would be benefited and others would be injured. But it seems to me that from the point of view of the whole nation, stability is more important than the exchange rate being at any particular level.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What
would the effect be, on balance? Would we not derive a benefit?


James Lorimer Ilsley: My knowledge of economics may be bad, but I should think that if exports were roughly equivalent to imports there would be no balance, one way or another.

War Appropriation-Finance-Wool Board


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is not exactly what I had in mind. I agree with the minister when he says that stability is the most important factor, from every point of view. Those who are engaged in business and who understand what this means will agree I am sure with the policy of the government and its advisers, namely that there shall be stability. But I have often wondered, and have interrogated several people who ought to know, why there should be this arbitrary ten per cent one way and eleven per cent the other. I have never gone to officials of the department, because I never felt free to do so, but I have wondered why these arbitrary percentages were established so early, and have been so rigidly adhered to. There must have been some basis for their establishment, but I do not think the reasons have ever been made public. I am not using the word "arbitrary" in any critical sense, nor am I offering any condemnation. But why the ten per cent and eleven per cent were so rigidly adhered to I cannot say. As a matter of fact the quotations show that the true rate has not always been stable. It has varied, as it did on previous occasions. But for the action of the Canadian government, in fixing it at an arbitrary rate, the rate at one time might be much higher and at another much lower. I agree that stability is all important. If the balance of trade were adverse, then of course we would have to pay for it in various ways. But if the balance of trade is somewhere nearly even, surely then the exchange rate should approach something like the equilibrium of trade. I believe the Canadian people would like to have from the minister an explanation of the reason for the inflexibility of the rate, having regard to changed conditions.	[DOT]
There was a time when we were told that the situation was precarious and dangerous. Then we were told that as a result of government policy and transactions which had taken place between the two countries, that situation had eased off. I should hope that that would be the position to-day. To most people, perhaps I should say uninformed people there does not seem to be any real good reason for this rigid and arbitrary rate. I invite the minister to make an explanation to the people as tc why this policy is in effect.


Thomas Reid: The hon. member for York-Sunbury referred to trading balances. In the speech I delivered at this session I gave exact figures of imports and exports. On a comparison of imports with exports there was
a differential of S45,000,000 in last year's trading account. While stability has been given as a reason why this cannot be adjusted, that has not always been the reason given in past years. I can remember that at one time we were told that gold had something to do with it, in the days .when we were on a gold standard. Then, again, we heard that it was the balance of trade, more Canadian dollars being sold on the world exchange. Now we hear from the Minister of Finance that it is stability. But if we are losing 845,000,000 a year, I think it is about time we received a complete answer. There may be a reason for it, but we have not been told what it is. *


James Lorimer Ilsley: Ten per cent was set because that was the market at the time. During the early days of the war the Canadian dollar went down in terms of United States dollars until the United States dollar was at about ten per cent premium. It was at that stage that the foreign exchange control board was set up. It was set up on September 15, 1939, shortly after the outbreak of the war, and it froze the exchange rate at ten per cent, which was just about the market rate at the time. The question is asked: Why is it adhered to? The answer is the same as the answer I gave to the question as to why has it not been changed, and why has it not been reduced. Stability is an extremely important thing, more important perhaps than anything else. If anyone can point out to me any national gain that would be made by reducing the spread, then the matter could be considered, but I think for every national gain there would be a national loss. I do not think the nation as a whole loses anything or is impoverished in any way by having these currencies in their present relation one to the other. While I am prepared to admit that a change would benefit certain industries, it would hurt other industries. The result of the whole thing would be dislocation and the necessity for readjustments. I do not want to talk about any particular industry, but it would be a blow to the newsprint industry to change this. If our friends in the west get to exporting quite a lot of grain to the United States, it would hurt them. The exporting industries would lose, at least at the outset, and the importing industries would gain. To the extent to which the government is an importer, the government would gain. To the extent to which interest is being paid, the persons paying the interest would gain. We do know that stability is a good thing for a nation, and when we try to balance the gains and losses against each other it is pretty hard to know what conclusion to come to.
4778	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Finance-Wool Board


Victor Quelch: So long as Canada is competing with other countries whose currencies are far below that of Canada, it would hardly pay us to appreciate our dollar. It does seem to me that exchange should be based upon what a dollar will buy. If the Canadian dollar will buy a hundred units in this country, and the American dollar will buy only ninety units in the United States, then the Canadian dollar is really worth more. As I understand it, at the present time our price level is lower than the price level in the United States, so that in reality the Canadian dollar is worth more than the United States dollar because it buys more goods. I am not advocating that the exchange rate should be washed out so long as we have to compete with countries like Australia and South Africa whose currencies are depreciated below ours; to do that would place us at a disadvantage.


Gordon Graydon: Before the minister leaves his estimates there are one or two matters I should like to call to his attention, and I do this without opening up any matters which were previously closed. I do not expect him to give an answer immediately; I want to leave these with him and he may have an opportunity later of answering them. During a previous debate he informed me that he would look into the matter of the differentiation an the sugar ration for canning purposes in the United States and Canada. At that time I sent- the minister a newspaper article referring to the ration in the United States, and since then I have been informed that there is a programme three times a week over the national broadcasting network of the United States, which refers to a maximum of twenty-five pounds of sugar per person for canning purposes. I merely leave this with the minister, because I do not want to open up the discussion.


Joseph William Noseworthy: While we are on the question of exchange I should like to call the attention of the minister to a number of representations I have received from imperial war veterans. I am informed that the value of the English pound sterling has depreciated by about 43 cents in Canadian funds, and this adversely affects imperial veterans' pensions, amounting in some cases to a loss of about $2 a month. This may not seem a great deal to a government dealing in billions of dollars a month, but to the imperial war pensioners it is of some value. I understand that some years ago an attempt was made by the Canadian government to offset this, but nothing came of it. Has anything been done recently, or can anything be done to enable these men to receive their pensions in Canadian funds?
[Mr. Ilsley.l


James Lorimer Ilsley: Surely that would not be a responsibility of this government; it is a responsibility of the United Kingdom government, and we must keep our jurisdictions separate.


Mr. HARRIS (Danforth):: Some few days ago the minister was good enough to suggest that he would look into a question with regard to the auditor general's certificate in connection with revenues received. I intimated to him that a slight change had been made since 1937, and he indicated that he would probably make a reply. I will put on the record the observations I have in mind. At the present time the certificate reads:
In accordance with the provision of section 45, subsection 1 of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, I have satisfied myself that the above revenue for 1941-42 has been fully accounted for.
That is to say, the revenue referred to in the auditor general's report. Since 1937 the auditor general does not go behind that. In other days the certificate was that all revenues were being fully accounted for. The way we are set up now, with the comptroller of the treasury taking in the accounts from the different departments, the auditor general cannot go behind that and check on the accounts receivable or the accruals. The result is that the auditor general's report has not nearly the value it had previously. I raised this question some three or four days ago and I was hoping that either the parliamentary assistant or the minister would make a statement.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I have no recollection of
the hon. gentleman raising it.


Joseph Henry Harris: I raised the
question of there being a lag in the audit, and referred to the fact that the terms of the certificate did not cover all revenues, that they covered only the revenues actually in the auditor general's report.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I did not get any information about it. I do not know why the form was changed, but perhaps I can get that information and give it to my hon. friend on the main estimates.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Auditor general's office-Audit of war expenditure, $281,500.
Joseph Henry Harris: I raised a question which might properly come under this item, I think, Mr. Chairman.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, if I had the information here. The main estimates will be coming on later, and then I will have the information.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There has been a controversy with respect to the powers

War Appropriation-Pensions and National Health
of the auditor general. The matter was raised by me in the public accounts committee, and we took some evidence. We had the auditor general and the comptroller of the treasury before us, but the inquiry is incomplete because we did not have time to finish it. A controversy arose in days gone by in respect to this matter of the auditing of accounts, as the minister knows probably much better than I do. The correspondence is referred to, I think, in the auditor general's report. We had a statement from the auditor general in the public accounts committee as to his jurisdiction in certain matters, but I think this is a matter which ought to be studied further by the public accounts committee and by the members of the house. I do not want to delay the committee by entering into a discussion now, but there is some question as to the legal authority of the auditor general under the Consolidated Audit and Revenue Act. The question was raised, I think, by Mr. Gonthier after he became auditor general, and the justice department has given an opinion adverse to the position taken by the auditor general. I think this matter might well be a subject of further review by the minister during the recess, if he ever has time to look into it.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I looked at the submission of the auditor general to the public accounts committee.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunburyi):: I am not saying that we agreed with it at all, but we had it before us. There is another side to the story, and we were not able to get it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Pensions branch-treatment and pensions examinations-members and ex-members of the defence forces (present war), $4,225,000.
Mr. J. A. ROSS (Souris):: I should like to say something with regard to the insurance principle. I endeavoured to say something on the subject when the estimates of the Department of National Defence were before us. The two departments are closely associated. The question, of course really comes under the department of pensions.
A person who volunteers for service must obey orders and serve where instructed, whether it be overseas or in Canada. With respect to the men serving overseas the present Pension Act may be considered fairly satisfactory, although there are some difficulties which are probably due to interpretation, more especially in the case of widowed mothers. But the Pension Act is anything but satisfactory so far as our men on active service in Canada are concerned.
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Pensions and National Health): I do not wish to interrupt my hon. friend, but there is another item for pensions. This item is for treatment.


James Arthur Ross: Can we not have a general discussion on this item and then deal with the other items separately as we reach them?
The insurance principle in pensions originated during the last war. It wyas found necessary in order to prevent injustices which prevailed at that time. In 1919, when the Pension Act was first enacted, the insurance principle was included after due deliberation by the parliament of Canada. A few years after the last war, as a result I believe of the urgings of ex-service men's organizations, a commission was set up headed by the then Colonel Ralston, now the Minister of .National Defence. That commission sat for a couple of years and after a great deal of work recommended that the insurance principle should be restored and applied to all those who had served, and the Pension Act was amended accordingly.
At the outbreak of the present wTar the government pledged itself to apply all the benefits of the existing act including the insurance principle to those enlisting for active service. A special order in council was passed under the War Measures Act giving effect to this pledge. However, on May 21, 1940, the government changed its policy, repudiated its pledge, and definitely excluded from the benefit of the insurance principle all those whose service was in Canada only. True enough, provision has been made whereby a pension may be granted on compassionate grounds in cases of serious disability or death arising on service in Canada w'here those concerned are in necessitous circumstances. I do not think that that should be the law applying to all those who offered their services. But the fact remains that the benefits of the insurance principle have ever since May 21, 1941), been denied to those whose services in the present war have been in Canada only. Parliament later passed a bill which makes that the law. The pledge given by the government at the outset of this war should be lived up to. I think most people in this country believe in that principle. A soldier injured in Canada is discharged as soon as possible in order to get him off pay and allowances. He receives no pay or allowance while receiving hospital treatment, other than one dollar a month to purchase comforts.
There is also inadequacy of dependents' allowances and unfairness in the "means
4780	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Pensions and National Health
test" investigations under the present system. It is a downright shame that a widowed mother whose only son and support has volunteered for service overseas should have to submit to a means test in order to secure an additional amount of $5 a month over the $20 a month she is now allowed. She should not be put on a charity basis if her son was her only support before enlistment.
On June 18 an estimate was passed granting as of that date war widows' pensions. Provision was then made whereby a pension at the rate of $20 a month, might be awarded to war widows fifty-five years of age and in necessitous circumstances. While this is a step in the right direction, in my opinion these pensioners and the old age pensioners should receive at least one doliar a day or $30 per month.
I also think that provision should be made to give these widows free medical treatment on the same basis as treatment is now given to the recipients of the war veterans allowance. It will be realized that many of these widows are not able to earn other money to provide clothing for themselves and live on the present meagre allowance, and certainly they cannot pay medical and hospital expenses. Free treatment should be given them on the same basis on which it is given to recipients of the war veterans' allowance. If we cannot provide for these people and their dependents in these difficult times, I do not know how we are ever going to create this better world in the post-war period about which we hear so much and which people all over the world are studying, including a committee of this house. If we cannot set an example to men who have offered their all in defence of our way of life, it is difficult to see what the postwar period may bring forth.
I also think that there has not been proper coordination of medical man-power with respect to our civil and military needs. There is a serious handicap in many districts where the civilian population are not able to get proper medical attention. It would have a distinct bearing on the morale of those in the armed forces to-day if they were satisfied that their dependents were assured of proper medical attention when they need it. An effort should be made to establish greater cooperation between and coordination of medical services for the armed forces and the civilian population.
With respect, to rehabilitation, some improvement could be made. Under present conditions the clothing allowance is not

sufficient. With due respect to our price control board, everyone knows that you do not obtain the same value in purchasing clothing to-day as you received before the war.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Is my hon. friend referring to the clothing allowance on discharge?


James Arthur Ross: Yes.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is a matter for the Department of National Defence.


James Arthur Ross: Well, much of the responsibility for rehabilitation falls upon the minister's department. As I said in the beginning, the two departments are so closely associated in these matters that it is sometimes difficult to separate them.
As I was saying, when a man is discharged nowadays he cannot purchase for the same money the type of clothes w7hich he was used to when he enlisted. Probably the same price prevails, but you do not get the same quality. That fact should be taken into consideration.
I am also of opinion that there should be some difference, based on length of service, in respect of the allowances granted when a man is discharged. He should be allowed at least one month's pay and allowances for each year of service that he has rendered. I served on a committee which drafted a measure dealing with compulsory reemployment after the war. There were ambiguities about the bill which did not satisfy me; obviously some of the problems involved cannot be easily overcome. For instance it is not always possible for an employer to reengage all his old employees when they come back. In this connection I suggest that every man who comes back, especially if he has served in a theatre of %var, should be granted a month's leave in order to visit his family, look around, and get his bearings. Then he should report back, and if there is not a suitable job for him, his pay and allowances should be continued until such time as he has received proper vocational training or is able to fill a proper job. Definite provision should be made in this respect.
In the matter of the welfare divisions which, I believe, are now operating through the country, great care should be taken to select suitable persons as chief officers of the various branches. They should be people with ex-service experience-I assume that in most cases, if not all, they are. They should have a human understanding of these difficult problems. When a man has seen active service overseas, particularly if he is a young

War Appropriation-Pensions and National Health
airman, it is difficult to get him properly rehabilitated. All these officers, therefore, should be endowed with humanitarian understanding of such cases.
In the matter of hospitalization, all hospitals should be located in quiet areas, to avoid undue disturbance of our nerve-shattered exservice men, and should be surrounded with proper grounds. Too often that is not the situation to-day. I am happy to say that in my native province we have a fine hospital in an admirable location. But that is not the case in many other sections of Canada. I am informed that generally speaking the surroundings are unsatisfactory. I believe that Christie Street hospital, Toronto, was originally a factory, and was taken over during the last war as temporary quarters. It is most unsuitable:	on one side are the railway tracks, and on the other the street cars; it is in the midst of a manufacturing centre where there is tremendous noise at almost all times, and all the surrounding conditions are anything but conducive to the welfare of the patients. I do not believe that many improvements have been made to that hospital since the last war-. I am informed that it is not properly staffed, that in some cases there are fifty to seventy-five men in a ward, that the ventilation is inadequate, the toilets and baths are practically the same as they were in 1918, and that there are many other defects. Such conditions as these are not good enough for those who have offered their all and as a result have become casualties. They are entitled to the best treatment and the most generous consideration possible. If we cannot provide fitting conditions for these casualties, it does not augur well for that post-war period of which we hope so much. I could spend a great deal of time discussing Christie Street hospital, but the hon. member for Hastings-Peterbor-ough, who himself was a war casualty and a patient in that hospital, knows something of the situation there and will speak on it. Also the hon. member for Parkdale, who is an eminent physician and surgeon and knows a great deal concerning this matter, will deal with it in greater detail.
I trust the minister will give some consideration to the points I have raised and those with which my colleagues will deal as we go along. The minister, being an ex-service man, is sympathetic. He may have his difficulties in these respects, but I trust he will take measures to alleviate conditions which are not satisfactory.


Percy Ellis Wright: I wish to say a few words with regard to pensions of returned men of the present war. I agree
with the hon. member who has just taken his seat that in the present Minister of Pensions and National Health we have one who is sympathetic to the men and who gives prompt attention to any cases which are brought to his notice. Nevertheless I am afraid there are still some in his department, dealing with matters of pensions, of men now returning from overseas in the manner in which many such cases have been dealt with since the close of the last war, who have not the humanitarian views that he has.
I have two cases in particular which I wish to bring to the minister's attention and which, I think, bear out this contention. One is the case of a young man who was called up in Saskatchewan and who was suffering from stomach ulcers. He told the doctor of his condition when he was called; nevertheless he was ordered to report for military training, and did so. In the course of about three months because of the more violent exercises which he had in the army, and the change in his diet, he was hospitalized, remained in the hospital for a considerable period of time, and was discharged. When he returned home he again had to be hospitalized twice. The third time he was examined by his local doctor, who stated that his condition was so serious that he did not think an operation could be performed in the local hospital and recommended that he be taken to Winnipeg. His mother accompanied him there, and he was placed in a hospital and put under the care of a specialist who was recommended by his local doctor. His position was brought to the attention of the pension officers in Winnipeg, and they visited his mother in the hospital and asked that he be transferred to Deer Lodge hospital and placed under other medical attention. You can realize the position of that mother, with her son in a serious condition, in hospital in a city some five hundred miles from her own home, and having had a certain doctor recommended to her by her own physician. Naturally she wished to have the operation performed by the doctor who had been recommended; nevertheless these officials insisted that if she was to receive any assistance she would have to consent to the patient's removal to the other hospital. The result was that under this pressure she agreed. They said they would not accept the responsibility, so far as hospitalization and the operation were concerned. The operation was performed in Winnipeg General hospital. The minister's officials wrote to the department that the lady was quite satisfied with this arrangement, but immediately upon her return home she wrote me an entirely different letter. I cannot understand how she would say that she
4782	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Pensions and National Health
was entirely satisfied on February 23, and on March 23, on reaching home, write to me stating that under the circumstances-I would not say she had been forced, but certainly pressure had been brought to bear which she could not resist-she had agreed, because she had already paid $40 as a deposit on hospitalization in the Winnipeg General hospital.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I have the name privately?


Percy Ellis Wright: Yes. I do not think that is a fair way to treat men who have been discharged from our services. I have another case of the kind, though it is slightly different. A man returned from overseas where he had become a mental case. He was sent to Canada and placed in Ste. Anne de Bellevue hospital. His papers were lost, his people did not know where he had disappeared to, and the mother's share of his pay, which had been going to her regularly, ceased, and she received no further communications from her son. She wrote to me with regard to the matter and I took it up and found that this man was a mental case. I went to the hospital, and in conversation with the doctor in charge, as well as with the patient, I found that he was getting very fair attention, but the doctor stated that his case was such that, in his opinion, insulin treatment would have beneficial results. He informed me, however, that there were no facilities for giving such treatment at that hospital and that he would endeavour to have this man sent to Saskatchewan to one of the mental institutions there, where this treatment might be given. I pointed out to the doctor at the time that these institutions in Saskatchewan are filled to the doors, and that there is no room for patients there. It is a shame that our men returning in such a condition should not have the best treatment that science can give. It is something that should be taken up.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: These facilities are now being installed in Ste. Anne's hospital.


Percy Ellis Wright: I am glad to hear that, because it is certainly necessary. With regard to this particular chap, I had a letter yesterday which I have sent on to the minister and I know it will receive his attention. As proof of what I am saying with regard to certain officials, this man's mother received a letter the other day stating that the hospital authorities were of the opinion that if the man were returned to his native village under familiar conditions he might be better off than he would be in the hospital where he was, but that she would have to sign a form
I Mr. Wright.]
which would free the authorities from any responsibility, not only with regard to his conduct, but with regard to pension. If that is correct, it is a matter that should be looked into. These men returning from overseas should be given sympathetic attention and treatment in this country, and I hope that the minister will see that the officials in his department give that attention and that treatment.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Has my hon. friend sent me that case?


Percy Ellis Wright: Yes, I did. I sent it either yesterday or this morning. With regard to widows' pensions, we have an act whereby the widows of men who served in the last war and who are receiving pensions, or receiving benefits under the war veterans' allowance provisions, will receive consideration. I think that this should be extended to all widows of veterans of the last war, not only bo those who are receiving pensions and those who are receiving war veterans' allowance, but to any who are in necessitous circumstances. We can well afford to take care of the widows of men who served in the last war, who find themselves in such circumstances to-day. They are all advanced in years, for the most part fifty-five or fifty-six, and the department might well consider granting a reasonable pension to all widows who are in necessitous circumstances to-day.


Mr. G. S. WHITE (Hastings-Peterborough):: I wish to make a few remarks dealing with two subjects. First, I join in what the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) has said in connection with the insurance principle as it relates to soldiers' pensions. He outlined briefly when and why the change was made, by which soldiers injured while on furlough in Canada would not be entitled to the benefit of pension. It is hard to understand why the department has adopted this arbitrary condition regarding pension to a soldier who is injured while on furlough in Canada, because if he were injured on furlough while serving beyond Canada he would receive the benefit of the pension act. To-day there must be many soldiers in Canada who were injured while on furlough. I know personally of a number of men in Christie Street hospital who have been injured while on leave; they have been in motor car accidents and some have lost a leg or an arm or other parts of the body. Some of them are in very bad condition. Not only are these unfortunate soldiers not eligible to receive the benefits of the act, but soon after their misfortune they are discharged from the army, thereby losing their pay and allow-

War Appropriation-Pensions and National Health
ances. It is quite true that the soldier continues to receive medical and hospital treatment as long as his injuries demand it, but in the meantime he is drawing no pay or allowances. It would seem to me only fair and reasonable that any soldier who has the misfortune to be injured while on leave, and who is not entitled to pension, should at least continue to receive pay and allowances until such time as he is discharged from the hospital. Take for instance the soldiers at Christie Street hospital who were injured in motor car accidents and who have since been discharged from the army. These men are drawing no pay and allowances. I understand that the only allowance they draw is $1.75 a month, which is granted them for hospital comforts. If that is wrong I hope the minister will correct me. When I heard of this condition, which seemed almost unbelievable, I took the trouble to consult an official of the department stationed at Christie Street, and he confirmed the fact that a soldier in hospital not eligible for pension, who had his pay and allowances cut off on being discharged from the army, would draw $1.75 a month.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Is my hon. friend familiar with the new regulations applying on and after the 1st of May this year? They have entirely changed that.


George Stanley White: How much is he drawing now?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The same as the rehabilitation benefits. I will deal with that in detail later, but they are substantially larger than my hon. friend says.


George Stanley White: Would the minister say how much he would draw in a lump sum while he is in the hospital?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: If he is single he would get $10.20 a week, and if married S14.40, plus allowances for his children.


George Stanley White: Is that paid while the soldier is in hospital, or after his discharge from hospital ?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is paid to his family while he is in hospital.


George Stanley White: But take the case of an unmarried soldier in Christie street hospital. While he is in hospital, drawing no pay and allowance, what does the government give him, if anything, over and above the $1.75 per month I have mentioned?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: is the case referred to by the hon. member that of a discharged man or of a man still in the service?


George Stanley White: It is the case of a discharged man still receiving hospital treatment.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: He gets $10.20 a week.


George Stanley White: When did that start?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: On May 1 of this year.


George Stanley White: I am very glad to hear that, because it seemed to me a most disgraceful condition that a soldier could be sent to hospital and given only $1.75 a month. A country which can raise billions of dollars a year for war purposes should be able to provide pensions for all soldiers who are injured while in the armed forces. I think the minister would be among the first to agree that any court of law would hold the department responsible to some extent for a soldier injured while on leave. Take the case of a soldier in Ottawa going on leave to Toronto, who is injured in a motor car accident. If that soldier had not been in the army he would not have been in the city of Ottawa; he would not have been on the highway between Ottawa and Toronto, and therefore he would not have been there at the time the accident occurred. Even though a soldier is on leave he is subject to recall at any time, and it seems to me a most decided hardship that a soldier who, through no fault of his own, is at a certain spot at a certain time and thereby is injured in an accident, as a result of which he is discharged from the army as soon as possible, is given only hospital and medical treatment, and he and his family receive no pension.
To illustrate what I mean, last Sunday in the small village in which I live a sergeant-major home on forty-eight hours' leave had the misfortune to be drowned. He left a widow and one child. As I understand the regulations, since that man was on leave or furlough his widow and child would not be entitled to any of the benefits of the Pension Act. I understand there are certain provisions under which a pension may be granted on compassionate grounds, or under section 11 (3) of the act, but that is only of a temporary nature. My understanding of that provision is that it is not permanent, that it is a pension granted only a short time and as a charitable gesture, while it is subject to review at any time. I suggest to the minister that this is not good enough. Take the case of this unfortunate soldier who was
4784	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Pensions and National Health
drowned last Sunday. Surely his wife and child should not be placed in the position of having to accept charity. I submit that in this case the widow and child should receive all the benefits of the Pension Act. A moment ago the minister said the clothing allowance was not under his department. I do not know whether the rehabilitation grant is under his department or not.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Not the grant given at the time of discharge, but the rehabilitation benefits are under this department.


George Stanley White: Then I should like to tell the minister that the conditions which exist at the present time, under which an amount equal to a month's pay is granted, are entirely inadequate.
I should like to say a word about Christie Street hospital in Toronto. During the past few weeks various articles have appeared in the press, and no doubt most hon. members have received a document from the soldiers' organization, dealing with conditions at the Christie Street hospital. These articles in the press have been prompted by an announcement by the department that an addition is to 'be erected to this 'building in the near future. I should say to the committee that any remarks I make in regard to Christie Street hospital are not based on information contained in these various newspaper reports but are made as a result of my personl observations and visits to this hospital. I was a patient there for some time in 1919, and from that time until 1939 I visited the hospital on various occasions. Since November, 1942, I have been at the hospital twelve different times. To-day this hospital is in much the same condition as it was when I was a patient there in 1919. It is the same old factory building that was taken over by the government at the end of the last war, to meet a temporary emergency. Since that time it has been patched up in various ways; additions have been constructed, and so on, but the same overcrowding exists to-day that existed in 1919, except that it has 'been considerably intensified. It still has the same large, barren, poorhouse type of wards, with lovely old steel girders exposed, with wiring and plumbing running across the ceiling, and so on, for the sick patients to stare at day and night. There is no system of ventilation or air conditioning; perhaps those are luxuries which we cannot supply to our soldiers. Many of these wards have large glass windows facing south, east and west, and most of these windows are without awnings. I was at Christie Street hospital last week. Anyone who has been in

Toronto in hot weather will agree that there is no hotter place in Canada, but in that hospital I saw many boys in bed, seriously ill, with the sun streaming through these large glass windows without awnings, with only blinds to keep out the bright light.
I have been in various hospitals in England and Canada, but in my experience I have never seen a place so depressing, so drab and cheerless as the wards at Christie Street hospital. There is not a single bright spot of cheer in any ward. The beds are crammed tightly together in very large wards, and generally there is a second row of beds up and down the centre of the floor. Some wards have from sixty to eighty patients, and I doubt if such conditions would be permitted in many public wards in civilian hospitals since the time of Cromwell. Such things as easy chairs, chesterfields and so on just do not exist. In some of the wards the hardwood floors creak every time anyone walks across them, and the effect on a very sick patient of these floors creaking continually can be readily imagined. I know of boys in that hospital who have been seriously ill, boys who have undergone very serious operations and who, immediately after, have been placed in wards containing from four to six beds, while others have 'been placed in wards containing from thirty to fifty beds. I understand there is no such thing as a private nurse for any patient at Christie Street hospital, no matter how sick he -may be. The entire hospital is understaffed so far as doctors, nurses and orderlies are concerned, and it is only because of the great and tireless efforts put forth by the staff that the hospital has been able to carry on. But each doctor and each nurse has only one pair of hands, and any visitor to that hospital can soon see that with the hundreds of patients there, a great deal of care and nursing attention is required. The hospital is overcrowded in every way. As I said before, it is greatly understaffed. On my visit last week-end I saw a young boy who had a very serious operation on Friday of last week. He did not have a private nurse, because private nurses are not supplied. And on Saturday morning, while he was in a very highly-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member, but private nurses are supplied frequently at Christie Street hospital. The fact is that there were 613 vacant beds on June 30 of this year.


George Stanley White: Early on Saturday morning this young boy was there, in a delirious condition, and, while no one was attending him,

War Appropriation-Pensions and National Health
he got out of his bed. Fortunately he was stopped by another patient before anything serious happened. I was glad to hear the minister say that there are private nurses at Christie Street hospital. Will he tell the committee how often soldiers are provided with private nursing accommodation at that hospital?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: At any time a particular condition requires it.


George Stanley White: Has the minister any record of the number of times each month private nurses are supplied to soldiers, and for how long?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I have not that information -with me, but I shall get it for the hon. member.


George Stanley White: I should be interested in seeing it. The toilets and washrooms in the hospital on the third floor are simply a disgrace. On one floor, the third, with at least eighty to a hundred patients, there are four toilets and a bathtub. This is the same equipment that was there at the time of the last war. If there are any shower baths on the floor, I did not see them. The elevators look to be the same old freight elevators that were installed when the building was used as a factory. They are very large and clumsy and slow. In a case of fire these slow, clumsy elevators would be of little assistance in facilitating the removal of patients who are considered bad cases. The staircases, which are quite wide, are in the centre of the building. Probably that is not the best location for them, in the event of fire. Whether the building is fireproof or not, I cannot say, but I did observe that there are many things in the building which would burn.
The hospital . lacks recreation rooms, or rooms where soldiers may visit with their mothers, sisters or lady friends. The word "privacy" is unknown in this hospital. There are no grounds where the patients can rest outside, on days such as this one when the temperature is very high. There are no trees affording deep shade. The hospital is close to the tracks of the Canadian Pacific railway, where plenty of noise is provided both day and night. On days such as this, when most of the windows in the hospital are open, a cloud of soot and smoke comes through the windows every time trains pass. There are many- other factories in the district, all of which add to the quiet of the hospital by their steady noise, day and night. From the hospital window one can easily see the factory buildings of the Dominion Bridge company, which are located only a few blocks west of the hospital. This factory operates day and night and patients in the hospital can easily
hear the noise at all times. Street cars are only a short block away. In fact there is not one good feature or one good thing that can be said of the present location of the hospital. At its best it was only a temporary makeshift arrangement, taken over at the time of the last war. But through the years it has been patched up and added to, until to-day it is a patchwork with many additions and rambling buildings. If the addition now proposed is proceeded with, it will mean that Christie Street hospital will remain in its present location for many years to come, and that many boys who are now serving overseas will in the years ahead spend many dreary days and nights in this old ramshackle factory building. I suggest to the minister, who, I admit, has always taken a keen interest in soldier affairs, and has always given his most sympathetic attention to their grievances, that at this time, before the new addition is started, he should see that a survey is made to ascertain whether or not other locations can be found, either in Toronto or immediately adjacent thereto, where an entirely new hospital can be provided. It should have plenty of space, green grass, plenty of trees, running streams, sunlight, air free from dust and dirt and smoke of trains, and it should be a place free from noise and the eternal clatter which surrounds Christie Street hospital. I think the minister will agree that Canada must do better for her soldiers than to provide them with treatment in a place such as this hospital. In my opinion it is not good enough for the boys who are serving overseas.
At each session hon. members in all parties outline the very fine things they wish to do for the rehabilitation and reestablishment of the soldiers who return from overseas. Yet when we are dealing with disabled, crippled and wounded returned soldiers, instead of giving them the best in the country we are content to place them in a building which at best could be classed as no better than third or fourth grade accommodation. The various defence departments since the beginning of the war have built some first-class buildings and camps. Anyone who has been through the air force training centre at Trenton, or the Vimy barracks at Kingston, just outside the city of Kingston, or anyone who has seen pictures of the fine new naval building at Cornwallis, Nova Scotia, or has been through any of the fine training centres established from coast to coast, will realize that these buildings are most satisfactory in every respect. It is right that they should be. But they were all built for the purpose of training men for war. Surely if the defence department
4786	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Pensions and National Health
can spend so much money on buildings of this kind, it is not asking too much to ask the Department of Pensions and National Health to provide an entirely new hospital for men who will need it in the years to come.
Much has been said this session about the purchase of rugs, chesterfields and office chairs. Perhaps they were needed in the places in which they were located. But a few of those chesterfields distributed around Christie Street hospital would not be amiss. To-day at the hospital there are many boys who served at Dieppe. It is a disgrace to Canada to have to admit that the best possible accommodation that can be supplied to the heroes home from Dieppe is space in an old factory building like Christie Street hospital. One can easily imagine the feelings of any mother who goes to visit her son for the first time on his return from overseas after being wounded, and finds him in a place with the atmosphere of this hospital.
I appeal most sincerely to the minister to give his serious consideration to the question of the addition to Christie Street hospital. If the department insists upon going ahead with this addition, and insists that the hospital must remain in its present position, then I can only say to the minister that at some time in the future, public demand and clamour will be so great against Christie Street hospital and the conditions existing there that the government in power, no matter what the party may be, will be forced to build a new hospital in some other location.


Mr. S. H. KNOWLES (Winnipeg North Centre):: I shall confine my remarks at this time to one matter. I join with others who have referred to the subject with which I wish to deal, and I do so because of the minister's kindness yesterday in giving an interview to ladies who represent the people on behalf of whom I should like now to say a few words. I refer to the widows of veterans of the last war, for whom a special allowance was provided by this house on June 18. I understand that certain matters were brought to the attention of the minister yesterday, and no doubt he has had time to think them over. My hope is that he may be able to make some statement this afternoon with respect to three points which I should like to bring to his attention.
Before I do so, I should like to take a minute to offer a word of appreciation to the minister, or to the person responsible, for action taken on June 21. Hon. members will recall that on June 18, when we were discussing the appropriation of $400 000 for this purpose, I along with others had a great deal
(Mr. White.!
to say about the effective date of the payment. I was most insistent that it should be made retroactive to April 1. The minister sympathized with my point of view, but found it impossible that night to promise that my request would be met. However, when the order in council was passed on June 21 setting out the regulations under which these payments will be made, it included a provision for making the payments retroactive to April 1, although this was left to the discretion of the war veterans' allowance board. Like other hon. members I am still not satisfied with the amount, a mere $20 a month, but I am grateful for the action taken on June 21.


Mr. MacNICOL:: On a point of order,
is the matter now being discussed by the hon. member in order? I want to say something On this myself, but I did not see anything in the list that would permit me to do so.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I think it has been the custom with all departments to permit a general discussion before the first item is specifically dealt with, and I understand that that is the practice we are following this afternoon.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I was particularly
anxious that the minister should answer these questions that I intend to put to him, because the ladies representing the women affected by this grant are in Ottawa at the present time, and it would mean a great deal to them if they could take the right word back to their organizations.
The first matter I should like to speak about is the administration of these allowances. It would mean a great deal to the administration if ladies representing what is known as the non-pensioned widows' associations could be given some say. I should like to see this representation just as effective as it possibly can be. I should like to see these women represented on whatever board is set up to administer these allowances. If there are technicalities which prevent the government from going that far, I trust that the minister will devise some means whereby ladies who represent the members of this organization, as well as those who are not members, may have some say in this matter. These women have been dealing with the problems of their fellow women for many years. They have at heart their interests, and, as I say, it would mean a great deal to the administration of the act if they had some effective representation. I believe it was the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mrs. Casselman) who emphasized on June 18 that the success of a venture such as this would depend largely upon the administration. I

War Appropriation-Pensions and National Health
hope that the minister, as a result of the thought he has given to this matter during the last few days, may be able to tell us that these women will be given representation in the administration of these special allowances.
The second matter about which I 'hope the minister may say something has been referred to already, I believe by the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross). It is the question of hospitalization for the women who will receive these special allowances. So far as I can discover no provision has been made as yet, unless the reference in the order in council of June 21 to the provisions of the War Veterans' Allowance Act covers this phase. If it does, I hope the minister will say so; if it does not, I hope he will give us some assurance that such provision will be made.
The third point about which I hope the minister will have something to say relates to the necessity, as I see it, of providing a larger sum of money out of which payments may be made to those who are to receive this special assistance. On June 18 the minister gave us a figure of between 1,800 and 1,900 women who were on the list of the department awaiting the passing of this grant.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: If I recollect aright, I said that the estimate made by the officials of the department of the number who would qualify immediately or almost immediately was 1,839.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In any case the $100,000 which has been voted will provide $20 a month for only about 1,800 women.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is probably the basis of the estimate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hon. members will realize that in various parts of the country there are many women who are deserving of this consideration, and that their number must greatly exceed 1,800. I hope the minister can give us assurance that if the department finds that there are going to be more than 1,800 women who will qualify, a supplementary item will be brought down to cover the additional women.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The first point raised by the hon. member was as to the possibility of giving definite authority to some of these women's organizations in the administration of these allowances. I do not think it would be feasible for the government to escape complete responsibility for the administration. I have told these ladies, and I think I have indicated also to my hon. friend, that we should
be very glad to avail ourselves of their services in an advisory capacity in the various districts. The procedure adopted is to refer these cases to what we call the local war veterans' committees, which I believe consist of the district administrator and two or three others. We should be most happy to have the cooperation of these women on these local committees, or to have them bring to our attention any cases of unfairness which should receive immediate attention. I do not think at the moment we can very well escape complete responsibility for the administration.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the minister try to see to it that these local committees to which he has referred get in touch with these women right at the start? The point I should like to emphasize is that it would be a much happier arrangement if these women were brought in at the start, rather than later on when certain grievances may have grown up.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I shall be glad to see that instructions are sent out to the local committees to extend the utmost cooperation to the various women's organizations.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Not only to extend it, but to solicit it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The second point raised by my hon. friend was in connection with hospitalization. The men who qualify for war veterans' allowances are entitled only to examination and not to treatment. I do not know of any country in the world that provides hospital treatment for the dependents of its soldiers. In reply to the third question as to the amount of the appropriation, steps will be taken if necessary to see that the amount is ample to meet the cases which come to our attention.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I am going to deal with only one phase of the work of the Department of Pensions and' National Health. It is with respect to a matter that has already been dealt with very effectively by the hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. White). He has spoken of the situation that exists in the Christie Street hospital, from the point of view of a patient who spent several years there. I can only speak of it from the point of view of one who has frequently visited the hospital and has also been made aware of many complaints in regard to it over a period of many years.
To begin with, perhaps I had better refer to the number of petitions that have been sent in to the minister dealing with Christie Street hospital. One was sent by the Cana-
4788	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Pensions and National Health
dian Corps association. I shall not read the whole text, but I wish to refer to one or two items. They say among other things:
It is with the conclusion reached, that in war time adequate steps cannot be taken to effect a remedy, that we must take issue. [DOT] In war time, when the need is most urgent, many seeming impossibilities may be accomplished with good will and energy. Since nothing was done during more than twenty years of peace, there can be no assurance that, with the conclusion of hostilities, the present situation will be corrected. The outlook is made still more uncertain when the proposal to build a new wing of permanent construction is considered.
Many hon. members will have received through the mail a letter from Mr. P. B. Mellon, honorary national secretary of the National Council of Veteran Associations in Canada. I shall not read the document but will refer to one or two passages. This letter was directed to the Minister of Pensions and National Health, -and' it says in part:
At the meeting of the National Council of Veteran Associations in Canada, held to-day in Toronto with the following member organizations represented: The Canadian Corps Association, the Canadian Pensioners' Association of the Great War, the War Amputations of Canada, the Sir Arthur Pearson Association of War Blinded and the Army and Navy Veterans in Canada, I was directed to communicate to you the unanimously supported conclusions reached in respect to appropriate hospitalization of war casualties by the Department of Pensions and National Health.
His concluding words are these:
We are conscious of the duties and responsibilities devolving on us as citizens of Canada and as ex-soldiers. We cannot rest content and leave the wounded soldiers of to-day to the inadequate facilities and unfortunate surroundings of the present Christie street hospital. We believe you will understand and appreciate how strongly we feel in this matter and we earnestly hope that the evidences of your concern for the welfare of the men who have served as otherwise apparent will not be wanting in this instance.
I have put on the order paper a number of questions to which I should like now to refer. To one of them, regarding inspections, I have not yet received an answer.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: One appeared on the order paper to-day for the first time, so that naturally it could not have been answered by now.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: Yes; the minister was not here the other day when I asked a question with respect to an inspection of this hospital, and whether regular inspections were made, and whether I might have a report of a recent inspection. I was particularly anxious to find out whether an inspection had been made with a view to determining the suitability of Christie Street hospital for the purposes for

which it is at present being used, and as to its suitability as a permanent site for a hospital, and further as a site upon which the government would be justified in spending over $500,000 for additional buildings. I asked if such a report had been made, and if so, that the minister lay it on the table. Is there such a report?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I shall be glad to answer that now. A weekly report is made on every hospital under our jurisdiction. Recently a special investigation was made by four medical officers, three representing the defence services and one from our own staff, who went fully into the whole question of the availability of sites in Toronto, and it was on their recommendation that it was decided to proceed with the extension that has been authorized. But there was no written report to me by this interdepartmental committee.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: Thank you. From what the minister has just said I assume that the responsibility for going ahead with this construction rests upon the report of this committee.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: If I may interrupt again, I am not able to approve any hospital project except on the recommendation, first of all, of the wartime hospital committee.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: Would not the final responsibility for what is done rest on the minister's own shoulders?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Oh, yes; undoubtedly.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: Then the minister bears a terrible responsibility if he goes ahead with this project. A cursory examination of the Toronto city directory will show that there are from sixty to seventy factories immediately surrounding this hospital site. In the city of Toronto certain areas are set aside for certain purposes, and this particular area for a considerable distance around the hospital is set aside as a factory district. Any factory therefore may be built at any time in this district around the hospital. To erect further additions upon the already overcrowded grounds of this hospital site, as the minister proposes, is to disregard what is due to our soldiers who have returned wounded and maimed after defending us against the most cruel barbarism.
I should like to refer to some answers to questions that I received a few days ago. I asked:
What factories or industries are located outside the Christie Street hospital within a radius

War Appropriation-Pensions and National Health
of half a mile, (a) to the west of the hospital; (b) to the south of the hospital; (c) to the north of the hospital?
The answer to that question was:
Not on record within the department.
If what the minister has just told us is true, that an inspection has recently been made by certain officers who have reported favourably on the suitability of this site for an addition to the hospital, surely they have been derelict in their duty if they have not reported to the minister that this hospital is surrounded by factories.
Mr. MacNICOL; And coal yards.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: Yes; not only factories but coal yards, and immediately adjoining, to the south, is a double-track railway, within seventy-five feet of the building, I am told, although the return says 115 feet. I shall come to that in a moment. Then I ask:
4. Do any of these factories operate continuously day and night?
The answer is, "yes".
The fifth question is: "If so, how many?" and the answer is, "No information". Will anyone argue that an inspection of this district is a proper inspection when that important information is not disclosed? Surely it would be the simplest thing in the world to find out whether any of these factories operate, at night. As a matter of fact the nearest factory on the west operates day and night.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Seven days a week.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: Seven days a week, as I will mention in a moment.
6. Does any factory work at night with the help of donkey engines and searchlights?
The answer is:
The department has no knowledge of donkey engines or searchlights being used at any plant in the proximity of the hospital. An overhead crane, in use by a nearby plant, does not make enough noise to cause any interference, and the ueuropsychiatrist states that the sleep of the patients is not disturbed thereby.
The first part of that answer, in fact the whole of it, is contrary to the information which I have received. These searchlights are used in the proximity of the hospital; there is a crane which works at night, and a donkey engine which operates it, and the noise does cause such interference to the patients who sleep in the psychiatric wards that many of them are forced to go home and sleep in the afternoon-at least those who live in the city of Toronto and can do so-to get more sleep.


Mr. HOWDEN:: The donkey engines the hon. member mentions are switch engines, I presume?


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I suppose so-engines which operate the crane. These are in the McGregor McIntyre yard adjoining the hospital. I asked in question 7 if the neurological wards were on the west side of the hospital. The answer is, "yes". Question 8 is:
If so, what distance are those wards from the nearest factory or industry?
The answer is: "Over the fence." Just the other side of the fence! And yet we are told that these factories, operating in the way which I have described, can cause no interference with or disturbance of the patients in those wards. That answer to me, as a medical man, is incomprehensible.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is based on a report of two doctors who live there.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: All right; I get a very different story when I go home to Toronto.
9. Have any complaints been made of the patients in these neurological wards not being able to sleep at nights because of the noise from these factories or industries?
The answer is:
No complaints have been received by the department.
I asked if complaints have been received. They say, no. Well, that may be so, but if they have not received any, the department has not read the newspapers in Toronto, because letters from patients and friends have appeared on a number of occasions in the press of the city, complaining of this very thing.
11.	Are casualties from the present war placed in the wards with chronic invalids from the last war?
The answer is "yes."
12.	If so, does the Department of National Health consider this a satisfactory and proper arrangement?
The answer is:
The only satisfactory distribution of patients (and the practice in general hospitals) is on the basis of their illness or injury, with the proviso that casualties of the present war are housed by themselves whenever expedient.
Unfortunately it does not happen to be expedient to house them by themselves very often in the Christie Street hospital. I have had numerous complaints from friends of patients, young men returned wounded in this war, who were placed in a bed adjoining a chronic helpless invalid who has slept in that bed for the last twenty years. I wonder if that has not a depressing effect upon the
4790	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Pensions and National Health
young wounded man who has just returned. I leave it to medical men who are in the house if it would not also militate against the recovery of that patient.
The minister has already answered another question, having to do with the personnel of the wartime committee on hospitalization, which has had the responsibility of investigating this site and reporting upon it. These answers clearly show a pathetic ignorance of the real facts concerning Christie street as a site for a hospital-facts which could have been obtained in a few hours by a competent investigator. In view of the minister's insistence upon this site, I cannot believe that he has ever visited the hospital himself.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Oh, yes; several times.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: Well, he is observant and
humane, and I do not understand, if he has visited it, why he would still insist upon continuing this monstrosity.
After what has been said so well by the hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough I can skip a good deal of what I had intended to say, because he has covered the ground. This building, as he has stated, was originally a factory. It was taken over during the last war and converted as an emergency measure for the purposes of temporarily housing casualties arriving at that time. The building is of mill construction, with the extra fire hazard which attaches to this type of building. It was never intended to be a permanent military hospital. The neurological wards, as I mentioned a moment ago, are on the west side next to the steel company's yards. Even the patients on the south side of the hospital are disturbed at night 'because of the noise of the trains passing a few feet below the building. There is very little space to enable the patients to get out and enjoy fresh air and sunshine, and if other buildings are put up adjoining the present ones they will still further curtail the grounds which are necessary and should be available for patients occupying beds in this hospital to enable them to get outdoors, particularly in the good weather of the summer and autumn.
Although the accommodation provided for veterans of the last war has been inadequate and unsatisfactory, I should like to say here that any criticism which I make does not apply to the medical or surgical staff of this hospital, which has been a most efficient one. I think we have at Christie Street hospital some of the best skilled surgical specialists to

be found anywhere, and they are doing extraordinarily good work under very difficult conditions.
I am at a loss to know why the minister seeks to perpetuate a situation which for a quarter of a century has been only an unsatisfactory makeshift. I do not agree with him when he says that it would not be possible under the conditions which pertain during the war to provide better care, for the patients for whom his department is responsible, than is available at Christie Street hospital. The erection of a new building on another site, where there would be ample grounds for recreation and fresh air in pleasing surroundings away from factories and trains, can proceed with great speed, as has been shown by the erection of other buildings during war time, and without the annoyance to patients w'hich building operations would cause patients in the already over-crowded Christie Street hospital if the building were gone on with there.
There will be no question of duplication of staffs until the new building is completed. It should be large enough to house all patients from Christie Street hospital who can be ultimately moved there, when it will be possible to have them there all under one administration in buildings of a permanent character with modern facilities and equipment if we are to give our wounded men who served us so well in this and the last war the very best accommodation that can possibly be provided. Nothing less than this will satisfy the people of this country. I do not believe that the argument which has been advanced, that materials and construction cannot be obtained for a military hospital, is a valid one. Recently the department of defence for the navy has announced its intention of building in Toronto a naval station of permanent construction. Surely such a building would not be given priority over a hospital to provide adequate care for our wounded men. What a hollow mockery it is to speak of a new and better world following this war if we fail at this moment to provide the most up-to-date accommodation for the care of those who risked their lives in their effort to save us!
I urge the minister, with all the force at my command, to alter his decision, even now at the eleventh hour, -in order to avoid inflicting additional suffering on our brave wounded men and forcing them to live indefinitely in a makeshift hospital with surroundings of which he and this nation should be ashamed.
To erect additions to the present hospital, where already ten additions have been made,

War Appropriation-Pensions and National Health
will encroach still farther on the limited grounds on this site; and what will you have at the end? Buildings cluttering up almost every foot of the ground, with no space for the patients to get out and enjoy the sunshine and fresh air, but daily compelled to endure the noise, smoke and dirt incidental to a through railway line passing close by and numerous factories.
If the minister insists, our people will be outraged and he will have committed an offence against the gallant boys who are returning wounded and sick after giving all they had in defence of our liberties. Surely they deserve a better fate than this. What right has the minister to deny these wounded boys the best possible hospital facilities in spacious, attractive surroundings with the maximum of sunshine and fresh air that will help to restore them to health again? Their relatives and friends, yes, the Canadian people generally, insist that this simple justice be done. Although the minister's term of office will come to an end in due time by the will of the people, this hospital upon which he proposes to spend over half a million dollars will unhappily remain to perpetuate the memory of the Mackenzie folly.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Taken over by the Tory government. If the hon. member wants to talk politics I will give him plenty of politics about how that thing was acquired.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I understand that the city of Toronto has offered two sites-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They did to the union government, but they were refused. They offered them High park in 1919, but were turned down.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I think they have offered them since then. I believe they would give sites now. I understand there are half a dozen sites in Toronto available, good sites, with plenty of ground in suitable surroundings and near enough to meet the criticism that medical men and specialists would not be able to go to a hospital situated at a great distance from the centre. I should remark that one of the visiting medical men at Christie Street hospital told me recently that he was unable to use his stethoscope when examining patients there on account of the noise and vibration made by passing trains.


Mr. MACDONALD (Brantford City):: As a medical man, does the hon. member think that is possible?


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I do not hear the hon. gentleman. I am going to make a proposal in regard to what might very well be done. It is to 72537-303
establish a convalescent hospital or home to house the very large number of patients now being taken care of at Christie Street hospital. I believe that eighty per cent of the patients there, who have been there since the last war, could be better looked after in a convalescent home where it would be very much less expensive to take care of them. In the first place, they would not require operating rooms or X-ray equipment or expensive laboratories, nor would they require the services of surgical specialists and physicians, nor would they require the same nursing care. It should be possible to procure such a place. I have not canvassed the situation in the city of Toronto, but I would suggest that one place that might be secured is Casa Loma, a very large building used at present for show purposes. I am informed that in one room in that building they can place a thousand soldiers at one time. I should think it might very well be used for some such purpose as I have indicated. If this were done, it would be possible to remove a great many of the old patients from Christie Street hospital and enable it to take care of new casualties arriving in this war until such time as the new hospital I mentioned could be built.
I have dealt with the question of convenience to doctors. It is claimed that first-class specialists could not spare the time to treat stricken soldiers who might be moved to a cleaner, quieter but less accessible site. I do not believe for a moment that the leading orthopaedic and other specialists would be so unpatriotic as to refuse to treat wounded soldiers if they are housed in a suitable building, even though it entailed a slightly longer drive in their motorcars. It is an unjustifiable reflection upon the members of my profession.


William Ross Macdonald: Would it not take longer for specialists to go, if it is farther away? And in that case they could not do as much work.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I think it is only a matter of a few minutes' difference, in any event. I should like to ask how this proposed treatment of our wounded men fits in with the declaration made by the Prime Minister two days ago when, speaking of our soldiers overseas, he said, "Canada will not fail them." Perhaps this is not the time to discuss whether the government has provided sufficient reinforcements, but this is the time and place to make good the Prime Minister's promise and see that a modern hospital is built immediately, with adequate facilities, on a suitable site with sufficient grounds to provide sunshine and fresh air in order that these patients

4792	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Pensions and National Health
may have every assistance in recovering their health. This much the Canadian public demands of our government, and nothing else will be tolerated.


Mr. DANIEL McIVOR (Fort William):: I may change the subject a little, but before I make the proposition I have in mind, I should like to ask the minister if a burnt-out soldier now unfit for work receives a pension of $20 a month, irrespective of age.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, provided that he served in a theatre of actual war as defined by the Pension Act, in dealing with the great war.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: I should like to endorse what has been said by various hon. members with regard to widows of soldiers. There is no doubt that when our soldiers went overseas they took a great deal of risk, but the wives at home take considerable risks also. They are alone; they have to manage; they have sacrificed a great deal. If, in addition, they lose their husbands, I think they should receive every consideration at the hands of the minister. I should like to pay my respects to the officials of this department, from whom I have received nothing but courteous treatment. The only difficulty was that I did not always know the act thoroughly.
There is one matter I should like to bring before the minister; I am not sure whether this is the right time, though I know this is the right place and the right minister. In the city of Winnipeg an old friend of mine, Doctor J. R. Davidson, against whom I used to play soccer, has been conducting a clinic for the cure of cancer. In my hand I have a booklet which contains a reprint from the Canadian Medical Association Journal of 1941, and I am going to give this pamphlet to the minister so that he may become familiar with the work being done at this clinic. Doctor Davidson is doing a work that is touching upon the nation as a whole. Many cases which had been given up by a well known clinic in the country to the south have gone from Fort William to Winnipeg for treatment by Doctor Davidson, with very good results.


John Ritchie MacNicol: May I ask where Doctor Davidson's clinic is located?


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: It is in the city of Winnipeg. The hon. member for St. Boniface is acquainted with it and he may be able to endorse what I say. Let me give an example a little closer to us. The hon. member for Portage la Prairie went to this famous clinic in the country

to the south. There he underwent an operation and was sent home to await the last roll call. But hon. members saw him when he came into this chamber a short time ago, before he went back to Winnipeg for his last treatment by Doctor Davidson. He has been made almost new, and is very much encouraged. I am bringing this matter to the attention of the minister on this occasion because Doctor Davidson is not a young man any more; he is over sixty, at least, and I think the work he has done should be continued for the benefit of all Canada. I am sure the minister will see that this is done.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I am not going to deal with more than one subject at the moment. I should like to say something about Christie Street hospital, but there will be other estimates under which I can deal with that subject. I wish to thank the minister very kindly for his several references to my efforts, extending over quite a number of years now, on behalf of non-pensioned widows. It has been my pleasure to attend meetings of various non-pensioned war widows' associations in Toronto, Winnipeg, Edmonton, Calgary and elsewhere, and for many years I have been interested in their efforts to foster what I believe is the proper view in regard to this matter. During all that time I have found the minister most sympathetic. He deserves the praise not only of the women's organizations but of all who are helping these women to attain their objectives. He has been consistent in his support, though apparently until this session he was unable to do what he has told me on many occasions he wished to do, namely, to give consideration to non-pensioned widows. I am glad that this year he has been able to persuade his colleagues to 'let him introduce an item-I hope it is only an initial vote and that it may be increased later on-on behalf of non-pensioned widows. On the 18th of last month, when this matter was before the committee, I was unavoidably absent on an important mission in Toronto. I want to thank my leader for asking the minister on that occasion, even though the vote had been passed, to give me permission to touch upon the matter later. Perhaps I have no right to speak on it now, but I do so because the minister said he would permit me to speak at this time, and I thank him for that consideration.
On April 8, 1941, I appeared before a committee of this house to which had been referred various pension matters, including the question of non-pensioned widows. I was given a courteous hearing by that committee, and on that occasion I asked, first, that pensions should be

War Appropriation-Pensions and National Health
granted to widows of soldiers who during their lifetime had received less than 50 per cent pension. I believe at that time 50 per cent was the amount above which pensions were paid to non-pensioned widows and below which pensions were not paid. Secondly, I asked that pensions be granted to widows of soldiers who, during their lifetime, had received pensions of 50 per cent or over 50 per cent, but who apparently had recovered to such an extent that the pension had been discontinued. This would make the wives of such soldiers ineligible for pension at the death of their husbands.
In the third place, I felt that consideration should be given to non-pensioned widows of soldiers who had served in any theatre of war. I approved the vote passed the other night, so far as it goes. It is an advance over what we had. In the vote I find these words:
. . . compassionate allowances awarded by the Canadian pension commission to widows of persons who served in the naval, military or air forces of Canada during the war, 19.14-18, who are in necessitous circumstances, at such rates not exceeding, however, $240 per annum (or $300 per annum in certain exceptional circumstances to be prescribed by the governor in council).
And so on. During the debate which ensued this was further elaborated upon. The minister stated, as reported at page 3798, of Hansard, by way of explanation of the class of widows who are to benefit under this vote:
The widows eligible will be those whose husbands' service records can be thus described.
Earlier on that page they are described as follows:
(a) Widows of disability pensioners not now provided for and (b) widows of deceased recipients of war veterans' allowance.
On the next page something further is stated with respect to what is to be done under the vote. The minister states:
These conditions will be applied to the widow herself, but the age mentioned will be fifty-five instead of sixty.
I compliment the minister upon reducing the age limit from sixty to fifty-five. I am sure he would have been supported had he reduced it to fifty, because when a war-widow reaches the age of fifty years, in many cases, because of anxiety, she may not be in a very satisfactory state of health. However, a reduction to fifty-five years is something for which we may be grateful.
After interrogation by the hon. member for Vancouver South the minister gave a further statement, and outlined to the committee what I thought was some interesting 72537-3034
and worth-while information. The following discussion ensued between the hon. member for Vancouver South and the minister:
Mr. Green: The vote does not read that way; it reads as though the maximum a widow can get is $300.
Mr. Mackenzie (Vancouver Centre):	That is
income; but casual earnings are not classified as income. Casual earnings are in addition to the permissive income of $365.
Mr. Green: The widow, then, can get $490?
Mr. Mackenzie (Vancouver Centre):	That is
correct.
Mr. Green: Just the same as a veteran can?
Mr. Mackenzie (Vancouver Centre):	That is
correct.
That is a big step in the right direction.


Mr. GREEN:: She has to earn the
difference.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Yes; the hon. member said that. She is permitted to earn up to $490. That can be increased later, of course, if the house so decides.
That is what the vote allows, but some provisions have been left out. The submission by the war veterans' association before the committee on April 8, 1941, asked that three classes receive pensions. I believe the first two classes have now been taken care of, but the third class, namely indigent widows of ex-service men who served in a theatre of actual war, have not been included.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They have been covered.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I am glad to hear that. The minister has gone a long way in thus including widows of war veterans who served in any theatre of war. That is very satisfactory news, but I had not understood it from the remarks made the other day. However, it is something really worth while.
I know a number of returned soldiers who, perhaps on account of pride, and perhaps on account of a certain amount of stubbornness, have refused to accept war veterans' allowance. I do not find fault with them, because I like to see evidence of pride in any man. I like to see a man fight for what he believes is right. I have in mind one or two who have refused war veterans' allowance because they believe in their hearts-and I am not saying they do so either rightly or wrongly-that they are entitled to pension. Would the widow of that class of soldier be entitled to a pension, under the vote passed the other night?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: If he qualified for pension she would qualify for widows' allowance, provided he served in a theatre of actual war.
4794	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Pensions and National Health


John Ritchie MacNicol: The fact that he had refused it would not disqualify her, provided he was entitled to it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is correct.
Mr. MacNI'COL: I am glad to hear that, too. I know of soldiers who served in the great war, who recovered from their disabilities acquired at that time, and who since that time have refused to apply for pension. They not having applied for pension, in the event of their deaths would their widows be entitled to the benefit of this vote?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Replying to the hon. member, I can give only my opinion. I am not sure, but I would venture the opinion that if one had been entitled to a pension at any time, his widow would qualify.


John Ritchie MacNicol: They are entitled, but they have refused to apply.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I doubt if in that case the widow would qualify.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Then that is one class I would ask the minister to investigate.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Does my hon. friend refer to a man who had served in a theatre of actual war?


John Ritchie MacNicol: I refer to the soldier who has served in an actual theatre of war.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The widow would be eligible in that case, certainly.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Then I think the minister has covered nearly everybody.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, I think so.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I thought two or three classes had been left out, but I am glad1 to find they have not.
The amount of the pension was the subject of discussion at the last meeting. I have in mind what the Australians do. There the controlling factor is that a widow is granted a pension equal to the amount received by her husband during his lifetime.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I think that is correct, but I also believe they are reconsidering that in Australia.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I do not want to talk about something about which I know nothing. In the United States I believe they grant S30 a month to the widow of any soldier who in his lifetime received $10 a month. I had hoped that when this vote came up these

women would be allowed more than $240 a year. I hoped that it would be at least $365, or $1 a day. Now that the minister has gone so far this year, perhaps he will consider an increase by next year.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Bruce) is going to fire me.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I am speaking for Davenport riding which has many thousands of returned soldiers in it. I hope the minister will go farther and allow $1 a day, which would be $365 a year. The minister has rather taken the wind out of my sails by including nearly everything I thought was not to be included.


An hon. MEMBER:: Carried.


John Ritchie MacNicol: It will be carried in just a second if the hon. member will possess his soul in patience. I have been interested in this matter for a long time and I am glad that some results have been achieved. Perhaps at this juncture I should commend the non-pensioned widows and their associations for having worked so persistently over the years. They have come to Ottawa on many occasions at great expense to themselves, and if the minister has not done so already, I hope he will express to them the government's thanks for what they have done to help him and his department to bring about the results that have been achieved.
Someone else has said that these non-pensioned widows should have representation upon whatever board is set up to look after this matter. One or more of the prominent non-pensioned war widows in Canada might be appointed to serve on these boards or committees and to help to set up the machinery for the administration of these grants.


Mr. R. W. MAYHEW (Victoria, B.C.):: Mr. Chairman, considering that there is a treasury board operating in Ottawa I think it will be agreed that the Minister of Pensions and National Health has gone a long way toward meeting the demands of the exsoldier. I doubt if we could find a stauncher friend of the ex-soldier than the present Minister of Pensions and National Health.
I should like to speak about something that is a little local in character. Last year I referred to the general hospital situation and the lack of cooperation between other departments and the Department of Pensions and National Health. Since coming to Ottawa this year, I have carried on negotiations as quietly as possible in the hope of arriving at what I consider would be a satisfactory solution of the hospital situation on the southern

War Appropriation-Pensions and National Health
end of Vancouver island. I would continue to work in that manner, because I think it is the most effective in the end, but the end of the session is quite close and there would be no opportunity for me to express publicly my opinion and to ask for the minister's cooperation. I think I shall get it when I have explained the general hospital situation in Victoria.
We have two fairly large and efficient hospitals, one operated by the Catholic church and one as a general hospital. They are both located in fairly large grounds and are free from the type of disturbance referred to by the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Bruce) as affecting Christie Street hospital. At the beginning of the war the medical director of the army visited Victoria to look over the situation. We tried to persuade him to erect an addition to either one or both of these hospitals to take care of soldiers while in uniform or when they are returned from overseas, but we were not successful. Since that time a hospital has been erected in the naval barracks at Esquimalt. This was found insufficient to take care of the needs, and they have added to it. It is a good hospital with efficient equipment, but it is located in the heart of the barracks and is subject to the same noises that certain other hospitals are subjected to. Then they built a hospital at Work Point barracks for soldiers in uniform. However, this was not sufficient and they took over the normal school, which is located some distance out. The minister said the other day that it had cost $70,000 to convert this school into a hospital. It is a fine building, but it is not serving the purpose it was originally built to serve. It will cost another $75,000 or possibly 8100,000 to reconvert it to its previous use, and I hope that will be done.
In addition, a hospital was built at Gordon Head, which is about six miles from the centre of the city, to serve the officers' training camp. They are pretty well taken care of there. It is now proposed to build a hospital at Royal Roads which it is expected will cost in the neighbourhood of $500,000. This is the site of the naval college and is about nine miles from the centre of Victoria. There are no facilities to look after nurses or other attendants. They will not only have to build a hospital; they will have to provide transportation facilities, which are poor at the present time, and accommodation for nurses and other attendants. It is claimed that this will cost another 8500,000.
They could build a unit of equal size as an addition to the Royal Jubilee hospital, which is the general hospital. This is situated in a
twenty-acre piece of grounds. The hospital has sufficient facilities to furnish the required heating, as well as laboratory and other electrical equipment. This has been offered to the department, but they insist upon going on with their plans to build at Royal Roads.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Not this department.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: No; the department of naval affairs. I understand that this would not be acceptable to the Department of Pensions and National Health when completed, so that we would have at the very least three-quarters of a million dollars, and I would say . that one million dollars would be nearer the amount, spent on this hospital, which in my opinion would not be properly located for the boys when they return from overseas. It would mean that the patients would be at least nine miles from the city, and their friends and relatives who wanted to see them would have to travel that distance to do so. If conditions prevailing in the city of Victoria were anything like those that have been described as prevailing around the Christie Street hospital, or even the general hospital in Toronto, which I believe is pretty noisy, I would not object to going a certain distance out of the city to find a quiet and suitable place. But those conditions do not exist in Victoria. The buildings are modern and have every facility. They are both classed as Al. I am told that the cost per bed in the addition to the Royal Jubilee hospital would be at the maximum 81,250, while the cost per bed in the other hospital would be some $1,500 at least, and then the building would be of no value afterwards.
I think there has been a lack of cooperation between the three services in building their hospitals from the start of this war. I had hoped that that would be stopped by this time, but apparently they are still not ready to cooperate with the Department of Pensions and National Health and locate hospital additions where they can do the most good. I think the hospitals built in war time for the soldiers should integrate with the civic hospitals, so that they will be of benefit to the general public when the war is over. But that is not so in this case. I do not know whether the Minister of Pensions and National Health or his department has agreed with the other three departments on this proposal. If he has, I say to him now that as far as I am concerned I am going to oppose it, but I do not believe he has. If, however, he has taken a stand and is opposing the proposal of the other three departments to build this hospital, I will support him.
4796	'	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Pensions and National Health


Thomas Langton Church: So far as hospitalization is concerned, we are back where we were in 1918. We are just going to make the same fatal mistake in regard to hospitalization that we made in the last war. I was chairman of the hospital commission for the city of Toronto with Doctor Hastings and Mr. Thomas Bradshaw in the last war and for three years after. The city had been most generous to the government in giving it public buildings free in the last war because we were anxious to help, so that at the close of the war the troops would have proper hospitalization, adequate housing and proper treatment.
I should like to take five minutes to refer to the mistakes that were made as regards hospitalization at that time. In the last war we had a survey made of the hospitals in the city of Toronto. We had the old Base hospital on Gerrard street, located there when the Old Trinity and university of Toronto medical faculties were separate. Then the large, new Toronto General hospital was built, and these two faculties had been amalgamated for some years. The city joined with the Toronto General and the university in the new hospital. The result was a new General. The city paid about a million, the cost of the site near the great university of Toronto which has done so much for medicine. The result was a new hospital. I was on the board for seventeen years and on the executive committee with Sir Joseph Flavelle and the late Mr. Larkin. I was acting for the city of Toronto. The hospital was opened by Sir James Whitney about a month or two before the 1914 war. It was built then for to-morrow, and the city was generous and for years carried the deficits.
The war came and we found we had no proper hospital accommodation for the soldiers in the epidemic of 1917. I had a run-in with the government of that day, of which I was a great supporter. The late Doctor Hastings and myself and Mr. Thomas Bradshaw, who composed the hospital commission, were told that we were meddling in federal affairs. We were not. All we wanted was hospital accommodation for our soldiers and housing accommodation for themselves and their families when they returned from the war. I do not blame the Minister of Pensions and National Health altogether, except for not seeking new sites now. He is a Scotsman and I am an Irishman, and we do not often have so great a difference of opinion. I also appreciate what his doctors,

both past and present, have done, and his nurses and whole staff for years at small salaries.
During the flu epidemic in the last war I forced an investigation into the disgraceful hospital conditions for soldiers in the city of Toronto. I saw at Niagara camp, boys of sixteen, seventeen, eighteen and nineteen years of age down with pneumonia, and where were they? They were lying in camp at Fort George in tents, with only a bit of canvas underneath them to protect them from the ground. I talked to General Logie and to Ottawa about it. He was then the officer commanding that military district. It was not his fault at all. I asked him, "WTho is to blame for this lack of hospitals for soldiers?" The old Base hospital on Gerrard street had been closed up. It was not fit for civilians, and yet they wanted to open it up to accommodate soldiers. General Logie said in reply to my question at the inquest that a mysterious person at Ottawa was to blame. I asked who he was, but he could not tell me. I said to him, "If you had pneumonia, would you want to go and lie down at the back of your lot in a tent, with nothing underneath you but a canvas?" and he said "yes". I said, "No; you would go to the Toronto General hospital."
The result of lack of proper accommodation all over Canada for soldiers was that public opinion forced the government of the day to establish a hospital service across Canada at a cost of $35 millions, I believe, in connection with the municipalities, because when all is said and done in civilian hospital work, it is the municipalities that are putting up most of the money and paying a per diem allowance in support of the civilian hospitals, used by soldiers also. The per diem was fifty cents, but under Doctor Hastings it went as high as S1.75 to $2.25 for per diem patients.
The hospital situation now, even in all Canada, is a very serious one. I said that when the war started. I know that mistakes have been made; I have seen them. We have no modern plan of hospitalization. Some wanted to rebuild the old Base hospital on the old site, but we would not allow that, and it was torn down. What is true of civilian hospitals is more true of military hospitals. You can save a great deal of money by capital expenditure on the proper site and buildings, and later effect great economies in operation. We started out to look for new hospital sites after the above experience. I went out on the Lake Shore road with federal officials to look at a hospital site where the new Goodyear plant was about to be built. The roads were not as good then, and the

War Appropriation-Pensions and National Health
doctors, who were only part-time doctors, would not go out that far, so that we had to look for a new site. We went up to the district for which I have sat in three parliaments, in 1921, in 1925, and in 1926, and looked at the site of the present Christie Street hospital, the National Cash Register's new plant. It was opposed by the fire chief and other municipal officials who came out and looked at the site. The city at that time had absolute control over the property, residential districts and others, and hospitalization, and the law of the province did not allow them to ride rough-shod over the municipality in this connection, but Ottawa decided to get this National Cash Register place for a start, temporarily. It was opened about March 1, 1918, in the darkest hour of the war. There were votes for hospitals for soldiers all over Canada when parliament met for the next session, 1918-19. In every military district they were then at least waking up all over Canada to the requirements with regard to the returning troops. I opposed even then the use of this property. I did not think it was right to establish a hospital there. I supported the idea that a property be acquired, the old St. Andrews college, in the district of North Rosedale, near where I lived for eighteen years. The local residents did not want it, but I was glad it was secured. The quarters which were obtained on Christie street were to be occupied only temporarily. I remember the discussions of the subject at the meetings of the city council. I have a report of the medical officer of health, Doctor Hastings, who gave the government and the soldiers the most wonderful support, during and after the last war, of anyone I ever knew.
Well, what have you done? You have made ten changes in and additions to this property at a cost of $344,000. Great sums amounting to $444,000 all told, have been spent in converting the National Cash Register property, though neither the walls nor any other part of the building were suitable for a hospital. Other points were considered, including the exhibition grounds. In 1914 the new Toronto General was opened. If you had not had that hospital at the close of the last war, I do not know where some of the patients could have been taken for operations or special cases. Afterwards it was all done at Christie Street expanded. I say this while recognizing how splendid a staff Christie Street hospital had and has, and the grand work done there by all the staff and the civilian volunteer workers so long and cheerfully.
The present minister has done a lot of good work, and I am very much surprised at him as a Scotsman allowing the use of a building
like this as a convalescent home. I have been there several times. The building should never have been used as a hospital, and I am sorry we were not successful in defeating the various expansions which were approved by three parliaments, instead of new and other plants. I consulted the city officials on the matter, and I was very sorry that we ever allowed the key to be turned in the door for hospital purposes, but there was no option. I have seen the shell-shocked troops. I went last winter to visit a young patient whose father is a prominent citizen of the maritime provinces. Tor several years he was a member of this house and was on the committee which deals with war pensions and similar subjects. He sat as one of the more important supporters of the Liberal government. One of his children, a fine young soldier, was being treated there as a shell-shock case, and I was very much surprised at the condition of affairs in the ward, because the site was not fit for such cases.
The whole situation is, however, becoming intolerable, and a new plant is now required. I say that although I have nothing but admiration for the officials of the Department of Pensions and National Health, and for the doctors, nurses and committees that have dealt with this subject, because they know more than I do about it. But speaking as a layman who was on the hospital board for seventeen years and saw a great deal of the work done during epidemics of all kinds, when we had not quite enough hospital accommodation to look after the civilian population, I am much concerned at the condition of affairs and the industrial development which exists in the Christie street area to-day. The whole district is a' factory area. I remember the great separation of the Canadian Pacific from Yonge street right across to the junction in 'northwest Toronto. With the coming of the new right-of-way of this railway came factories, mills and other industrial plants. You ought to see the smoke and the dust and the dirt.
I am sorry to have to differ with the minister, but I am even more sorry at the mistake which has been made. Toronto has expanded its hospital accommodation at vast expense. The new Toronto East General hospital was opened and expanded, also Grace hospital, and in Toronto East it was intended that there should be a sufficient tract of land to provide a park. Then we have the splendid Western hospital on Bathurst street, which has been a big expansion. The university of Toronto is close to the new General property, and it is a revelation what has been done there in the
4798	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Pensions and National Health
past few years as a school of clinics for the university and the wonderful Sick Children's hospital of the Telegram.
I repeat that the site of Christie Street hospital is not and never has been suitable. The city authorities, I believe, are against this new expansion. All the business men I know of who have been connected with the various hospitals and have done so much for them are against it. I hope that the government will give the subject further consideration, because unless they get busy with more plants we shall have a serious situation after the war. I have talked to many officials of the city, and I believe that the city of Toronto or some private organizations would donate a site if the government would undertake to construct elsewhere a decent building. A plant with only 343 new beds will be of no good at all. To-day you cannot get into any hospital, public or private, in Toronto. You ought to see how crowded they are; some semi-private wards and public ones have twice' the number they were intended to accommodate.
I am ashamed at what I have seen at times in the way of accommodation at Christie Street hospital. You have a fine staff of doctors and nurses. If the obstacle is a question of money I would say to the minister, never mind the money. These men who went to the front and faced danger and death night and day should not have their welfare and restoration to health dependent upon a matter of money. You have spent 829,000,000 on a station in Montreal, a building devised for material ends only, which is being opened today, and yet you will not give proper accommodation to the troops who have served you so well in this war.
No municipality could get plans passed by the province for such an extension as this. I would not call it a convalescent home at all. I was at the Christmas dinner last year and saw the way it was crowded, away in a building at the rear in the smoke and noise and dirt.
Again I plead with the minister to reconsider his decision. You have to abandon that whole plant before long; you might just as well scrap the whole of it, the way we did with the old Toronto General hospital, and erect a good modern building. We cannot do without it. The new Toronto General has been built for to-morrow. The result is that it is recognized as one of the finest institutions of its kind on the continent. Although I should like to support the minister, I cannot do it this time. I feel very sorry when I see the parents, the wives and the little children of the patients going in there. It has not the proper accom-
modation, and Christie street is no place for a hospital. You will soon have to abandon it and supply up-tor-date accommodation. It is demanded by the progress of the science of preventive medicine, surgery and modern medicine; it will be demanded after the war with the numbers of shell-shocked air force and other casualties which will result from the war. I speak seriously, as one who has had a great deal of experience in this work. I have talked to eminent authorities and to members of the medical faculties of various universities, and they are astonished that we as a parliament sit here and take such action as this. It is a wrong step; it is a leap in the dark, and the money will be wasted-8500,000 thrown away on a place which should be scrapped as quickly as possible for a new site.
The minister has always been on friendly terms with the municipal authorities, and I believe that he could procure another site, which Toronto, I am sure, would provide, and the building now in use could be diverted to other necessary hospital purposes. I have suggested a location twelve miles out along the waterfront, or away up in the Don valley in North York, where the city has a lot of park land, near where the hon. member for Parkdale used to live in Bay view; it would make a fine site. If it is out a little farther, it would not make much difference because you have good roads. Toronto owns the street railway, the harbour property, the radials, the buses and a great many things. I know of no city which has given the last government and this government more splendid cooperation and support than all past and present city councils and public officials of Toronto. If there is urgency to have some immediate buildings, go ahead and build your temporary quarters for other hospital purposes, but provide a new site for these patients, for a convalescent home. I have seen some of the air force men who have come home, and some are suffering in a terrible way in this new war.
I did not wish to speak in this debate, but I felt it my duty to say to the minister that he is making a great mistake.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


John Power Howden: I find myself lining up behind the last several speakers with regard to the hospital policy of the government. My attitude is not so much one of criticism as one of discussion. Certainly

War Appropriation-Pensions and National Health
it is unwise for one to discuss matters of which one has but unfamiliar knowledge; still reports have come to us in the newspapers with regard to Christie Street hospital, and I am inclined to feel that factories and coalyards are not good bedfellows for hospitals. The factory of my early memory was, of course, the factory of the smokestack, and that would be out of the question in the neighbourhood of hospitals. I presume, however, that the factories abutting Christie Street hospital are operated by the ordinary hydro-electric power and for that reason are less offensive.
It is not, however, so much to discuss the hospital matter that I rise. One of the remarks of the hon. member for Parkdale referred to the establishment by the government of convalescent homes for some of the old pensioners. I regard that as an excellent suggestion. I am very well acquainted; I have a most friendly acquaintance, with a number of medical men in the city of Winnipeg who are on the staff of the Deer Lodge hospital which is some five miles from the city of Winnipeg. We often discuss these matters in the anteroom of the hospital, and some of these gentlemen have said to me that it is just pitiable to think of turning out some of these old war veterans who have nothing to depend upon but the war veterans' allowance. They are not sick enough to take up hospital room any longer, and on the other hand they have nowhere to go. When they are told by the doctor that it is time for them to leave, the frequent remark is, " Where can I go, doctor; where can I live on $20 a month?" They are not strong enough or well enough to look after themselves, 'but they are too well to take up hospital room.
There is a dearth of hospital beds all over the country. In Winnipeg we have five or six first-class A1 hospitals, and so far as the mental ward is concerned there is a waiting list of about fifty, so that it takes several days to get a room in any one of our general hospitals. There is a great shortage of beds in Winnipeg and I presume that is true everywhere.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: All
over Canada.


John Power Howden: All over Canada, if you like. We have a hospital problem in Winnipeg. Deer Lodge, as I have said, is five miles from the centre of our city. The Department of Pensions and National Health built a hospital there. As a matter of fact, it was the old Deer Lodge hotel originally, a recreation place. It has been overcrowded for years, and the contemplation now is, I believe, to extend it at considerable expense. That will require additional staff, and goodness knows there is a
shortage of medical staff, technical staff and nursing staff everywhere. All hospitals are short of nurses. All districts are now beginning to be short of doctors, and the addition of this large wing to the Deer Lodge hospital will require maintenance in the form of nurses, technicians and medical men. I do not know where they will be found. I know that in the instance of Deer Lodge hospital, as in that of Christie Street hospital in Toronto and the hospital at Victoria, it is the wish of the local people, those who live at the site in question, that these, hospitals should be erected in connection with the institutions at present carrying on.
I 'believe the feeling in Winnipeg is that the extension to the Deer Lodge hospital should be erected at the General hospital in Winnipeg, because the General hospital there is, after all, the largest institution we have. It is the centre of medical learning and treatment for that part of Canada. The feeling is that after this war is over, there will not be any need, twenty-five or thirty years hence, for a military hospital, and then the room will be occupied by patients from Winnipeg. The same feeling prevails, I believe, with regard to Victoria. They are short of hospital room and badly in need of hospital equipment of all kinds, and it is felt that if the extension that is being put up out there, and those already put up, had been combined with the hospitals in Victoria it would have been a very much better piece of business. That is as it may be, 'but it does seem a pity that these men, veterans of this war and of the last war, who are occupying and will occupy Christie Street hospital, should be left in crowded surroundings of that kind. Any moneys that are to be spent and must be spent could readily, and to much better avail, be spent in a location affording more desirable surroundings.
The hon. member for Fort William this afternoon mentioned Doctor Davidson of the city of Winnipeg and his cancer cure, this cancer cure of Doctor Davidson is not a joke. If the late Doctor Banting and Doctor Best produced at least a partial cure for diabetes, certainly Doctor Davidson has formulated a form of treatment which stays and does clear up cancer. I do not know that I should be giving the committee a lecture in clinical medicine, but at all events, since many have expressed curiosity with regard to this matter, I might say that Doctor Davidson has been experimenting with mice for the last thirty years. For some singular reason, mice, rats, rabbits and guineapigs, the family of rodents, are most like human beings in their reactions to

4800	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Pensions and National Health
disease and therapeutic measures, and for the last thirty years Doctor Davidson has been experimenting with whole families of mice. He has produced hundreds of families of cancerous mice and hundreds of families of noncancerous mice. He has fed certain mice with cancer-producing foods and has produced cancerous mice, and he has fed other mice with non-eancerous food and obtained cancer-resisting mice to such an extent that when a new cancerous growth was implanted in the cancer-resisting mice it failed to take hold, and after a time he treated cancerous mice with the blood serum of non-cancerous mice and the cancerous mice cleared up. They overcame their cancerous new growth and recovered.
That hypothesis has simply been carried into effect, and at the present time there are fifteen or twenty cases on record, positively on record, as presented to the medical society. This is not a dream but something that has been presented from time to time to medical associations throughout western Canada and even as far as Rochester in the United States. The mice have definitely cleared up with injections from the system of cancer-resisting families of mice and from non-cancer producing forms of diet.
Doctor Banting and Doctor Best were given assistance by the federal government and by other bodies in public control, but Doctor Davidson has worked for thirty years on his own premises. He has been a prominent doctor in the city of Winnipeg; he has been a prominent internist; he has given much of his time to the hospitals and is a well-known public figure; yet in his spare time and at his own expense he has carried on this personal research, and he has obtained results. I would not have thought of bringing this matter before the committee, but it was mentioned this afternoon by the hon. member for Fort William who referred to me as probably being in possession of some of the facts, and that is so.


Gordon Graydon: If I may ask the hon. member a question for the sake of information, did I understand him to say there were certain types of diet which induced cancerous growth?


John Power Howden: Quite; that was the basis of his investigation. He found that by feeding certain families of mice on certain diets, they became cancerous, and for generation after generation produced cancerous mice. Then he found that by feeding other families of mice on other diets, they became cancer-resistant, and produced cancer-resistant offspring generation after generation. Then he (Mr. Howden.]
used the blood of the cancer-resistant mice to cure the cancerous mice, and from that he used it on cancerous human beings. That is the whole story.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Will anything be done in regard to this matter? I do not wish to press the minister too hard, but the people who have been cured are most anxious that all the scientific research which has been carried on by Doctor Davidson shall not be lost.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There is a committee functioning now in conjunction with the national research council which investigates cases of this kind, and I am sure it is important that this be done in connection with this matter. Certainly I shall bring this discussion to the attention of that committee.
Mr. GRAYDON; Has this work by Doctor Davidson been under consideration by the national research council?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Not to my knowledge.


Mr. J. A. MARSHALL (Camrose):: I think we were all very glad to hear the statement made by the hon. member for St. Boniface; the members of the medical profession can make valuable contributions to the debates of this house.
I wish to join with other hon. members who have expressed the desire that everything humanly possible should be done to bring economic security with freedom, medical treatment and other amenities to the men and women in our fighting services who are doing such a wonderful job at the present time. It is encouraging to hear members of all political parties say that financial considerations should not be allowed to block the work now being done by the Minister of Pensions and National Health. For many years we in this group have been saying that wrhat is physically possible can be made financially possible, and I believe that idea is concurred in by the minister.
As I listened to certain members of the Progressive Conservative party describe the conditions which exist in Christie Street hospital in the city of Toronto, I wondered if they had not made a mistake in the name and location of the institution. I thought they were confusing Christie Street hospital in Toronto with the Colonel Belcher hospital in the city of Calgary; for many of the things that have been said about this hospital in Toronto could be said with equal truth about the Belcher hospital in Calgary. On former occasions I have drawn to the attention of the government the situation prevailing in the Colonel Belcher hospital and have urged that improvements be made; in fact I have urged the government
JULY 14, 1943	4S01
War Appropriation-Pensions and National Health
to find a more suitable location than this for a hospital. I have not been to the Colonel Belcher hospital for two or three years, and as a result the information dealing with that period has come to me at second hand. For about ten years following 1920 I visited the Colonel Belcher hospital about twice a year. I realize that much has been done to improve conditions there since that time, but still they are not what they ought to be.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Has my hon. friend seen the new hospital at Calgary?


James Alexander Marshall: No; I have not seen the new hospital; I am talking about the Colonel Belcher hospital, which is still in use.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is correct, but I believe the new one will be finished in September.


James Alexander Marshall: I realize that, but I just want to bring to the attention of members of this committee the conditions which exist in the Colonel Belcher hospital. Some years ago I wrote the secretary of the Calgary branch of the Canadian Legion asking if he would be good enough to tell me whether any action had been taken by the legion with respect to this hospital. In reply he stated that this question had been the subject of many resolutions which had been adopted by the Alberta command and endorsed by various dominion conventions. Here is the resolution which was passed by the Alberta command for a number of years, and endorsed by several dominion conventions:
Whereas the Belcher hospital is entirely and completely unsuitable for the purpose for which it is now utilized, our opinion being formed on the following grounds:
(1)	That only one of the three buildings used as a hospital is fireproof.
(2)	That incessant noise from street traffic annoys the inmates and retards the progress of the patients.
(3)	That the proximity of the Canadian Pacific railway adds not only noise but smoke and dirt to the institution.
I should like hon. gentlemen to notice how closely conditions in the Belcher hospital parallel those said to exist in the Christie Street hospital.
(4)	For its absolute lack of facilities for light exercise in the open air.
(5)	That it contains no suitable facilities for psychopathic or neurotic patients, and owing to this lack many mild psychiatric cases are compelled to go to Oliver or Ponoka for treatment where they are obliged to mingle with practically incurable insane patients.
Whereas the Belcher hospital is totally unsuitable for a soldiers' hospital as at present used on the grounds outlined above;
And whereas the annual rental of $25,000 per year now being paid is of such an amount 72537-304*
that, with what has been paid and what will be paid in the future, a real soldiers' hospital could be erected;
And whereas the need for a soldiers' hospital is certain to become more acute for the next twenty-five years rather than to diminish;
Now therefore be it resolved that the Canadian Legion, Alberta command, humbly petition the cabinet of this country to give urgent and immediate consideration to the erection of a modern soldiers' hospital with suitable and adequate ground accommodation in order that these men, who fought and suffered, and who are still suffering, for their country, may receive that care and attention which we respectfully believe to be the wish of the people of this dominion.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What is the date of that letter?


James Alexander Marshall: That resolution was sent to me in 1937, but the same conditions exist to-day as existed in that day. No change has taken place, as I shall proceed to show.
What is the principal objection? It is that this hospital is built on one of the main thoroughfares, perhaps I should say the main thoroughfare in Calgary. At the back of the hospital are the tracks of the Canadian Pacific railway. In his letter the secretary of the Canadian Legion states:
The principal objections to the present hospital have been that there are streetcar tracks in front of the hospital and railway tracks at the rear, and it would seem impossible to obtain the quiet that is required by men who are sick.	. '
When the former Minister of Pensions and National Health, the present Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power) was in Vancouver a number of years ago, addressing a convention in that city, this question was brought to his attention. It was intimated to the delegation that waited on the minister that if the Colonel Belcher hospital were closed, then the Edmonton university hospital would be the only one in Alberta in which soldiers could be treated. Because of this attitude on the part of the minister the delegation did not press the point farther.
In 1919. the Great War Veterans' Association, which is now known as the Canadian Legion, objected to the building which had been erected by the dominion government. Because of the violent objection raised by the Great War Veterans' Association the then Conservative government moved the hospital to the building next door. It is rather strange to hear members of the Conservative party criticizing severely the Liberal party for carrying on a hospital under conditions and circumstances similar in many respects to those which prevailed in this one. This building was an old warehouse, before it was taken over for
4802	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Pensions and National Health
hospital purposes. While no criticism is being levelled in respect of the care of the patients, the food or the service, yet it appears it would be more satisfactory if a new site were obtained, and if the hospital were closed down. There are no grounds where convalescents may take an airing; there are no verandahs; and the noise is practically continuous throughout the whole of the twenty-four hours.
Down the years I have talked to many returned men in Alberta, and they are unanimous, without a dissenting voice, in condemning this building. It fronts the main thoroughfare of the city. At its back are the lines of the Canadian Pacific railway. If a patient wishes to take a walk he immediately steps out on a main thoroughfare. Surely that is not right. It has been pointed out that the rental of this building over the years, at $25,000 a year-as a matter of fact it is in excess of that-would have built a modern hospital. I say the minister owes it to the committee to give a full and complete explanation of the situation and what he proposes to do with respect to it in the near future.
Mr. W. R. MACDONALD (Brantford City); With much that has been said with respect to the unsuitability of Christie Street hospital as a building to be used for hospital purposes, I am in accord. Like the hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. White), I, too, can speak from actual experience. I was an out-patient at the hospital, and attended' there for treatment for some time after the last war. Since then I have frequently visited soldiers who are patients in the hospital. It was taken over during the last war by the government of that day as an emergency hospital. It was built originally as a factory; it was a factory when it was taken over and, in structure, it is still a factory. It is about as suitable for hospital purposes as a modern hospital would be for factory purposes.
I believe an article in a recent number of News, written by Judith Robinson, describes the hospital very well.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The hon. member had better be careful about his literature. The Minister of Munitions and Supply told me he was very careful about reading that sort of thing.


William Ross Macdonald: I read all types of literature, and cull the good from the literature I read. I believe the article describes the hospital very well. This is what it says:
Christie Street hospital stands on a factory site, in a factory district. It is built 75 feet from the right of way of a through freiglA

line, beside a number of switches and sidings. Its wards are overlooked on two sides by a factory and a warehouse and, on the third, overlook a steel yard. They are not fireproof construction. The district is noisy and dirty. The hospital's only grounds are small and without outlook, surrounded by its own buildings. There are 700 patients in Christie Street now.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That ought to condemn it.


William Ross Macdonald: I thought the noise feature was somewhat overemphasized in the discussion which has taken place thus far. Many hon. members are familiar with the General hospital at Toronto, which faces College street, one of the busiest streets in that city. Street cars are passing almost continually, and in normal times the automobile traffic is steady. On one side is University avenue, and I would suppose that more automobiles travel along University avenue than along any other two streets in that city. The noise there is considerable. In referring to Christie Street hospital the hon. member for Parkdale said that the noise from the engines prevented the doctors from using their stethoscopes. I think the same would apply to the Toronto General hospital. In that case there would not be noise from engines, but there would be noise from automobiles honking and from the street cars going by. I think the hon. member for Parkdale overexaggerated his description of the hospital; in fact I think his whole address was one of overstatement. His attack upon the minister was absolutely uncalled for. I was amazed that a man of his eminence should stoop to personalities in a debate as serious as this one.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: On a point of order, I do not think the hon. member for Parkdale went into personalities at all.


William Ross Macdonald: That is my hon. friend's opinion, but if he will read the address of the hon. member for Parkdale, he will see that the hon. member said some things which were pretty close to being personalities.


Gordon Graydon: This looks like an exchange of opinions.


William Ross Macdonald: This may be an exchange of opinions, but I am not indulging in personalities. This is a serious debate and, that being so, we should not stoop to personalities. The minister should take great satisfaction from the fact that every hon. member who has spoken, irrespective of party, has used the highest terms in referring to the work he has done. To that I would add the voice of the returned soldier. I should like to refer to the Legionary of May, 1943, which had the following editorial:

War Appropriation-Pensions and National Health
. . . we know the minister of pensions to be a man who is sincerely interested in the welfare of his old comrades-in-arms and on many occasions has championed their rightful claims before the treasury board with his well-known forceful eloquence.
What is said there with respect to his old comrades-in-arms can also be said about those who are fighting this war.
Let me refer again to Christie Street hospital. It is proposed to expend $500,000 on this hospital. If it were possible I should like to see this amount spent somewhere else. I should like to see a hospital built in spacious grounds in a better part of Toronto, but we must remember that there are men who will be returned in the near future and who must be looked after. There is not time to build a new hospital.


Victor Quelch: You could do both.


William Ross Macdonald: "You could do both," my hon. friend says, and I agree with him. But we must have a place prepared for these men when they return wounded and shell shocked from this war. It would be absolutely impossible to put up a new hospital to look after them. Although this hospital may not be in a location suitable for hospital purposes, under the circumstances it is the best we have and we must be prepared for these men. I would say that this should be done as an emergency measure, but we should look to the future and plans should be made now to build a new hospital in a suitable place, not only to look after the wounded and shell shocked but. also to look after those men who will recover slowly from their wounds after they have returned with victory.
This afternoon the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) referred in complimentary terms to the work the minister is doing, but he said that some of the men in the department-I have not his exact words, but they were to this effect-were not entirely sympathetic to the returned man.


James Arthur Ross: I think my hon. friend is mixing the member for Souris with the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright). I did not make any reference to departmental officials.


William Ross Macdonald: I apologize to the hon. member for Souris; I am glad it was not he. But whoever did make that statement I can.' only say that his experience has been different from mine. Colonel W. S. Woods, who administers the War Veterans' Allowance Act, has been absolutely sympathetic. to the returned men. I have found complete sympathy on the part of the men who administer the pensions, although I have not always agreed with their decisions. There
are a number of cases from my own city where I am not in accord with the decisions rendered, but I have found the chairman of the pension committee most sympathetic. He has tried to administer the act with a sympathetic eye on the returned soldier. Let me quote the opinion of the returned man with respect to the chairman of the pension committee. I should1 like to quote from the Fragment, the official organ of the war amputations of Canada, which states:
The kindly personality of our distinguished comrade-General McDonald-is known to members of the association from coast to coast. The contribution he has made over the last six years and more as chairman of the Canadian pension commission has earned the lasting gratitude of all pensioners and their dependents -indeed of all Canada.
That is the opinion of those who served with General McDonald in the last war, as I think it will be of the men who will soon be returning from this war. The view has been expressed by practically every one in this house that we cannot do too much for the returned man. Does anyone think the returned man can be paid for the suffering and trials he has undergone? Money can never repay him, but we can try to be fair; we can try to restore him to the same, if not to a better position than that which he had prior to enlisting.
What has been done thus far? The government-by the "government" I include parliament; I include all parties in parliament -has done a few things which I should like to mention. The posfrdischarge reestablishment order was issued which provides that every man who returns from overseas will be given an opportunity to learn a trade, and while learning that trade he will receive certain allowances. Every man will be given an opportunity to complete his education. If he has not started upon higher education and is able to prepare himself within a reasonable time, his tuition will be paid and he will be given a living allowance while he is completing his education. Maintenance grants will be paid to men who start up in business but who are not able to support themselves during the initial period. The same provision is also being made for men who return to farms.
Maintenance grants will be paid to men who are temporarily out of employment, men who are able to work but who cannot find employment. There will be maintenance grants for those who are totally incapacitated for work. These will be paid while their injuries are being repaired, as it were, while their health is being restored. The man who served overseas and comes back and takes employment will be in exactly the same posi-
4804	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Pensions and National Health
tion in so far as unemployment insurance is concerned as though he had been working in Canada all the time. These are only a few of the things which we as a parliament have been doing to prepare a place for these men when they come back from the war. Some may say that is not enough; we all may say that that is not enough, but I would point out that in many respects it is more than has been done by our sister dominions in the British commonwealth. In many respects out-of-work benefits are larger, in the amounts paid out in Canada than in Australia and New Zealand. I have a table here which I think hon. members would like to have put on the record. It sets out the out-of-work benefits in the three countries I have mentioned, the benefits for a single man, for man and wife, for man, wife and one child, and so forth, and with the unanimous consent of the committee I should like to place this on the record.


Mr. STIRLING:: Would the hon. member
say where the table emanates from?


William Ross Macdonald: The table was given to the committee on reconstruction and reestablishment on June 10 of this year.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: And appears in the proceedings of the committee.


William Ross Macdonald: Yes.


Grote Stirling: By whom was it presented?


William Ross Macdonald: By the associate deputy minister of pensions and national health. If hon. members would like to have it on the record of this committee, with unanimous consent I will place it on the record. It is as follows:
		T5 C c3
	'm	
	m	Si
Australia	. $ 8 95	$12 89New Zealand. . .	. 12 57	16 16Canada	. 10 20	14 40



OUT OF WORK BENEFITS

[Stage Direction]
a>	<D	£	jg	%	£	£	£Man, and 1	Man, and 2	Man, and 3	Man, and 4	Man, and 5$14 50	$16 11	$17 72	$19 33	$20 9417 23	18 31	19 39	20 46	21 5417 17	19 94	22 25	24 09	25 94
(Computed at present rates of exchange)
A tc		TJ
£	s Ja	C co £ 1	*§ oMan, and 6	Total single	3 2 o :t: H is	el o S a(weeks)$22 55	$116 35	$293 15	1321 54	163 41	280 02	1327 78	531 40	1,444 56	52
Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not rise to take part in this debate, but I do want to ask a question of the minister on a matter of policy. In Canada we have the Department of Pensions and National Health establishing and maintaining hospitals at various centres throughout the country. Then we have the Department of National Defence erecting and maintaining a great many hospitals throughout the country, most of them of a temporary nature. We have the Department for Naval Services erecting and maintaining hospitals, and the Department for Air erecting and maintaining hospitals. Here we have four government departments doing hospital work, and so far as I have been able to observe there is no concerted plan of action between them. There must of necessity be a good deal of overlapping of services between them, and my question to the minister is this: What consideration has the government given to what is largely a duplication of services in connection with the three armed forces, and may I add the permanent service also, of which the minister is the head, and which I think is doing pretty good work. I am not going to flatter the minister, but I should like to say a good word for some of his officials. I wish 
to say this, that the department is so very different now from what it was twenty-one years ago that it is most refreshing. I recall that in the earlier days the pension department was in an evolutionary stage; the law on pensions had not become so stabilized as it is to-day, and the problems confronting the department were perhaps more difficult of solution than they are now.
What I want to know is, what consideration has been given by the government toward the question of hospitalization all over the country with a view-this is the thought that is in my mind-to saving a very large sum of money by removing the duplication and trebling and quadrupling, we might say, of hospitalization services? This problem of hospitalization is going to be with us for a long time. I have no doubt that eventually, when the war is over, one hospital after another will be closed up, and finally the department will take over all these hospitals. I recall that during the last war, when Christie Street hospital was set up, another hospital was set up at Ste. Annes. Nobody ever contemplated, I think, that it would be a permanent hospital going on for as long as it has, or a better type of building would have been put

War Appropriation-Pensions and National Health
up, and it would have been put in a different location. It is near the main line of two great railways and must of necessity be a noisy place. Whoever was responsible for setting up a hospital for mental cases within close proximity of two great lines of railway did not have much idea of the proper location for a hospital for people suffering from that ailment. I have often wondered at that; but there it is.
I think I have got my idea over to the minister sufficiently. What consideration has been given to the question, and what effect has been given to that consideration? To the onlooker, and I can qualify only as that, there does not seem to be any coordination at all of these hospitalization services. The Department of National Defence built a hospital in my city. The site was donated by well disposed people-I am not going any further than that -but the hospital is not now big enough for the number of troops in the locality. I understand that the ratio of hospital accommodation to the number of troops has to be over five per cent. They are building a new hospital in that city, and it is a structure of a most temporary nature. There is no foundation under it; it is built on posts but I assume it can be made warm by the usual methods of banking and that sort of thing, and it will be heated, of course, from one central heating plant. But it is essentially a temporary structure. I do not think the Department of National Defence would contend otherwise. The whole point is, why is there not a long view taken of this question of hospitalization? So far as the longterm cases are concerned, it seems to me they ought to be under one department.
Then there is this extraordinary situation. Every one of these hospitals has to have its own medical staff and its quota of nurses. The country is denuded of nurses because there are so many of them in these military hospitals. In one place at least that I know of these girls do not have enough to do to keep themselves warm at times; there are too many nurses there. I am speaking of the little hospital at Fredericton.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Not under this department.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I quite agree that it is under the national defence department. That hospital has seventy beds, ten nurses and twenty orderlies. It seems to me to be overstaffed. All the important surgical cases are taken to the Victoria public hospital.
I think I have elaborated sufficiently to let the minister know what is in my mind. I am not quarrelling with anybody or laying any charges of extravagance. But it seems to me
that each one of these defence departments wants to run its own show irrespective of the others, and I consider that there is a good deal of duplication, which means waste, too.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I think my hon. friend has contributed a pertinent and important suggestion to the debate. I would say that until two years ago what he has said was very largely true. The hon. member for Danforth sat on one of the committees which went carefully into the question of hospitalization in Canada and made certain recommendations. I myself remember writing a strong letter pointing out exactly what the hon. member for York-Sunbury has just now said. But it was largely inevitable with the development of new services. There was a lot of ambition there, and there was duplication in the early stages of the war. That is exactly why this interdepartmental committee on hospitalization was formed. That is their exact function. Their duty is to prevent duplication and, in consultation with our department, to develop a long-range policy so that we shall be able, when the war is over, to take over some of their buildings, of which they are to-day lending the staff to us in many cases, and thereby assisting this department which here and there is short of staff. So that I think, both in regard to personnel and in regard to property, there is now a pronounced improvement, and in my opinion it is a long-range policy, so much so that none of the ministers individually has the power now to develop a policy for his own department without the recommendation of this unifying and coordinating committee.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Which is all to the good.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I think it is all to the good.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: May I say that I have had a long day, and I should like hon. members to take note when I call them to order.


Mr. RALPH MAYBANK (Winnipeg South Centre):: In the debate under this item we have had some discussion on Shaughnessy and a great deal on Christie Street, and Deer Lodge hospital, located at Winnipeg, has been mentioned. It so happens that Deer Lodge hospital is in the constituency which I have the honour to represent, and it is an institution in which I have always taken a great deal of interest.
As I heard the discussion to-night touching upon Christie Street hospital, an old factory with pipes sticking out all over in places where they should not be, having in general an appearance to the patient within that would tend to be depressing rather than helpful-that is, at any rate, according to what, was said here
4806	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Pensions and National Health
this afternoon and this evening-I could not help comparing it with the very much better institution which we are fortunate enough to have at the western edge of Winnipeg. I have watched the development there over a number of years. Recently there have been some improvements, and I have been greatly pleased to see the care which has been taken in an endeavour to make a hospital which would actually have a therapeutic value for the individuals who are in it. The surroundings are not such as I have heard described relative to Christie Street hospital, and the place itself seems to be in every way better. So that I would commence by commending the department for the general development which has gone on there.
Before saying anything further with reference to that hospital on a matter which is a controversial one, I wish to record agreement with the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Howden) in his remarks touching on a convalescent home. I believe that practically all countries agree that Canada has done an excellent job over the years in looking after its soldiers, and that Canadian pension laws are among the best, if not the best. But it really is very sad indeed to see the lot of some of these old veterans, discharged, as the hon. member for St. Boniface said, from Deer Lodge hospital or one of the other places, having the war veterans' allowance and no place to go, not thoroughly able to take care of themselves, and certainly not being able, with such a pittance, to have themselves taken care of. The department was always very good in granting domiciliary care to such persons during the difficult years before 1938, but I suppose that pressure upon the accommodation has sometimes prevented the department from doing everything which, might be done for such men. I urge most strongly that the minister as soon as possible deal with the erection of a place which may be described as a convalescent home, with some sort of secondary hospital accommodation.
The hon. member for St. Boniface also mentioned that in my city there is a dispute as to whether Deer Lodge hospital should be further developed, as the department desires, or whether a wing should be added to the civilian hospital, Winnipeg General hospital. I believe that both newspapers of the city, in a reasonable and well-reasoned manner, have supported the idea of not adding to this military _ hospital but of adding to the civic hospital, so that eventually that hospital will benefit. I believe the hon. member for St. Boniface is right in saying that in all probability popular opinion in the city of Winnipeg would favour that idea.
I know it is always easier to agree than to dispute, and for my part it certainly would be easier to agree, because so many of my friends have the view that the department is wrong and that Deer Lodge hospital, should not be extended, but rather that extension should be made to the civic hospital, so' that eventually the city would get the benefit. But members of parliament are not sent here as delegates. They must express their own views. Sometimes these will be truly representative of the district from which they come; sometimes, I suppose, they will not. At any rate, at whatever risk there may be, I must say that I think the decision of the department with regard to the building of the extension of this hospital in the way in which it is now being extended and the plans which are set down for it, is right and not wrong, and I think at this stage of development it would be wrong to try to build an extension to the Winnipeg General hospital instead of extending Deer Lodge.
Perhaps, if we could have had time at the commencement of the war to develop a policy whereby these military and pension department hospitals could have been fitted in with the general hospital scheme of the country, it would have been a good thing. At any rate that is the way it seems to me, looking at it in retrospect, and knowing it is very easy to be wise after the fact. But if we could only have foreseen the very great hospital development which would be necessary, probably we would have worked in our soldiers' hospitals with the civic hospitals throughout the country. But after we had a certain amount of development in the Department of Pensions and National Health, it was not feasible to place a section on the Winnipeg General hospital consisting of probably 200 beds and to send our men there from the army, the air force and the navy and probably some from the Department of Pensions and National Health itself.
In the first place I am reminded of this, that all of the returned men with whom I have ever spoken have objected strenuously to going into a civilian hospital. Now that is just their opinion, some person might say. Yes; it is just their opinion, it is true, but I do not know of anything that is more important in the hospitalization of troops than having the troops satisfied with the place to which they are sent, and I think the veterans, both of the last war and of this war, those men who are sick from time to time, in the army, the air force or the navy, and who have to be hospitalized, should have their opinion consulted and very great weight given to it.

War Appropriation-Pensions and National Health
That is the first reason why I think the department is right at the present time in extending the hospital rather than in building a wing to the civilian hospital. There are other reasons. If you put 200 men out of the forces in a civilian hospital you put them where their records are not, and I suggest that you have to have an administrative staff in the civilian hospital as soon as you put the patients there. If you put 200 beds in some civilian hospital and have the records of all the patients five, six or seven miles away, at the other hospital, immediately you run into all manner of problems and there will be a great deal of trouble.
I believe also that Deer Lodge having been already extended by the addition of one pavilion holding a considerable number of beds, 100 or 125, it was necessary already to put another clinical wing there, which was done, and one such step does call for another. If we could retrace our steps back to the beginning, we might make a decision in favour of establishing the military hospital as part of the civilian institution; but unfortunately after certain steps have been taken, I do not think that is any longer possible. Maybe we should have been wiser at the start, but I imagine that everyone will take his share of the blame for lack of foresight. I understand that the same problem exists in two or three other cities. Apparently it does in Victoria, and I have heard it mentioned as existing elsewhere.
Having said that much upon that one subject, I should like to direct the minister's attention to certain features of life at Deer Lodge hospital with respect to which it seems to me some correction is necessary. I know that in labour matters in the hospital the minister is not fully in control. That is to say, all matters of employment nowadays appear to be handled by one, two, three, four or five agencies. First of all, there is the minister himself; then the civil service commission; then the labour department through selective service, and finally on top of it all you have the treasury board, which gets damned here so frequently. In so far as this department can help the labour difficulties at Deer Lodge, I urge that this be done. Let me give an illustration of the sort of thing I mean. There are firemen in that hospital now doing much more work than originally they were engaged to do. There is no additional remuneration. They are firemen who are engaged, let us say, as the lowest grade type of firemen, and they find themselves pretty soon, as a result of the extension of the place, doing work that is usually called grade 3, or a higher grade of firemen. I use language in this manner only as illustrative of the problem. You have men
in that hospital doing the work not of one man, not the work that one man ought to do, but two men's work, and there is no hope of relief at all. That makes for dissatisfaction. It is not good for the hospital.
There are men whose circumstances are different. I am thinking of one man in particular who was persuaded to leave a certain job on the understanding that he would get such-and-such a position in this hospital. That is a couple of years ago and he has not got it yet. Where lies the trouble? I do not believe it lies right with this department.
I think that one of the superagencies has some way or another imposed a bar against this person getting what he should.
I mention these instances as illustrations of the type of thing I mean. I go to Deer Lodge hospital a great deal and I meet the people there. I suppose I know most of them by name. It is a large staff. If I do not know them all by name I know them to see them, and I must say I have found them throughout the years not a complaining class of people. But recently I have been hearing a good many such stories as the sort I have been speaking of to-night. I urge the minister to try to clear up all that kind of thing in this hospital. It may be the same somewhere else, in Christie Street, for example. I am sure the minister will agree with me that it is not the sort of thing in an institution that breeds and develops a good spirit, and if there is one place where a good spirit is needed it is in a hospital.
There are a number of other matters with reference to this hospital that could be touched upon, but I know there are many other problems besides this particular one, which is very dear to my own heart. I do not think I will extend my remarks further to discuss the other matters that might be brought forward, but I would urge upon the minister that special attention be given to these labour problems in Deer Lodge hospital, because it will redound to the credit of his department and result in better service being given to the men out of the forces already and those coming out of the forces, than whom certainly there are none who deserve better treatment.


Mr. D. K. HAZEN (St. John-Albert):: I have before me order in council P.C. 1/5028 dated June 21, 1943. In this order in council, under the head "regulations", it is provided that the war veterans' allowance board may allow to the widow of a veteran compassionate allowance not exceeding $240 per annum except in such exceptional cases where the board may deem it proper to increase the amount to $300 "subject to the following conditions".
4S08	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Pensions and National Health
Then follow nine conditions which I do not propose to read. Section 2 of the regulations then reads:
For the purpose of these regulations "veteran" means veteran as described in subparagraphs (1) and (3) of paragraph (j) of section 2 of the War Veterans' Allowance Act.
I turn to the War Veterans' Allowance Act, which is chapter 48 of the statutes of Canada, 1930, as amended by chapter 48 of the statutes of 1936 and by chapter 16 of the statutes of 1938. Examining paragraph 2(j), subparagraphs (i) and (iii), I find that this compassionate allowance is limited to the widows of soldiers who served in the last great war, namely, the war of 1914-18.
I wish to ask the minister why that should be the case. In my opinion there is no principle upon which it can be confined to the widows of soldiers who served in that war. The widows of those who served in the Boer war should be entitled to similar treatment, for they must be even more in need of this compassionate allowance than the widows of soldiers who served in the last war, since they are older and, as a result, in most cases less able to provide for themselves. The definition of a veteran in the War Veterans' Allowance Act includes any former member of the Canadian contingent who served in South Africa during the South African war, and also any person domiciled in Canada immediately prior to the 11th day of October, 1899, who served in the forces of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and , Ireland in South Africa during the South African war. The widows of our Canadian soldiers who served in the Boer war should be treated just as the widows of soldiers who served in the great war are treated. I would ask the minister to give that matter consideration and see if something cannot be done to correct that situation.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: If I may deal with that point immediately, before my hon. friend proceeds further, I am very glad indeed that he brought up this matter. It may be recalled that the hon. member for Vancouver South asked me a question in this regard during a previous discussion, and I said it was certainly the intention to include the widows of veterans of the South African war. What happened was that the title of the vote was altered by an amendment, it being the intention at first to have it administered by the Canadian pension commission, and then at the request of the Canadian Legion this amendment was introduced. Inadvertently it dealt only with the veterans of the great war, but steps have
[Mr. Hazen.J
already been taken to have that situation corrected, and I trust it will be corrected by a supplementary estimate. Three classes were accidently omitted: widows of veterans of the South African war, the widows of imperial soldiers who were domiciled in Canada in 1914, and the children of such widows. My hon. friend will recall that under the War Veterans' Allowance Act widowers are entitled to twice the amount given to single people.


Howard Charles Green: Is the widow with children to be so treated now?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes; that is the intention. These three classes were inadvertently left out when we changed the style and title of the vote in the house.


Howard Charles Green: We told the minister that night they were not covered, but he would not believe us.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: My hon. friend did develop certain doubts about it, and after I retired from the chamber that night I became convinced1 that he was right.


Douglas King Hazen: I am very glad to hear the minister say that the situation is going to be corrected along those lines. That was practically all I rose to say, but while I am on my feet I should like to support the suggestion advanced this evening by the hon. member for St. Boniface, that veterans' homes be established to care for the men of our armed forces who, on being discharged from hospital, are not capable of earning a living on account of their physical condition or on account of their age, and who have no homes. As the hon. member said, when some of these men are notified that they must leave the hospital they say, "Where am I to go? How can I live on $20 a month?"


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: If I may interrupt my hon. friend again, the Department of National Defence is now developing institutions like convalescent homes for the duration of the war, and in all probability this department will take over those homes when the war is finished. I believe there is now one in every province.


Douglas King Hazen: That, I hope, will be
satisfactory.
There is one further matter I wish to deal with. I should like to support the statement made this afternoon by the hon. member for Souris that the insurance principle should be applied to members of our armed forces who have volunteered for overseas service but who have not left the shores of Canada or, in the case of navy and air force personnel, who may

War Appropriation-Pensions and National Health
have left our shores but are still stationed in Canada. The figures I am going to mention are not official, but I believe that at the conclusion of a similar period during the last war some two hundred thousand or more pensions had been granted, while up to the present time in this war I believe only some thirteen thousand pensions have been granted. Of course in many respects this war is different from the last one; the casualties have not been as high and they are not likely to be as high; but apart from it being the right thing to do, I think the government could easily afford to introduce the insurance principle in connection with members of our armed forces who have volunteered for overseas but who remain in Canada. Any man who volunteers for service overseas and who sustains injuries which result in disability, or whose health is affected while serving in Canada, should be entitled to a pension while incapacitated, provided his injury or illness was not caused by failure to obey orders or by his own misconduct. If death ensues as a result of such injury or illness, provision should be made for the dependents. It seems to me that this is the least this country can do.


Mr. W. K. ESLING (Kootenay West):: Recently I received a letter from one of my constituents who told me that he was a veteran of the last war with an eighty per cent pension for gunshot wounds and nerve deafness. He sought relief in what is commonly called a hearing aid. He went to an electrical concern in Victoria, and for that hearing aid he was asked the sum of $189. I placed the matter before the officials of the department of pensions and was gratified to receive a reply in the next mail stating that this man had been communicated with and directed to report to Shaughnessy hospital to have his hearing tested and to receive an appliance. Then, as I understand it, the department is evolving an improved and extended system of testing for deafness and eventually hopes to establish stations at the principal centres, in order that proper tests may be conducted and hearing appliances provided. I am also informed that, aside from the Department of Pensions and National Health, people who are afflicted with disability in their hearing are endeavouring to form a dominion-wide association, to such end that there may be some comfort or relief from their disability. The understanding is that people who suffer from deafness, because of the discouragement and distress of being unable to know what is going on in their presence, commit suicide in numbers many times greater than do those who have the disability of not being able to see. The hope is that when such organization is perfected there may flow from it the good
results which have been achieved by the Canadian National Institute for the Blind, under the direction of Colonel Edward Baker.
May I return to a discussion of the price of this appliance, namely $189. Not long ago I was in touch with a civil servant, grade 2, who had been supplied with one of these appliances for $160. Then, I know of a man in this building who was approached within the past week, and who was asked $175. I am quite sure hon. members will realize just how eagerly a person so afflicted will reach out for any kind of relief. The people who sell this type of apparatus are high-pressure salesmen, and they put pressure on the government, just as they do on individuals. They will approach a man in a quiet room. These salesmen will have good, clear voices, and the experience is that when the appliance is tried out under those very favourable conditions the person who is interested can hear much better. But when he goes on the street with the same appliance, and is confounded with street noises, he gets no more satisfaction from the appliance than he would if an overhead or elevated railway were running above his head.
I appeal, first of all, not to the Minister of Pensions and National Health, but to the Minister of Labour. I ask him to have the combines branch look into this matter. It is generally conceded that these prices are maintained solely by reason of the patents controlled by the manufacturers. It is all very well for a person to pay a high price for a radio. That is a luxury, and it is one's own fault if he gets stung. Nothing could be so low, however, as the vulture who, as a manufacturer, takes advantage of his patents to prey upon the afflicted, and perhaps sell them something which in a short time will become useless. I am told that every part of the apparatus in more general use is made and patented as a non-standard or irregular size. Those parts are not turned out in standard sizes or types. The plugs, terminals, tubes, sockets, amplifiers and the cases in which the [DOT]batteries are placed are of such sizes that, if anything goes wrong, one must return to the company to obtain a replacement. It is impossible to make repairs otherwise.
I have gone into this matter extensively with people who understand what they are talking about. First of all, I am asking the Minister of Labour to put his combines branch to work on this matter. That may require some time. Accordingly I would go to the Minister of Finance, and request him to make inquiries of the wartime prices and trade board in order to determine just what a fair price for this
4810	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Pensions and National Health
instrument would be. I have been advised that I need go no further than to a man versed in electronics or to a good radio mechanic, either of whom could tell me the price for which such an instrument could be constructed. I may be wrong, but I place before the minister the information as I have obtained it.
I have said that one could obtain the information from a radio mechanic. May I point out, in passing, that at huge expense the government maintains a national research council. In their laboratories they have all the equipment for manufacturing signal outfits. To-day they are responsible for millions of dollars' worth of equipment of that kind. I am^ told that the signalling outfit is simply a hearing apparatus on a larger scale. Why not go to the national research council, put their engineers to work and find out at what price this apparatus can be supplied. Then let the government take hold of these patents, and pay the owners a royalty. If the patents belong to them they are entitled to some compensation. But they are not entitled to prey upon those who suffer. An affliction of that kind is bad enough; but on too many occasions a man spends his last cent of savings in the hope of getting just a little relief from the apparatus. I say the government is justified in asking the national research council to ascertain at what price this instrument can be produced. I have been told, on the very best authority, that the instrument which is in general use in Canada to-day can be sold at a profit for as little as $25-and that is very much different from $189. While it may1 be said I am talking at random, I am simply asking the proper authorities to have the research branch look into this matter, to ascertain just to what extent I am wrong.
There are other matters of a somewhat similar nature which require attention. I think, first, about artificial limbs. Anyone who suffers frofn the loss of a limb must feel the sting from the expense connected with the purchase of the relief which he must have. The government maintains such a plant, and manufactures these articles. Belts, limbs, hands, shoes and the like would be in the same category. My suggestion is that while the government has such an institution in Toronto, it might very well establish two or three across Canada. Let the government employ in such plants the men who have been conducting business independently. Pay those men good wages. They are experts in their line and are entitled to proper compensation. But I contend' it is the duty of the government to see that unfortunate people are not made to suffer.

The other day I came across a poor boy who is supporting a widowed mother. He has a small job but, on account of infantile paralysis it is necessary for him to wear a special shoe with a steel support, for which he must pay $28. It is true that this may have nothing to do with the department of pensions; but I.would suggest that inasmuch as this department has specialists who make these shoes, the government should be generous enough to let unfortunate people like this boy buy these at actual cost. To have to pay $28 makes a considerable dent in his little weekly cheque.
I realize that the minister's intentions in this direction are good, but I wish particularly to emphasize the importance of the government taking over these patents and providing the general public with such apparatus as may be necessary at a price which is fair and then paying an equitable royalty to the patentees.
Mr. MACKENZIE '(Vancouver Centre): I thank my hon. friend for his constructive suggestions. I think he largely answered himself the question which he asked in regard to hearing aids. The department has set up a board of experts who will approve all hearing devices. The intention is to issue and maintain hearing devices to those who suffer from this disability as a result of service. I think we have the newest devices and appliances available. We have also taken measures to control the prices at which these will be bought. They will be issued, without cost, to those who are pensioned for this disability.


William Kemble Esling: As Minister of Pensions and National Health, does the minister not think this service should be extended to those unfortunates who are not ex-service men?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I doubt very much if we would have jurisdiction in regard to civilians. We are primarily concerned in this department with questions of pensions. We have certain fields of jurisdiction in connection with health, but I doubt if we would have any power to take such action at the present time.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I was sorry I was not here on June 18 when the question of grants to widows of ex-service men came up. It was found necessary to reduce the qualifications from eighty per cent disability to fifty per cent, but I think it might have been reduced to thirty per cent. These women are getting older, and I do not like the principle of making this appear like charity when it is their right. A short time ago the hon. member for Brantford City referred to Toronto General and Christie Street hospitals

War Appropriation-Pensions and National Health
and tried to compare them as far as noise in the immediate vicinity was concerned. They are not comparable. The Toronto General hospital is of fireproof, concrete construction. It is true that there is some noise from College street during the day when the windows are open, but you do not get that noise at night.


William Ross Macdonald: They go to bed early in Toronto.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Some of them do. Perhaps, when, the hon. gentleman comes to Toronto he has nothing to do and has to go to bed. I do not think the impression that these two places are comparable should be allowed to get abroad because they are not. Christie Street hospital was originally built as a factory; it is mill construction. One thing that has not been mentioned and that is very important is the number of trains that pass there. The hon. member said that when he was in Christie Street hospital he did not find it so bad, but conditions then were not like what they are to-day. There were not hundreds of trains passing at that time.


William Ross Macdonald: I
did not make any such statement.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I thought the hon. gentleman said that, but some one did. Conditions to-day are entirely different from what they were before. Think of the traffic there is passing along those lines and the traffic that will continue to pass until the end of the war. I venture to say that a large train passes there at least every half hour, and then there is shunting and other traffic. I should1 like the minister to tell me how many trains pass there per day or per hour. I want to know how thorough this survey was. I want to know whether he or any of those who made the survey ever visited the hospital and! spent a couple of days there to see what conditions were like. Did they spend a night there? There is a bridge factory quite close where riveting is going on all the time. I visit that hospital a great deal and I do not think the survey that was made was complete. It is true that we shall probably have to continue using Christie Street hospital because we are short of beds, but to spend $500,000 for, I believe, 340 beds-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Over 400.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: The hon. member for Brantford City said that this would have to be done as an emergency. Office space has been required in Ottawa and we have put up temporary buildings of one kind and another. The Department of National Defence built
a hospital at Camp Borden containing about a thousand beds. I do not think that cost any $500,000, even fully equipped, and it is a good hospital. If we have to have temporary hospitals, let us have them, but do not let us put up a permanent structure in a factory district where there are all kinds of noise all the time.
Can the minister state what locations have been offered by the city of Toronto? What is the construction of this hospital to be? Will he tell me anything further that he can in connection with the survey? I do not suppose this is the time to discuss the question of salaries paid to the staff, because that would come under non-war estimates.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The building proposed will be of fireproof construction and will contain 460 beds. I have no information as to the number of trains that pass in a day. The experts who were there made a most thorough survey. They were men of the highest calibre, as will be seen by looking at their names which appear in the return tabled the other day. There were also members of the staff who live in the hospital and whose opinion should have some weight.
I have listened to the debate to-day, and with but one exception I cannot complain of the tone or tenor of the debate. I am largely in sympathy personally with many of the sentiments which have been expressed with reference to Christie Street hospital. If one listened to the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Bruce) one would think that I was the author of some enormity known as Christie Street hospital, whereas it was a legacy which I received1 from the government of which he was a strong supporter. I am far from advocating that this is an ideal location. On going through the order in council passed in 1918 I found that the city of Toronto actually offered a site in High Park as an alternative to Christie street, but that was rejected by those who were advising the government of the day.
The proposed extension is urgent; it is required immediately, it is imperative that it be built. At the present time, on account of the difficulty with regard to priorities it would be impossible to commence the building of a large hospital in a preferable place. That is the simple fact. In the second place, we could not have a duplication of staff at the present time because we could not get the trained personnel. As I said previously this evening, we are being assisted by national defence services who are supplying some staff to help with the more serious cases in our own hospitals. These are the two major
War Appropriation-Pensions

and National Health
reasons. I can see no possibility of commencing a major hospital at the present time. We have been in consultation with the authorities in the city of Toronto and have offered to send our officers to confer with the city authorities about a site and possibly to draw up plans so that they will be ready at the proper time. That, in my judgment, would be immediately after the war is concluded. The hospital could be constructed as a priority construction project on the site which the city of Toronto and the soldier organizations consider the most suitable. At the present time, however, no matter what my wishes may be, and I am as sympathetic as any hon. gentleman who has spoken in favour of better facilities, it is absolutely impossible to do anything but what we are doing in regard to this extension costing 8500,000.


Gordon Graydon: The minister speaks of the drawing up of plans and the selection of a site for a new hospital to be built at the conclusion of hostilities. Has he any information to give to the committee as to how long it would take, after the conclusion of hostilities, to erect a hospital and put it into operation fully equipped to handle perhaps the large numbers of men who will have to be hospitalized during this war?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I think it would take at least two years to construct a hospital of the dimensions mentioned. I might say that there is other hospital accommodation in the vicinity of Toronto. The national defence department has a hospital at Oakville. We are to build an occupational centre on the lake shore, with about 400 beds. We have also recently purchased from the Oddfellows' association in Toronto a 200-bed hospital. So that there will be during the war many supplementary hospitals. Chorley Park is also being used as a hospital.


Gordon Graydon: Does the minister not think the problem, which he is facing now and which he readily admits, and which I think has been pretty well established by the addresses made by hon. members who have taken a great interest in this problem, will become more acute than it is now as the war progresses?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I do not think so. With this extension and the supplementary facilities, I think we shall be able to meet any problem that arises. We have envisaged a certain reserve capacity in all our hospitals and I believe we can meet any situation that will develop.


Grote Stirling: As to the extension am I right in supposing that the proposal is to build stories on top of the present building?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is a new wing.


Grote Stirling: An entirely new wing. Is it to be a one-storey building alongside the large building there?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It goes over the top of the kitchen.


Grote Stirling: Then it is proposed to build other stories on top of the existing foundation?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is right.


Grote Stirling: With regard to that foundation, am I right in supposing that when it was laid down it was built with the idea of carrying a great deal more than its present load?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: May I ask where these sites are that were offered by the city?
I understand that three were offered by the city.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Not one so far.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: How much would it cost per bed to build a hospital that would be a temporary structure, not permanent like what is proposed to-day? I have another suggestion. There are many clubs around the city of Toronto which might be used for convalescent homes. I am sure that the citizens who belong to these clubs, golf clubs and so on, that are not too far out of the city, would be only too glad to let the department have the use of them. There was a great friend of mine in Christie Street hospital for about fifteen or twenty years only because he did not have any other place to go. It seems to me that with very little staff some of these clubs could accommodate a lot of beds. There is one hospital in Rosedale at the present time under the Department of National Defence, and the old government house in Toronto is also being used as a hospital. I cannot see the point in putting up a permanent building, in view of the length of time it would take to build a fireproof building on the present site and the difficulty of getting materials and labour.
I think it would take a very long time to build, and I suggest that temporary buildings be put up instead of a permanent structure.

War Appropriation-Pensions and National Health


Mrs. CASSELMAN:: The minister has been speaking of the difficulty of getting materials, of priorities and such matters. May I ask what progress is being made in the building of a soldiers' unit in the University hospital at Edmonton? I hope that is one hospital that will be satisfactory. The hospital is a wing of a civilian hospital there. It is in a district well chosen, quite easy to get at, and an easy place for relatives and friends to visit. It has been overcrowded. I saw the blueprints a short time ago, and I believe the money has been voted. When will it be completed? Might I make one suggestion. There is plenty of territory around there for convalescent homes. Convalescent homes of the cottage type might be built near the soldiers' wing in Edmonton.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The specifications are about completed for the Edmonton extension, and the contract will be advertised in about a month from now.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: A return that was brought down, sessional paper 327, shows that there are women in Christie Street hospital. Can the minister tell me how many there are there, and in this new addition will there be a separate wing set aside for women?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I understand that there are twenty women there, but most of them have been removed from Christie Street to Chorley Park.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Is
that the only place where women of the armed forces are treated?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In every district they are receiving treatment.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: There is no special hospital for them?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No.


Howard Charles Green: This item amounts to $4,225,000 and is described as being for "treatment and pension examinations-members and ex-members of the defence forces (present war)." This very item brings up, I think, the key problem with regard to the men who are discharged from the forces. For that reason I am sorry that the minister has not seen fit to explain the stand of the government with regard to a suggestion that has been made by many of the members of the house to-day that the insurance principle should be reinstated in dealing with pension applications from men who have not served beyond Canada. So
many men have been discharged from the forces during the present war as medically unfit. I think every member of the house has found it difficult to understand why such a large number of men taken in as category A should become unfit during their service in the forces. Yet that is the case. Thousands and thousands of men have been taken in as category A and discharged as category E, but only a very small proportion of them have been able to qualify for pension. I am not blaming that particularly on the minister's department; I think perhaps it was because of the law; and I suggest that the law should be altered. As the minister knows, throughout the whole of the last war the men in the forces were protected by this insurance principle. That principle is to be found in section 11, subsection 1, paragraph (a) of the Pension Act, which states in effect that a man can get a pension, where the injury or disease or aggravation thereof-and "aggravation thereof" is important with regard to disease, particularly-was attributable to or was incurred -these are the key words, "or was incurred"- during such military service. In other words, in. the last war, if men were taken in as fit, and they became unfit on account of injury or disease, whether they served in Canada or overseas, they were entitled to a pension. The same principle applied during the present war up to and including May 20, 1940. At the outbreak of war the government by order in council made that principle applicable. But then, for some reason or another, a change was made, and now the insurance principle applies only where a man has served out of Canada; if he has served within Canada only he must show that his injury or his disease or the aggravation thereof arose out of or was directly connected with military service. I know in my own experience, particularly in the case of disease, time after time the man cannot qualify for a pension. He enlists category A; he comes out category E, perhaps disabled for life, but he cannot qualify for a pension. One cannot explain that to the public, nor can one explain it to the man. People take the view, "This man was perfectly fit when he enlisted; he has been in the army and has come out unfit; he should get some pension." I suggest to hon. members that this provision must be changed, and changed without any further delay.
We had an argument about that in the committee on returned soldier problems which sat in 1941, I think it was. As a result a compromise was reached and subsection 3 of
4814	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Pensions and National Health
section 11 of the Pension Act was inserted. That deals only with hardship cases, where a man is in necessitous circumstances and where his disability is serious; in the discretion of the commission he may be awarded some pension; the commission also has discretion as to the amount. Some cases have been covered under that section, so that it was of benefit. But I suggest that the time has now come to go the whole length and restore the insurance principle to the pension law of Canada. I suggest to the minister that where a man enlists, is qualified to go overseas, and is ready to go overseas, or in other words is regarded by the public as ready to go and do the fighting, that man should be covered by the insurance principle. I do not ask it for the men who are going to stay in Canada, but on behalf of the men who enlist to go and fight.
I do not wrnnt to weary hon. members, but there was a return brought down on April 1, 1943, order No. 98, in answer to a question by the hon. member for Lake Centre. It shows that, as of December 31 last year, 64,401 men had been discharged from the three forces as medically unfit. Of that number, 57,118 were men who had served only in Canada. The same return shows that, as of January 31, 1943, just a month later than the army figures, there had been only 3,286 pensions granted and another 1,500 had been allowed but were not actually in payment, making a total of 4,786.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is 7,000 now.


Howard Charles Green: Well, there have been more men discharged since those dates.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Oh, yes.


Howard Charles Green: And of course more pensions have been granted. But the proportion is very, very small. My submission is that that shows there is something wrong with our pension law as it stands at the present time.


Grote Stirling: All the 64,000 must have been A category when they went in.


Howard Charles Green: I asked a question back in March to get that information. An order was passed on March 29, but I have not yet got the answer.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Does my hon. friend say that an order affecting our department was passed in March?
TMr. Green.]


Howard Charles Green: On March 29 an order was passed for an answer to these questions by myself:
.1. How many men who w'ere taken on the strength of the Canadian army as being in category "A" have been discharged as category "E"?
2.	Of this number, how many became category "E" during service abroad?
In other words, they would be covered by the insurance principle.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is another department.


Howard Charles Green: The next question:
3.	How many of the last-mentioned group have been granted pensions?
4.	Howr many have been granted pensions who became category "E" during service in Canada?
I have not yet been able to get an answer to those questions.
This defect in the pension law has a further result. The man who is discharged as medically unfit is handicapped in getting treatment. If he gets a pension he is entitled to treatment, but in other cases he can get treatment, I believe, only for a period of a year. I believe he can now get free treatment for a year?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.
Mr, GREEN: Every discharged man can. But in some cases a man cannot be cured in a year. I have on my desk now the papers in the case of a man who has had to take expensive treatments running for more than a year, and he is unable-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: He can get treatment to the completion of the treatment.


Howard Charles Green: This man has been unable to get it. The treatments were stopped at the end of the year. I took the matter up with the department.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Could I have the details of that case?


Howard Charles Green: I will give the minister the case. If these men had been granted pensions they would get the treatment.
Finally, one other point which I wish the minister would clear up is with regard to the programme for reconditioning men. We were told about a year ago last Easter that there was some great plan on foot for reconditioning men. If a man had hernia or some other trouble which could be cured, he was to be taken in to a departmental hospital and treated so that he would become fit. We have never

War Appropriation-Pensions and National Health
been able to find out just what was done along that line. I wish the minister would tell us now how far the government has got with this reconditioning programme, both for men who were about to enlist and for men who were already in the forces.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In regard to reconditioning cases, of course that is no longer proceeding under this department. There is a subsequent order in council to which I referred the other day, whereunder they are taken in in lower categories, and this work is being carried out under national defence department auspices. That is under order in council 2291 and order in council 2229. Up to January 1, 1943, there were 689 cases altogether.


Howard Charles Green: How many was it expected would be treated' under that provision? We thought there were going to be a good many thousands.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I have no estimate now.


Howard Charles Green: Has the plan broken down, or is it being carried on actively?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It has been taken over by another department and the reconditioning is done direct by national defence.


Howard Charles Green: What about this Pension
Act and the insurance principle?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is an old question of discussion between my hon. friend and myself.


Howard Charles Green: I think the minister would agree with me if he could speak sub rosa, or under the table.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I will not contradict my hon. friend on that point at all. My hon. friend knows that we discussed it thoroughly, as he mentioned, in 1941. Without a question of doubt a substantial body of opinion in the country favours the adoption of the insurance principle, and among ex-servicemen themselves, I believe, opinion is more or less unanimous, as indicated at various conventions of ex-servicemen.
I think the broadening we were able to effect-in 1941 did a tremendous amount of good. About ten per cent of the cases were allowed under section 11, subsection 3. Of the 7,000, roughly 719 were allowed, which has proved to be beneficial in difficult cases. My hon. friend is aware that we did extend1 substantially the definition of theatre of active war, so that the only people excluded to-day from the
insurance principle are those who never left Canada. Those who go overseas and come back are protected for the rest of their service in Canada until the conclusion of the war, and in regard to the air force, the navy and the army, they are all protected outside Canada and in certain cases, as referred to by my hon. friend, within Canada, although those cases are not likely to arise.
Whether the insurance principle should be adopted or not is a question of government policy on which I am not free to say more than I have said, but I am fully aware of the demand for it, especially on the part of exservicemen, and my sympathies might be strongly in favour of it if I were free to express them.	.


Mr. GRAHAM:: I wish to add a word to the discussion that has taken place between the member for Vancouver South and the Minister of Pensions. Speaking as a returned man, I am pleased to hear the hon. member for Vancouver South echo my own thought, that the returned men generally could hardly hope to have a more sympathetic minister handling the affairs of this department than the present Minister of Pensions and National Health. We are all agreed that he is moved by a great desire to be not only fair but very generous, and that is as it should be in our attitude to the men who enlist for active service.
I suggest to the minister that in this particular war the ability to determine health conditions and the true category of enlisted men is much greater than it was in the last war. I can see that in the last war, owing to the difficulty which the medical officers had in examining men on enlistment, there would be some cases that would be open to doubt whether the injury or illness had resulted from service conditions. But in this particular war, it seems to me, we have so improved the X-ray examinations and other methods now known to medical science as to exclude the possibility of certain physical weaknesses not being detected, and we have taken such great care in the application of these new safeguards against men getting into the armed services who are not physically fit that I, like the hon. member for Vancouver South, feel that the time has come definitely when this country should embark upon the insurance principle which he has discussed so ably. As a returned man and a member of the Liberal party, I join with him in urging the minister to continue the struggle to have that principle adopted, knowing how difficult it is for the individual to discharge the onus of substantiating his case before any tribunal if the facts are difficult to ascertain. On the other hand, the department has the
4816	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Pensions and National Health
records and all the ability to determine at the time of enlistment a man's physical condition, and having given him a category and accepted his services, we should assume the responsibility that goes with that acceptance and see that the principle is adopted as a basic principle in the Canadian treatment of soldiers, sailors and airmen on active service.


Mr. EDWARDS:: I would be heartily in favour of what has been advocated by the two previous speakers but for the doubts and misgivings I have arising out of the high proportion numerically of those who have been mustered out of the army, the navy and the air force within a comparatively short time after their enlistment. Those figures would surely give a layman an impression contrary to that suggested by the hon. member for Swift Current.


Roy Theodore Graham: I believe there is a provisional period that still permits of further examination, and some of those figures will refer to those persons who are further examined and found not to be in a proper state of health.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is of recent origin, I am told by my advisers. In regard to those discharged, it is only fair to point out that up to March 31, 1943, 19-5 per cent in the army had less than three months' service, 42-9 per cent had less than six months and 69-4 per cent had less than one year's service.


Howard Charles Green: And over one year?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is 30-6 per cent.


Manley Justin Edwards: On the basis of those
figures it does seem to me that if you are to adopt the insurance principle, using that term in its best sense, there would need to be considerable tightening up in the medical examination of the men at the time they are inducted into the Canadian army. The tact that there is such a high proportion suggests to my mind at least that the medical examination of these men at the time they were inducted into the service was not of the kind to which the hon. member for Swift Current has referred; otherwise surely there would not be those numbers or that proportion of men discharged from the army in category E within such comparatively short periods. It seems to me inconceivable that a proper medical examination would not have disclosed a much higher proportion of those who were diseased or suffering from other disabilities than the records apparently show. I think there is some criticism to be directed 
to the medical officers in the three armed services who admitted these men. I had an example of one man who was certainly away over the age limit specified during the first year of the war, who got as far as England and was then returned to this country. In speaking to him in an effort to help him I said, "It is perfectly obvious, sir, that you have one eye that is bad; I would judge that probably you cannot see out of that eye." He admitted that this was correct. Then I said, "The question naturally arises, how did you get by?" The suggestion was that he had memorized the chart and was able to fool the medical officer.


Mr. BLAIR:: Did he falsify his age?


Mr. EDWTARDS:: I have not the slightest
doubt he did, and in that he was aided and abetted by others in the armed forces, a practice which is not unknown to old soldiers. He was a fine patriotic citizen, but the fact that he was permitted to pass, I believe, three medical examinations before he was eventually sent back to this country as unfit for service raised doubts in my mind as to the propriety of the medical examinations that are given brave men who offer their lives in the service of their country. I think the figures quoted disprove the foundation for the argument advanced by the hon. member for Swift Current. But it was not with respect to that that I rose to question the minister. I was prompted by the question directed to the minister by the hon. member for Edmonton East. I did not know this department had a wing of the civic hospital, which, apparently, it built and operates or to which it contributes. In Calgary we are fortunate in having what we are led to believe will be, when completed, one of the most modern and most completely equipped hospitals to be found anywhere in Canada or perhaps on this continent, for all of which we are duly grateful and appreciative. I commend the minister and his department for having provided, even at this late date, a fine hospital for our pensioners. I think it was a disgrace that the building on 8th avenue should have been used as a hospital all these years; I am sure the rents paid would have been sufficient to build two or three first class hospitals.
I come now to a question which has bothered me, as a result of the discussion which has been precipitated here by hon. members from the fair city of Toronto, in regard to the location of these hospitals. I was of opinion not only that the hospital in Calgary was badly located from every point of view, but that the new hospital might properly have

War Appropriation-Pensions and National Health
been located where I, as a layman, naturally would think a hospital should be situated- in some place with broad grounds, away from the noise, dust, smoke and distraction of city life. But every doubt or misgiving that I had in regard to the location of the new hospital in Calgary was answered, to my satisfaction at least, by one consideration, namely, the representations of the pensioners themselves. When the Canadian Legion and the representatives of these invalid soldiers come forward and say, "We want a hospital, not out in the foothills, not out on the shores of a lake but as centrally located as we can get it, so that we may have access to the movies and to the attractions afforded by a downtown district, where we will be readily accessible to our friends and relatives who want to come and see us," that settles it for me. When I am told by the men and women whose duty it is to wait upon these soldiers that the men undergoing treatment want to be downtown in the city, for the reasons I have mentioned, I say that where the soldiers want it is where it shall be, as far as I am concerned. I believe that that consideration should outweigh all others, because if the soldier undergoing treatment would'be unhappy or lonesome, no matter how beautiful the grounds might be in some remote district, where his friends would have difficulty in getting to him and he would not see the people going by, then I say the wish of the soldiers should determine the location of the hospital. I should like to hear some expression from the minister as to what the soldiers undergoing treatment in Christie Street hospital have to say with regard to the location of the hospital and what they would say if, as has been advocated, the hospital should be located six or eight miles from downtown Toronto.
I should like the minister to state also the policy of his department in regard to the suggestion I have heard enunciated and which I would understand has been carried out in some cases at least, that at certain points his department cooperates with the municipal authorities in building additions to civic hospitals, and under what circumstances that will be done, if at all. I am reminded now that at the time the new hospital in Calgary was being considered, very strong representations were made to the department that it might well cooperate with the city of Calgary in building a new civic hospital, so that I should like to know whether there is any principle underlying the policy of the department
of not going into partnership with municipal authorities in the construction of hospitals for pensioners.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In the first place the policy of the department is to utilize as far as possible the hospitals they have had through the years, and to extend them, because as a rule the men themselves prefer those hospitals to any others. In the second place, where the pension department has no hospital facilities at the present time, we may agree, as we have done in two instances already-in Edmonton and in Ottawa-to take steps to extend existing hospital facilities in these places. That step is in contemplation at one other point at the present time, but that only happens where there are no hospitals of our own as such,


Roy Theodore Graham: I cannot let the argument of the hon. member for Calgary West go unanswered. He suggests that my argument in favour of the insurance principle is not borne out, because some figures might seem to indicate that medical officers employed by the government may not have performed their duties thoroughly in examining men who offered themselves for enlistment. I submit that his very statement, accepting his inferences as correct, places the onus still more squarely upon the government and this country. What is the position? In a moment of patriotism a man comes to offer himself for enlistment in the service of his country. Such men know that if they were accepted they will have to give up their ordinary work and leave their homes. I do not think it is possible for any person to say what will be the result of service in a theatre of War, particularly to those who were not examined thoroughly enough to have any defects discovered; but I believe the principle should be recognized that the onus is on the country to say to that man, when he appears to enlist, "You are well enough to undergo the sendee we expect of you" or, after examination, "You are not fit to undergo that, and therefore you can not enlist and must return to your civilian environment and occupation". But if we as a country accept the man in a given category, despite the fact that the medical officers who examined him may have been careless, or even derelict in their duty, I think the onus is upon us, and that no man can thereafter say just how much that man's disability has been increased by reason of active service. Certainly it would be unfair to the individual to say, "We made a mistake; we were careless in our examination. We should never have accepted you. And because of that we refuse to accept the responsibility of recognizing that your
4S18	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Pensions and National Health
duties may have added to your physical disabilities." So that I do not think .the argument advanced by the hon. member for Calgary West in any way changes the principle I urged1 upon the minister as one which should be recognized in dealing with those who enlist in our armed forces.


Major James William Coldwell: In the discussion I have heard I agree with the hon. member for Swift Current. However, that is not what I rose particularly to say. I understand the minister has allowed a great deal of latitude in the discussion of this item, and as I have been unable to be in the house because of other matters perhaps I might be permitted to say a few words on another problem. I wanted to bring the attention of the minister again to a condition which exists by reason of the number of medical men taken into the army, particularly from our rural districts in the west.
I have heard medical men say that if our armed services had one medical service; if it were united instead of being divided four ways, there would be ample medical attention for both the armed forces and the civilian population. I know that during the winter the minister made every effort to meet the conditions in the rural areas, and for that I wish to thank him. However, his efforts were unsuccessful. I am thinking of the situation which applied in my own constituency at Lucky Lake, a very large area in which there are some 7,000 people and two or three hospitals, but no doctor, no nurse and no medical aid of any description. During last winter, which was a bitter and a long one, there were occasions when people were actually unable to get medical assistance before they died. This is a very serious situation, and one which exists not only in my own province, but also in other provinces, including that represented by the minister himself. I am wondering if some plan cannot be worked out whereby aid could be given to the rural districts to relieve this situation. It is indeed a terrible situation when we find people living twenty, thirty and forty miles away from a doctor, sometimes in communities where there are hospitals, and yet unable to obtain attention when that attention is needed.
I am not criticizing the minister, because I know that in the past winter he did endeavour to relieve the situation, but without success. It is true that, owing to the fact that medical men have moved away from some of the cities, others have gone in to take their places. I am told by medical men -of course, usually by the well-established ones-in these large cities that there are quan-

titles of doctors in the cities, and that the men who are coming in are really not needed in those areas.
One hesitates to suggest that anything in the nature of compulsion should be exercised. However, we are exercising compulsion in respect of men required to join the army, and it seems to me that if voluntary efforts fail we shall have to work out some scheme of compulsion applied to medical men and nurses, so that they may be placed in districts where they are needed, districts in which the emoluments and living conditions may not be quite so attractive. Would the minister say a word on this point?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I thank the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar for bringing this matter to the attention of the committee. We had some correspondence in the winter months about the situation in Saskatchewan. Since that time I have been reading some dispatches describing the condition in the United States. I find that the situation in parts of that country was much more intense than it has been in Canada. The trouble has been, first of all, on account of doctors moving away from the country to the oities. That difficulty is pronounced. For instance, the city of Winnipeg, with the greatest number of medical enlistments of any part of Canada, has actually more doctors at the present time than it had before the war. The medical procurement board has been conducting a national survey, as my hon. friend knows. I understand that the report, has nearly been completed or is about to be completed, and that it deals with this situation. However, I have not yet seen the report myself, and I do not know what has been recommended.
In Australia compulsion has been exercised, giving medical doctors the rank of major. They have been compelled to serve in districts where they were required. Similar action has been taken in Great Britain, so that doctors might be moved to certain places, and I understand such action is about to be taken in the United States. That may be the only remedy in Canada, unless we succeed in meeting the situation in another way.
Our conditions have been greatly helped by defence service doctors who assist us in the hospitals. But the greatest difficulty has been experienced in remote areas, like Lucky Lake. However, I shall look into the report on the matter and see if there is any further information I can give my hon. friend at a later date.


James Alexander Marshall: Will the minister make a statement with respect to the future policy

War Appropriation-Pensions and National Health
of the government in connection with the Colonel Belcher hospital?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I forgot to answer the hon. member. I believe his question was as to what future use would be made of the old Colonel Belcher hospital? I understand that as soon as the other one is opened, about September, it will be used as an emergency hospital for emergency cases, and that later on it will probably be used for administrative headquarters, and for other purposes.


James Alexander Marshall: I understand it is under
lease?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


James Alexander Marshall: How long has the lease to run?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: One year still remains in the lease.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Treatment, Royal Canadian Mounted Police,
Mr. SHAW:: Since this appropriation of $110,000 is a war appropriation, I would assume it does not apply to the regular members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police force. We know that following the outbreak of the war many of the old exmembers of the force were invited to rejoin the service for a period of one year at a time. Then, certain special constables were taken on strength to act as guards. Does this appropriation apply only to men who have been taken on temporarily since the outbreak of war?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is more or less correct. That is the explanation why there is a vote in the war appropriation measure. There is another one in the civil estimates.


Frederick Davis Shaw: On what basis is assistance given to those individuals so employed?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The same treatment as for constables. The basis of the estimate is as follows:
The estimated per capita cost of treatment for members of the force is $25 per annum.
2,550 regular members of the force at
$25 per capita	 $ 63,750
500 new members at	$25	per capita...	12,500
2,500 special constables (veterans) at
$12.50 per capita	 31,250
150 special constables (security service), at $12.50 per	capita	 1,875
Unforeseen expenses		 625
Total	 $110,000
The families of these men are not entitled to free medical attention; the per capita cost is, therefore, approximately one-half.


Frederick Davis Shaw: The first figure refers to regular members of the force.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, regular members, taken on as a result of the war.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Pensions, defence forces, fishermen, seamen, special constables R.C.M.P., civil servants, auxiliary services and A.R.P. workers, $3,500,000.
Howard Charles Green: Would the minister tell us how many in each classification are receiving pension, and how the vote is split up ?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The figures for last year are as follows:
Mariners	 284
Fishermen	 nil
Mariners-supplementary	 38
Fishermen-supplementary	 nil
Auxiliary service	 1
Civilian employees	 4
R.C.M.P. special constable guards	 nil
A.R.P. personnel pension	 nil
Corps of civilian fire fighters for service
in the United Kingdom	 nil
Section 46A, Pension Act	 39
Active force	5,670
Reserve force	 74
R.C.A.F.-R.A.F	 550
6,294
C.W.A.C	 3
R.C.A.F	 2


Howard Charles Green: Is that the total number getting pensions as of June 1, 1943?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The return is dated June 1, but it gives the situation as of March 31, 1943. The amounts are:
Pensions-
Active	
$2,252,385	35Reserve	
22,720	29Seamen	
183,460	63Auxiliary services	
1,244	04Civilian employees	
2,188	49Air training	
286,764	16Supplementary to imperial awards	7,482	41
Injury allowances-
A.R.P. workers	 1,631	14
Supplementary-
Italian and Belgian	 1,429	68
Pensions-[DOT]
C.W.A.C	
305	09W.R.C.N.S	
126	77R.C.A.F. (W.D.)	
133	22


Howard Charles Green: What about the navy?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They are included in the active forces.
4820	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Pensions and, National Health


Howard Charles Green: Are the fishermen, airmen, special R.C.M.P. constables, civil servants, members of the auxiliary services, A.R.P. workers covered by the same order in council?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Several orders in council have been tabled, but there is a specific one for each branch.


Howard Charles Green: Are the terms different in each case?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I think they are.
. Mr. GREEN: How about the amounts?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am told that they vary in some cases, but not substantially.


Thomas Langton Church: I am surprised that this particular portion of the pensions scheme is just S700,000 less than the scheme to provide for those who are overseas fighting. This subdivision covering defence forces, fishermen, seamen, civil servants, special constables and A.R.P. workers contains a vote of 83,500,000, and the item for those who are actively engaged is only 84,225,000. How many A.R.P. workers are getting pensions?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: None at all as yet.	.


Mr. MacINNIS:: Do all those covered by this item receive pensions on account of disabilities suffered in military action?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Either caused by enemy action or while on duty.


Angus MacInnis: Would that apply to fishermen as well?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Enemy action.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Investigations-dependents allowance board, $80,000.
Frederick Davis Shaw: I understand that the field men, in my part of the country at least, or supervisors of the soldiers' settlement board, carry on investigational work for the dependents' allowance board. In certain instances they are given the authority to appoint representatives in various communities to make investigations for them. I understand that these special investigators are paid on the basis of so much per investigation. I am not satisfied with that arrangement. I feel that a supervisor for the soldiers' settlement board has his hands full with soldier settlement work. I do not wish to cast any reflection upon any individual supervisor, but in many cases these 
men have developed a certain type of mentality as a result of having dealt with soldier settler problems. They have built up certain prejudices from dealing with returned soldiers, and very frequently this is reflected in the treatment recommended for applicants for dependents' allowances. Since we have the new Veterans' Land Settlement Act I feel that these supervisors or field men, whatever you like to call them, should not be asked to undertake inspection work for the dependents' allowance board. I believe the two things should be kept separate and apart.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is done to a lesser degree to-day than it was formerly, but it is really a question of manpower and our having to use what we can get. We have rendered similar services to the soldier settlement board. I think the point of view advanced by my hon. friend would be the ideal one.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I believe you are paying the children's aid society $2.50 per investigation?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Per case.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: In some cases that really is not enough.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The provision for the cost of investigations carried out by the departmental staff is at the rate of $2.50 per case, but provision is also made for the payment to social agencies who carry on similar investigations at the rate of $3,50, plus travelling expenses in both cases.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: There are some cases where they have to go back two or three times.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We pay for that.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I
know that the children's aid societies throughout Canada have had to take on extra staff on account of the work they are doing for the department, and I think a great deal of praise is due them for what they have done.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Post-discharge reestablishment-payment of out-of-work benefits (P.C. 7633), $400,000.
Angus MacInnis: Could the minister give us the amount paid out last year?

IFar Appropriation-Pensions and National Health


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The amounts are as follows:
Out-of-work benefits	 $ 65,781 12
Vocational training	 87,175 53
Farmers or others awaiting
returns, benefit No. 3	 12,295 92
Temporarily incapacitated benefit No. 4	 113,83121
Educational, benefit No. 5	 4,872 58

The number of beneficiaries was 9,579.
Item agreed to.
Sundry services, $15,000.


Gordon Graydon: What does this cover?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Treatment of Canadian fishermen and seamen, $1,000; committee on demobilization, $9,000; contingency fund for temporary assistance, exmembers of the forces, $5,000.


James Alexander Marshall: There is a sum of money included for the demobilization committee?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


James Alexander Marshall: What are the names of the members of the committee, and how much has been allotted for that?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The amount this year is $9,000; last year it was $8,000. It is to provide for a secretary at $6,000; a stenographer at $1,380, and sundry office expenses, transportation and travelling expenses of the committee's staff and consultants.


James Alexander Marshall: What is the name of the secretary?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Mr. Robert England.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Health Branch.
Air raid precautions, $6,589,650.
Gordon Knapman Fraser: On what item may we discuss vitamin B in Canada approved flour?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: On the vote for laboratory analyses and services under the health branch.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Thank you.


Thomas Langton Church: I have had considerable correspondence with the minister regarding air raid precautions. With all due respect, there should be some revision in central Canada of this work. The government has given a lot of money to the provinces and municipalities for
equipment in connection with A.RP. work. No doubt they have done a great deal of good in connection with the war so far, especially on the two coasts and on the St. Lawrence, but in central Canada they have gone too far altogether with blackouts of one hour's duration. We had one in Toronto on the zero night, January 27. In England, which has now almost achieved air supremacy, and where there was a real need for air raid precautions, Mr. Morrison, the Home Secretary, made a statement in the British House of Commons last January that blackouts were to be curtailed and more lights permitted on the streets.
I have had a lot of correspondence with the minister regarding the very elaborate system of blackouts that we have had in the central cities in Canada, in the Toronto and Ottawa districts, and other places in the province of Ontario where there is now practcally no danger. Some people have been talking for years of an invasion by air from the north, from Hudson bay. I see that Mayor LaGuardia, who is on the joint defence board, made a statement in Edmonton to-day that there is no danger now of air raids from Japan on this continent. What he knows about it I do not know, but he is a member of the famous joint defence board. What I say is that this air raid precautions work should have been under the control of the military authorities in the different military divisions if there were any grave danger to the civilian population. When the war started I doubt whether there was a gas mask in many of the districts in Canada.
I think we should have a statement from the government with respect to these hour-long black-outs, which take up so much of the time of the police force and take county judges away from their judicial duties. Some of the police force spend two-thirds or all of their time on this work of air raid precautions, so much so that they have not the time to attend to their proper functions of protecting the civilian population, with the result that several people have been killed on the highways by cars travelling at excessive rates of speed when there were not sufficient police to attend to their heavy civilian and other police duties. But now those in authority are beginning to hearken to the call. Queen's Park has announced that the black-outs are to be cut down to twenty minutes or a half-hour. I think the minister should amend this order in council in this district and make a statement about the whole thing. What is the necessity in central Canada for these long black-outs which cause a lot of suffering to people in hospitals and
4822	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Pensions and National Health
the sick? It may be necessary and is wise to provide air raid precautions equipment for the Atlantic and Pacific coasts and the St. Lawrence. I want it clearly understood that I am not criticizing the splendid work of the volunteers who engage in this work. They are patriotic people who are giving their time free, but we should have some more reasonable situation in reference to black-outs in central Canada.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Will the minister give us a breakdown of this item?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: If I may reply first to the hon. member for Broadview, possibly some other people share his opinions, but I certainly do not. I would like him to recall the early days of the war when the cry was practically unanimous that we were not doing enough in civilian defence, and even a year ago, faced with a menacing situation, the department which is responsible for this work was criticized for not having made ample preparations. Under the most efficient and devoted work of the late Doctor Manion, an organization has been built up of one-quarter of a million splendid voluntary workers throughout the dominion, men and women who are rendering magnificent service, and who should have the eternal gratitude of the Canadian people for the work they are doing outside of their regular working hours for the most part and doing it without any compensation whatsoever and with very little glory attached to it, their satisfaction being the knowledge that they are rendering a fine service to their country.
Most of the equipment that will be required is provided for in this year's estimates. I anticipate that later on the same amount of equipment will not be required as justifies the amount here. This equipment was ordered last year and has not yet been delivered.
In regard to the second point mentioned by the hon. member for Broadview, I agree with him as to the length of the black-outs. I think an hour's black-out is too long, but that is left entirely to the provincial authorities. There is no interference from the director's office in Ottawa in regard to the length of the black-out. The authority is delegated to the provincial premier or the provincial attorney-general as the case may be, whose officers are in liaison with the defences services. They arrange a time which they consider prudent for holding a black-out. I understand that in Toronto they have decided that in future the black-outs will not be of such long duration as the last one, w'hich lasted one hour.


Thomas Langton Church: I appreciate what the
minister has said. So far so good. But if the minister wants to delegate these powers to the provinces and give them such wide jurisdiction over the liberty of the subject in time of war, he must take the responsibility for it. I can tell him this, that placards are put up in every residential district in every municipality in central Canada which are issued, according to the wording on them, under the authority of the minister. These long black-outs may be all right on the Pacific coast and along the St. Lawrence and the Atlantic seaboard, but there is not the same danger now in central Canada, and whoever it was announced that there might be an invasion by air from the north from Hudson bay had no basis for his apprehension, because there are no enemy bases there. A lot of it was simply ridiculous. I can tell you this, as a former chairman of the police commission of Toronto, that the police were so much occupied1 with all this federal work that a large number of them did not have the time to attend to their own police duties. Mounted police and others werd so engaged, with the result that there was no way of checking reckless speeding all over Toronto district. Cars and trucks were passing my house all night long; they were going fifty to sixty miles an hour, and people were being knocked down and injured all over the city, while a great many police were away on this work. I ask only for more reasonable enforcement in central Canada. The minister is well meaning and the A.R.P. people are very good citizens, but they could be given more useful work of other kinds as well in the cities of central Canada such as Toronto and Hamilton, than they are doing.
As regards the order in council relating to black-outs, people of all classes have been summoned and some of them fined. Some of the fines are so large as to be ridiculous as well as inequitable. In the Toronto district the order was enforced to the letter; they were peeping in keyholes and back kitchens and all that sort of thing, whereas in England some of the streets and cars and buses are now lit up. Many people were haled to court. One of our own ministers of the crown was summoned to the police court and fined. A lot of this is not at all reasonable. I do not believe the minister himself believes in it. It has gone altogether too far. All the dominion did was hand over a whole lot of equipment. Now, some of these A.R.P. gentlemen want an increase of gasoline. It is time to make the black-out regulation more reasonable in central Canada,

War Appropriation-National Health
and the order in council should be amended to provide a curtailment of the unreasonable exercise of these powers, which are delegated by the dominion, when it should retain the power itself and hand the matter over to the various military districts all over Canada.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Can
we have a break-down of the item?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes. I have the figures here:
Salaries, $35,000:
Director of A.R.P	 $	8,000
Executive assistant	 4,620
Administrative assistant	 5,220
One clerk,	grade 4	 1,620
Three stenographers, grade 2... .	3,240
One clerk,	grade	2	
1,080One clerk,	grade	1	
720One office	girl	
420

Additional assistance	 9,000
Total salary list	 $ 35,000
Cost of living bonus	 $	1,500
Contributions to unemployment
insurance	 150
Pamphlets, volumes and literature	 200,000
Telephones, telegrams and postage	 3,000
Equipment, orders placed 1942-43. but payment thereon required
1943-44	 1,200,000
New equipment 1943-44	 1,500,000
Respirators, civilian	 2,250,000
Installations of sirens	 50,000
Maintenance of siren system		50,000
Assistance to the provinces and
municipalities	 800,000
Sundries	 25,000
Professional and special services. 30,000 Special training A.R.P. workers. 50,000
Materials and supplies	 100,000
Freight, cartage and express....	25,000
Transportation and travelling...	20,000
Evacuation of persons from
threatened areas	 250,000


Gordon Knapman Fraser: What does "equipment" cover? Does that cover
gas masks?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Purchase of equipment required for completion of the A.R.P. programme for 1943-44; estimated amounts required by items:
Firefighting equipment, et cetera. $ 365,000
Stirrup pumps, et cetera	 200,000
Anti-gas and gas decontamination
equipment	 200,000
Equipment for air raid warning
system, sirens, et cetera....	150,000
Medical and first aid equipment. 150,000 Personnel equipment for A.R.P.
personnel	 350,000
Miscellaneous	 85,000


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That is mostly covered for each coast?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, mostly.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Supplied to the coastal cities and towns?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Douglas King Hazen: Can we get a break-down of the aid to provinces, which I understand is $800,000?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The total amounts expended from cash grants and accountable advances to assist in meeting the cost of organizing provincial and local A.R.P. organizations are as follows:
Prince Edward Island	$ 10.804 60
Nova Scotia	 34,853	10
New Brunswick	 64 424 59
Quebec	
111,380	32Ootamo	
80,020	55lederal district	
4,074	48British Columbia	
110^898	97
Equipment and supplies, the total amount expended by provinces is:
Prince Edward Island	$ 165,907 28
Nova Scotia	
889,536	71New Brunswick	
619,119	86Quebec	
1,026,164	59Ontario	
654,241	04federal district	
94,043	01British Columbia	
1,234,139	76


Douglas King Hazen: When did this commence?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: From the very start of the scheme.


Douglas King Hazen: Well, when is that?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The commencement of the war, September, 1939.


James Alexander Marshall: What was the amount allowed last year?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Allowed to provinces?


James Alexander Marshall: No; the amount allowed for this particular item.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It was $5,450,000.


Douglas King Hazen: The total amount which has been spent for respirators, if I understood the minister correctly, is $2,250,000.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Douglas King Hazen: There are some questions I should like to ask about those respirators, or, as I think I am correct in calling them, gas masks. How many gas masks or respirators



War Appropriation-National Health
are there in the country? Who supplied them? How much was paid to each firm that supplied those respirators? Where are they kept? What steps are being taken to distribute them? Who is looking after the distribution?
When I was in Saint John about three weeks ago I saw some respirators or gas masks, which I presume were the ones that the government had obtained, on sale in the windows of some stores, and if I recollect correctly, the price was $1.75 each.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is $155.


Douglas King Hazen: To-day I received a letter from the common clerk of the city of Saint John enclosing a resolution which was passed by the common council of the city of Saint John on the 8th instant. I should like to bring it to the attention of the minister; it has to do with these gas masks or respirators:
Resolved that the federal government be advised that the common council feel that respirators should be supplied free to all citizens of vulnerable areas, and that therefore neither the city of Saint John nor its citizens should be required to meet the expense incurred by the supplying of respirators but that all Canadians should share equally in this cost.
I bring this resolution to the attention of the minister in the hope that he will give it his serious consideration. I believe, although I am not speaking positively, that in Great Britain the gas masks or respirators were furnished free of charge to the citizens of certain districts. Why should the citizens of this country living in vulnerable areas be compelled to purchase these gas masks? It would appear that the government has spent, as I say, $2,500,000 for these masks, and they are not required by all Canadian citizens. There is some need for them possibly for citizens who are living in certain areas of Canada, but it seems hardly fair that in those districts where they may be required the government should ask citizens to purchase them at $1.25 each, when in other parts of Canada they will not be required. It is of course extremely difficult for many people with large families to purchase these masks at that price. It means that people who are well to do will get them while others who are not so well off will have to go without. The principle is not fair.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: This matter was carefully considered, and the solution adopted was to issue the masks free to those who could not afford to purchase them but to make them available at the price mentioned to those who could. The idea behind H was that greater care would be taken of the

masks if people had the privilege of paying a small amount for them, if they could afford it. As to how many there are in Canada, I would rather not answer that question at the present time, if my hon. friend does not mind. They were supplied to us through the Department of Munitions and Supply. I do not know the source, but I will find that out. They are principally on both coasts and in reserve at the present time, those that have not been distributed. They have been distributed free to voluntary workers in the organization, and a certain number of civilians. It may be necessary to have a change in policy.
Progress reported.
It being five minutes after eleven o'clock, the house adjourned, without question being put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, July 15, 1943