1947-06-18

PETITION


[Stage Direction]
The Clerk of the House laid upon the table the 47th report of the clerk of petitions stating that he had examined the following petition presented on the 9th instant by Mr. Stewart, viz:- of Hugh Kirkpatrick, of Nanaimo, B.C., and allegedly 500,966 other Canadians, praying that the British North America Act be amended by inserting therein a bill of rights; and finds that all the requirements of standing order 68 have been complied with.
Mr. FREDERIC DORION (Charlevoix-Saguenay):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. The rules concerning the presentation of petitions are found in standing order 68, section 7 of which reads as follows
On the next day following the presentation of a petition the Clerk of the House shall lay upon the table the report of the clerk of petitions upon the petitions presented and such report shall be printed in the Votes and Proceedings of that day. Every petition so reported upon, not containing matter in breach of the privileges of this house and which, according to the standing orders or practice of this house, can 'be received, shall then be deemed to be permitted to be read and received.
My contention is that this petition contains irregularities that make it non-receivable. The practice of this house to which section 7 which I have quoted refers is well defined in paragraph 591 of "Beauchesne" third edition, which reads:
The language of a petition should be respectful and temperate and free from disrespect to the Sovereign, or offensive imputation upon the character and conduct of parliament, or the courts of justice, or other tribunal, or constituted authority.
I refer Your Honour to the fourth paragraph of the petition, which reads as follows:
That recent experiences of Jehovah's Witnesses in the province of Quebec prove that throughout the whole dominion basic personal rights are open to attack and loss because of a failure to have them guaranteed by a written constitution.
The words "recent experiences in the province of Quebec" cannot mean anything else than the legal proceedings that were instituted against Jehovah's Witnesses. Therefore this paragraph constitutes an offensive imputation upon the character and conduct of the courts

of justice, which, as is well known, have already rendered decisions on the conduct of Jehovah's Witnesses.
There is another reason why this petition is irregular. It is also a well known fact that matters pertaining to the conduct of Jehovah's Witnesses are at the present time under consideration by some tribunals, namely, courts of the sessions of the peace and the Supreme Court of Canada. Therefore, as it is a matter sub judice, it should not form the subject of a petition before the House of Commons.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I should like first of all to say to' the hon. member that I am very grateful to him for being kind enough to advise me of his intention to raise a point of order today when the report of the clerk of petitions came before the house, because it gave me an opportunity to study the matter.
The petition of Hugh Kirkpatrick of Nanaimo, British Columbia, and 500,966 other Canadians was presented in the house on the 9th instant by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Stewart). Paragraph 4 thereof reads as follows:
That recent experiences of Jehovah's Witnesses in the province of Quebec prove that throughout the whole dominion basic personal rights are open to attack and loss because of a failure to have them guaranteed by a written constitution.
The hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Dorion) takes exception to this allegation on the ground that there is now before the courts of the province of Quebec a case connected with the activities of Jehovah's Witnesses in that province. The hon. member's contention is that the matter, being sub judice, cannot be dealt with on the floor of the House of Commons.
I have failed to find any authority or precedent justifying the contention that a petition cannot be received on the ground that it refers to matters before the courts. There is no reflection on the courts of Quebec in the statement that recent experiences prove that personal rights are open to attack and loss. As a matter of fact I am inclined to think that, as long as the case on trial is not discussed but only referred to, a petition referring to it is quite in order. The prohibition referring to sub judice matters applies particularly to debates but it cannot curtail a citizen's right to present a petition. All authorities agree that the right of petitioning parliament for redress of grievances is acknowledged as a fundamental principle of the constitution. It has been uninterruptedly exercised from very early times and has had a profound effect in determining the main forms of parliamentary

Questions
procedure. The historical aspects of petitioning were originally directed to judicial rather than legislative remedies.
In 1669, the Commons of England passed a resolution declaring that it is the inherent right of every commoner to prepare and present petitions to the House of Commons in case of grievances and the House of Commons to receive the same; that it is an undoubted right and privilege to judge and determine, touching the nature and matter of such petitions, how far they are fit and unfit to be received. The mere mention of recent experiences in the province of Quebec with respect to personal rights is not sufficient to deprive petitioners of their right to request that the British North America Act be amended so as to empower parliament to pass a federal bill of rights in order to secure freedom of speech, press and worship to all people in Canada. The report of the clerk of petitions is in order in the statement that all the requirements of standing order 68 have been complied with and there can be no objection to the petition being received.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Right Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Reconstruction and Supply):: In accordance with the provisions of section 28 of the Trans-Canada Air Lines Act, 1927, I desire to lay on the table a copy of order in council P.C. 2009 of May 23, 1947, respecting advances to the Canadian National Railway Company to enable the company to acquire the remaining capital stock of Trans-Canada Air Lines.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. WRIGHT:: 1.	With what provinces have agreements been reached for the provincial department to handle family allowance investigation work?
2.	What are the financial arrangements with each province in the carrying out of this work?


Mr. MARTIN:: Stand.


Mr. WRIGHT:: 
Paul Joseph James Martin: As the hon. gentleman knows, I would not keep him waiting very long if I could possibly avoid it. Since we have the same objective in mind I hope he will allow the matter to stand for a little while longer. As he appreciates, the matter is one which involves many factors. I shall do my best to give an answer to his important question at the earliest possible moment.


MIGRATION TO BRITISH COLUMBIA FROM OTHER PARTS OF CANADA
Mr. FULTON:: 1.	What is the total number, by provinces, of. those who have moved from other parts of Canada into the province of British Columbia in each year since the 1st January, 1943?
2.	Are any figures available for the current year?


Mr. MacKINNON:: 1.	No information. Although there are no available statistics on the number of persons, by provinces, who have moved from other parts of Canada into the province of British Columbia in each year since the 1st of January, 1943, an estimate has been made, based on the count of ration book distribution, of the net internal migration by provinces for the periods 1941 to 1944 and 1944 to 1946. These estimates show that there has been a net inflow of population into British Columbia of 89,000 between 1941 and 1944 and a further net migration into the province of
56.000	between 1944 and 1946. Since the estimated net movement out of the prairie provinces between 1941 and 1944 was 126,000 and between 1944 and 1946, 101.000, it would appear that most of the gain in population in British Columbia over this period due to internal migration was from the movement of the people from the prairie provinces to British Columbia.
2.	No.


HOLLAND, BELGIUM AND LUXEMBOURG- -AGREEMENT CREATING ECONOMIC UNION
Mr. CHURCH:: Is the government a party to the agreement or treaty made with France by Great Britain as to an economic union of these two countries, and for an economic union with Holland, Belgium and Luxembourg?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No. No agreement has been concluded by the United Kingdom and France regarding an economic union between the two countries. Holland, Belgium and Luxembourg alone are parties to the instruments of agreement creating an economic union between these three countries.
Questions


TRADE MISSION TO CHINA
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Has any trade mission gone to China, and with what results, and is there yet any improvement in the economic conditions of that country?
2.	Is the government aware of the trade treaty recently made with America by China, and is a similar trade treaty under way on behalf of Canada with China, or is one 'being sought there yet?


Mr. MacKINNON:: 1.	No trade mission has been sent to China, but Canada maintains in addition to the Canadian embassy at Nanking, a senior trade commissioner at Shanghai who is keeping the government constantly informed of trade conditions. Economic conditions remain very uncertain and trade greatly restricted without immediate prospects of improvement.
2.	A treaty of friendship, commerce and navigation between the United States of America and the Republic of China was signed on November 2, 1946. The treaty provides for the reciprocal most favoured nation treatment between the two countries.
A commercial modus vivendi between Canada and China was completed on September 26, 1946, in Nanking by an exchange of notes between the Chinese government and the Canadian ambassador to China. The modus vivendi provides for the reciprocal exchange of unconditional most favoured nation treatment. This means that the products of each country on importation into the other country will not be subject to customs duties or charges greater than those which apply to any third country. Similarly any concession which either Canada or China may grant in the future to a third country will be automatically extended to the other. Thus imports into Canada from China will be subject to the intermediate tariff and lower rates rather than the general tariff as heretofore. The tariff treatment which Canada affords to British countries is specifically excepted from the operation of the modus vivendi so that the British preferential system is not affected by it.


COUNCIL OF FOREIGN MINISTERS
Thomas Langton Church: When is the next meeting of the Moscow conference powers, Great Britain, Soviet union and the United States, to be held, and where, and what is the agenda postponed from the Moscow meeting to the next meeting?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The next full meeting of the members of the council of foreign ministers who participated in the recent Moscow conference will be held in London in November. If, however, the foreign ministers of the United Kingdom, the United States of

America, France and the U.S.S.R. are all present at the meeting of the general assembly of the united nations which is scheduled to take place in September, a brief meeting of the council of foreign ministers may be held at that time. No information is available concerning the agenda for these meetings.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. STOKES:: 1.	Has any day or piece work been done in connection with repairs or alterations or otherwise of the armories at Belleville, Ontario, since 1st of January, 1944?
2.	If so, what is the total amount of said work done in each of the years 1944, 1945, 1946 and 1947 to date?
3.	To what persons has payment been made for such work or repairs and how much has been paid to each, and, if not all paid, what are the amounts owing to each of said persons as of this date?



RESERVE ARMY AND CADET TRAINING

Mr. PROBE:: What amount of money has been spent, by military districts or by provinces, in each of the fiscal years from April 1, 1937 to March 31, 1947 for: (a) reserve army training; (b) cadet training?



MOTION FOR PAPERS


Thomas Langton Church: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, cables, orders in council and other documents exchanged between the government of Canada or any officer thereof and the governments of Great Britain, Australia and the United States'of America, or from General MacArtliur and the Right Hon. Dr. Evatt of Australia, in relation to the proposed peace treaty with Japan. Also any correspondence with respect to the rebuilding of the textile industry in Japan to a pre-war standard, as proposed by the United States of America.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I understand that the hon. member is prepared to allow this motion to stand, and I think together we can perhaps modify it and put it in a form in which it can be adopted.
Motion stands.



TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES ARRANGEMENTS FOR SERVICE TO BERMUDA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: 'I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply. In view of recent press reports, and in particular

Inquiries oj the Ministry
a dispatch from Washington which appeared in the Montreal Gazette on June 17, regarding the delay in initiation of Canada's air service to Bermuda arising out of difficulty over use of the United States airport there, would the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply care to make a statement which would clarify this situation?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The following statement has been prepared in answer to this inquiry.
The Canadian government has for long made no secret of its intention to operate an air service southward through Bermuda and the Caribbean area to Latin America. The necessary agreement has been reached with Bermuda and with Trinidad and Jamaica regarding traffic rights, and Trans-Canada Air Lines is anxious to initiate the service at the earliest possible day. In fact this service would have been in operation considerably before this time if it had not been for difficulties arising out of the use of Kindley field, which is the only available air base in Bermuda.
This base, along with certain others in British colonial possessions in the Caribbean, is a United States army base obtained in the destroyer-bases deal during the recent war. It is available for civil use by the United States and by the United Kingdom, of course, but the question of its civil use by the air lines of other countries was left for agreement between the United States and the United Kingdom, and until such agreement has been reached the civil aircraft of other countries are not, apparently, allowed to use the field.
The Canadian government, of course, made known a considerable time ago its desire to use Kindley field, and discussions between the United Kingdom and the United States have, we understand, taken place regarding civil use of this and other Ltnited States military airports in. British possessions farther south. We also understood that general agreement in principle had been reached between the United Kingdom and the United States on this subject. The United Kingdom has informed us that it would have no objection to immediate use of Kindley field by Trans-Canada Air Lines. However, we are informed that the United: States is unwilling to permit any temporary use of Kindley field by Trans-Canada Air Lines or the air lines of any country-other than the United States and the United Kingdom-until formal agreement with the United Kingdom regarding civil use of this and other bases concerned has been signed. We are also informed that
the United States does not wish to sign this agreement unless and until an agreement is signed covering similar use of United States military bases in Newfoundland. Negotiations between the Newfoundland commission of government, and the United States in this connection have been going on over a long period of months, but. no final agreement has as yet been reached. Meanwhile the United States has not- allowed Trans-Canada Air Lines to make use of the air base in Bermuda until it has reached agreement with Newfoundland regarding similar use of United States bases there as a prerequisite to signature of the United Kingdom-United States agreement regarding the base in Bermuda. Until that time, therefore, the Canadian air service to Bermuda and farther south must, much to our regret, be deferred.
We, of course, are not a direct party to any negotiations regarding the bases in Newfoundland, and all we have been able to do is to make known our hope that this matter may be cleared up speedily.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS

[Stage Direction]
FLAG ON POST OFFICE BUILDING IN QUEBEC CITY On the orders of the day:
Mr. JEAN FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata):: Mr. Speaker, I have something very sad to tell you. During the week-end I passed though Quebec city and there was a flag on the mast over the post office. It was a red duster with a big hole in it, and many Americans who were there in convention asked me, "Is this the pattern or design of your flag?" A flag with a big hole in it! I hope it will be changed. Moreover, I would ask the government not to allow that flag to be hoisted after sundown.



DOMINION DAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. A. CRUICKSHANK (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance a question. Does the government intend to waive the meatless days regulation on our national holiday, July 1? If not, why not?


Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of Finance):: The prices board issued a statement the other day announcing that the requirements with respect to meatless days were being relaxed to the extent of allowing frankfurters and weiners, otherwise known as hot dogs, to be sold on that day-as a matter of fact, to be sold on Tuesdays and Fridays from now
Criminal Code

until the end of September at outdoor events, picnics, and the like. Apart from that, it is not proposed to relax the restrictions with respect to meatless days.


George Alexander Cruickshank: What about the second question-why not?


Douglas Charles Abbott: The answer to that is that the continuance of restrictions with respect to meatless days results in a substantial saving of meat which is thereby available for shipment to needy countries.


George Alexander Cruickshank: One day?



CRIMINAL CODE


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture, for the Minister of Justice) moved the third reading of Bill No. 268, to amend the criminal code.
Mr. E. G. McCULLOUGH (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, before this bill is given third reading there are a few words I have to say about it.


James Horace King: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but the question had already been put to the house and no one had risen to speak.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: Mr. Speaker, I doubt whether you heard the hon. gentleman, but when you rose he was on his feet trying to make himself heard.


Edward George McCullough: The purpose of this bill is to amend the criminal code to give certain rights to people in this country to undertake and run pari-mutuels at different affairs throughout the land. I feel that this is a type of legislation which no hon. member should support, and I say that mainly because it gives to certain people in Canada the right to carry on pari-mutuels while it is discriminatory in that it prohibits other associations from undertaking dog racing and car racing.
I do not rise to support betting or parimutuels. I rise to protest against the fact that we have here a situation wherein wealthy people, race horse owners in this country, are given the right to carry on pari-mutuels at our fairs under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Agriculture. I submit that if the government sees fit to allow any type of gambling of this sort it should not pass an amendment such as this which, as I have pointed out, is discriminatory. On that ground also I protest. I feel that if we are to have a provision 
of this kind it should apply to other associations such as dog racing. They should have the same privilege.
In conclusion, I wish to protest the whole affair. I do not think that this house should pass such legislation at all.


James Horace King: Shall the motion carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, on division, and bill read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. PAUL MARTIN (Minister of National Health and Welfare) moved the second reading of Bill No. 339 to amend the Old Age Pensions Act.
Mr. BRACKEN:: Surely we shall have a statement from the minister before second reading.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think all hon. members will agree with the leader of the opposition that the house will expect a comprehensive statement about this measure.
Mr. Speaker, the bill which is introduced by this resolution represents another forward step taken by the government of this country in the building of an adequate social security programme for the Canadian people. It has particular significance because of the fact that the legislation which is being amended by this bill represented, when it was passed in 1927, the first occasion on which the federal authority in this country assumed responsibilities of a permanent nature in the public assistance field. Prior to that date action had been taken with respect to labour legislation including the establishment of fair wage legislation and the provision of a scheme of government annuities. We have now had a continuous period of twenty years through which the federal authority has maintained, and indeed from time to time increased, its commitments with respect to the care of the needy aged in all parts of the dominion.
This government has given conclusive evidence of its concern for the welfare of the aged among our population. It was a government under the leadership of the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) that first introduced the Old Age Pensions Act in 1927. Through the amendments and changes which have been made since that time up to the present, the intention of the government has been to make easier the lot of our older citizens who had need of financial assistance.

Old Age Pensions
It is important at this stage to recall the proposals the federal government made in August 1945 to the provinces with respect to a programme covering national health, public investment and social security. These proposals include a suggested scheme for a national old age pensions and old age assistance programme of a fundamental character.
What we do now must be consistent with the dominion government's proposals to the provinces. We have a plan and it is a good plan. What we do today must not in any way prejudice the over-all plan. I would remind the house that the proposals of the dominion government with regard to old age pensions, and indeed in the whole field of social security, remain an essential part of the government's programme as has been repeatedly stated by the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley), the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) and myself.
The Old Age Pensions Act of 1927 originally provided for a $20 monthly maximum pension totalling $240 a year, with an outside maximum income of $125 a year apart from the pension. I ask hon. members to bear these figures in mind in the light of what the government is now proposing in the present amendments.
Later amendments to the act were made which, without increasing the benefits to the pensioners themselves, relieved the provinces of a considerable share of the pension cost by increasing the federal government's percentage of contribution from 50 per cent to 75 per cent and correspondingly reducing the provincial share from 50 per cent to 25 per cent.
The first occasion on which the scope of the act itself was widened was when the then government of Canada, under the leadership of the present Prime Minister, introduced amendments to provide additional categories of pensioners, extending the benefits of old age pensions legislation to the blind.
In addition to this, since 1942 a number of the provinces have been paying supplementary allowances to pensioners in addition to payments made by the provinces and the federal government jointly under the Old Age Pensions Act itself. These payments have ranged in amount from nothing at all in some provinces up to $10 monthly in British Columbia.
In 1943, action was taken by this government under the War Measures Act to increase the maximum pension payable from $20 to $25 a month, and, a few months later, to increase the maximum income allowable under the act from $365 to $425 a year, inclusive of pension.
Finally, as a result of the meeting of the interprovincial old age pensions board in November. 1946, a complete revision of the
regulations under the Old Age Pensions Act was undertaken and made effective on May 15 of this year. These regulations are now considerably more generous than they were before, particularly in making it possible to set the commencement date of pension back to the month following application, and in respect to the interpretation of residence and the calculation of income. More generous provisions have also been included dealing with the kinds of evidence that can be accepted as proof of age. The effect of these new regulations, which relax the present restrictions applying to applicants for pension and to the circumstances under which pensions may be granted, will be to add an additional half a million dollars yearly to the cost of old age pensions.
I would point out, however, that the government has for some time now made clear its desire to introduce comprehensive and sweeping changes in the provision for the aged and the blind throughout this country. Hon. members know of the proposals which were advanced by the dominion government to the provinces in the conference of August, 1945. These proposals fall into three main categories-public investment, social security and tax reform.
As part of its programme in the field of social security, the federal government proposed a system of national old age pensions. This provided for the federal government to assume the full responsibility for paying pensions at the rate of $30 a month to all persons in Canada seventy years and over. The federal government proposed these pensions for all eligible persons without any income or means test whatsoever, and the federal government proposed to administer this scheme directly and bear 100 per cent of the cost, amounting to an estimated $200 million annually.
In addition to this, the federal government also undertook to pay, on a fifty-fifty basis with the provinces, the cost of pensions to the aged between the ages of sixty-five and seventy years and to the blind from the age of twenty-one. This was to be subject to a means test more generous than at present and was to be paid on a basis of $30 a month pension. The pro\ inces were, under this proposal, to administer this scheme and the cost of this part of the programme was estimated at a total of $34 to $40 million annually, with the federal government's share of this approximately $17 to $20 million annually.
This, in broad outline, represents the proposals made by the federal government to the provinces with respect to the aged and the blind. These are an integral part of the
Old Age Pensions

objectives in social security which this government has set for itself as soon as satisfactory over-all arrangements on social security, fiscal and other matters can be made with the provinces.
I mention these proposals at this point because I wish hon. members of this house to see not only the background of the various steps that have already been taken by the government of this country with respect to provisions actually in existence for the aged and the blind, but also the plans which we have laid before this country as to the direction in which, with the cooperation of the provinces, we hope to move.
The government has also indicated in its proposals to the provinces, and elsewhere, the advantages of a more strictly contributory system of old age insurance. The principal advantage of a contributory system is that, like the universal pension scheme, it offers payment as of right to persons reaching the established retirement age who have paid into a fund specifically created by joint contribution for that purpose. It removes the fear of destitution without impairing the dignity and self-respect of the person who reaches the later stages of life and is no longer able to maintain himself by his own earning effort.
In most respects, the contributory system of old age insurance shares common advantages with the universal pension scheme at seventy contained in the dominion's proposals to the provinces. To quote from the dominion government's proposals:
Payment of pension as of right to people of this age offers the best kind of economic security. It removes fear of destitution much more certainly than any other method, and relieves the old people of the necessity of seeking work, or of endeavouring to keep on working in unfavourable circumstances and beyond the age at which they should 'be able to retire, without dependence on charity or burdening the family. In addition to providing a minimum subsistence for those with no other resources, this system would enable other persons with moderate private savings to retire from active work sooner, or in more comfort, than would otherwise be possible.
I make reference to this inclusion in the explanatory features of the proposals made to the provinces to show that the government has in mind what the Prime Minister stated in this house a number of years ago to be ultimately the kind of pattern in respect of social insurance which we must envisage in this country. Admittedly in a country like ours, with great open spaces, a federal state, a contributory system along the lines I have been talking about is not as feasible as it is in some unitary states; and certainly the far-flung rural parts of our provinces do present difficulties in the consideration of such a 
scheme. My own belief is that we must ultimately look to the establishment of such a system, perhaps beginning in stages, and that our long range plans should be directed toward that desirable goal. It would therefore be a mistake-and I say this with all the seriousness that I know hon. members will recognize in my approach to this problem-to take any action now which would result in placing additional obstacles in the way of what I believe to be a desirable objective.
I have already said that in the consideration of this measure one must bear in mind the broad scheme of social security envisaged by the government in its proposals made to the provinces twenty-four months ago, and which, in its general objectives we believe meets the wishes of the great majority of the people of this country.
No greater disservice could be rendered to those who support the desirability of a broad social security system than to throw out of balance particular phases and destroy the desired ultimate pattern. That pattern is in the thoughts of the present administration now as it was when it laid before the provinces its objectives in the field of health, public investment and social security. I say with great respect that pattern hon. members should keep before themselves in the discussion of this measure. No one has stated that pattern in terms of general objectives better than the Prime Minister of Canada, who, speaking before the annual convention of the American Federation of Labour in Toronto on October 9, 1942, declared:
The era of freedom will be achieved only as social security and human welfare become the main concern of men and nations. It is necessary that social security and human welfare should be expressed in definite terms-of the kind of objectives I have in mind I would merely mention the following as a national minimum; useful employment for all who are willing to work, standards of nutrition and housing adequate to ensure the health of the whole population; social insurance against privations resulting from unemployment, accident, the death of the breadwinner, ill health and old age.
That, coming from a man whose whole life has been devoted to placing the general above the particular interest. I know will be accepted by this house as a serious statement of direction. Also this matter we are now discussing must be considered in the light of the solid and responsible basis which has been already provided for in the growing structure of social security which stage by stage we are building in this country. I am thinking in particular of the Unemployment Insurance Act of 1940 which today protects from the hazards of unemployment over million Canadian workmen and serves as a major bulwark of

Old Age Pensions
social security. I am thinking also of the Family Allowances Act of 1944, also initiated by this government, which today brings to
3.600.000	Canadian children in 1,600,000 homes the means of ensuring better opportunities and a better standard of living. By this single measure alone we have been able to provide an increased measure of security to fully one-half of the total population of our country. Two-thirds of the entire population of Canada are benefited directly either by the protection afforded through unemployment insurance or by the increased social well-being offered through our family allowances legislation.
We must also take note of the important social security measures extended through the Department of Veterans Affairs, its grants for land and housing, its reestablishment credits, out-of-work benefits, retraining in vocational and trade schools; its underwriting of university courses for our veterans. The Department-of Veterans Affairs programme for the rehabilitation and reestablishment of veterans is the most generous and comprehensive that any country has provided for its servicemen and women, and forms a part of the structure of social security.
When one considers the extent and coverage of our present fourfold programme of unemployment insurance, family allowances and veterans legislation, and our present benefits for old age pensioners, together with what I am proposing in the amending bill, one recognizes the basis for the statement that fully three-fourths of the people of Canada today come directly under the protection of these four measures which we have established as the cornerstone of our social security structure in Canada.
The present Old Age Pensions Act which we are discussing today already provides assistance to something like forty per cent of our total aged population seventy years and over. The figures supplied to us by the provinces show that as of the end of March, 1947, no less than
209.000	aged persons and 7,000 blind persons were in receipt of pensions under the legislation as it exists today. This represents in some provinces as high as sixty per cent of the total aged population.
The measure which is being introduced today will make it possible for the provinces to increase by twenty per cent or more the assistance which has been given to date to this substantial section of our aged population. Where, because of outside income, pensioners have not been receiving the full pension, the
increase which the provinces will be enabled to give under the new legislation will be even greater than twenty per cent.
Of equal importance, if not greater, is the fact that because of the more generous provisions which are included in this amending bill respecting the amount of outside income which a pensioner may have and still remain on pension, thousands of persons will be brought for the first time within the benefits of our old age pensions legislation.
It is estimated that when the provinces have taken full advantage of the increases in maximum income allowable for aged and blind persons which are permitted by this proposed amending bill, the result will be an increase in the pension rolls of something between 60,000 and 65,000 additional persons. In other words, when this new bill becomes law in all the provinces, fully 50 per cent of the aged people of Canada will be receiving benefits under it, and that 50 per cent comprises that section of the aged population which can genuinely be said to be most in need of outside assistance.
The financial implications of this bill deserve the most careful consideration. The provincial supplemental allowances at present being paid -and there is nothing in this bill to prevent them from being continued-amount to well over six million dollars annually. If the provinces take full advantage of these new provisions, the provincial share of old age pensions under the act itself will advance from approximately sixteen million dollars to approximately twenty-three million dollars. This will automatically mean that the federal government's share of the cost of old age pensions will rise from forty-eight million dollars to sixty-eight million dollars a year. When this bill becomes law and full effect is given to it in all the provinces, this country will be spending on old age pensioners and blind persons close to one hundred million dollars a year.
Perhaps at this stage it would be of assistance to hon. members if I were to outline the main provisions of the amending bill.
1.	It is proposed, in this amending bill, to do away with the provision which has been in the act up to the present time, section 9(1), setting the maximum pension which any province is permitted to pay. Under these new amendments, therefore, the provinces themselves will be free to fix the maximum pension.
2.	The amount of income which a pensioner is permitted to have, inclusive of his pension, is increased in the case of a single aged person under the proposed bill from $425 to $600 annually. The practical effect of this will be that any province will be free, if it
Old Age Pensions

chooses to do so, to set a pension rate as high as $50 a month or $600 a year for a person who has no other income of his own with which to supplement his pension allotment.
In case of a married pensioner, this maximum income limit is set at $1,080 instead of $850 as at present.
In the case of a single blind pensioner the new amount of maximum income allowable will be including pension $720, whereas formerly it was $500.
In the case of a blind pensioner married to a sighted spouse, the maximum income limit is set at $1,200 whereas it was formerly $925.
In the case of two blind persons married and living together, the maximum allowable is set in the bill at $1,320.
In all of these cases the amounts mentioned are inclusive of any pension or pensions receivable by one or both spouses under the provisions of the act.
It will be seen therefore that this provision raises substantially the margins of outside income which an individual is permitted to have and still qualify for full or partial pension. Because of these higher income limits the number of aged and blind persons who will now be eligible for pension will be substantially increased. I have already stated that the department's estimate for this increase is about 60,000 additional pensioners, assuming of course that all the provinces will take full advantage of these higher income limits.


Mr. FLEMING:: Does that estimate of
60,000	include blind pensioners, or only old age pensioners?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Both.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Has the minister broken down those figures?


Paul Joseph James Martin: We will discuss that in committee. Perhaps if I might make my statement without interruption we might discuss those points in committee, by way of question and answer.
3.	The maximum federal contribution to any pension, based on the seventy-five per cent formula which has now been in existence since 1931, is increased to $22.50 in this amending bill, as compared to $18.75 at the present time. In other words, a province will be assured that, on the basis of a pension of $30 a month, it will receive reimbursement from the federal treasury to the extent of seventy-five per cent of its net payments. At the same time it will be free to provide pensions higher than $30 a month if it deems it advisable to do so.
In this connection it is interesting to note that the federal contribution has risen by successive stages from $10 per month per pensioner in 1927 to $15 in 1931 to $18.75 in 1943 to $22.50 under this present bill. At the same time, the provincial contribution which was originally $10 went down to $5 in 1931 and increased to $6.25 in 1943. Apart from the provinces which are paying supplemental allowances of $5 a month or more, the other provinces are paying less per pensioner today than they were in 1927.


Mr. MACKENZIE:: Not in British Columbia.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I said, apart from the provinces which are paying supplemental allowances. I shall have something to say about British Columbia in a few moments which might warm the heart of my hon. friend and colleague.
4.	Another feature of this new bill, which I ' am sure will commend itself favourably to all members of this house, involves a modification of the present residence requirements. At the present time the act states that a person must have lived in Canada for the twenty-year period immediately prior to application before he can be considered eligible for pension. While this requirement has been somewhat modified by regulation, cases of hardship still arise. Persons who were born in Canada and have lived here almost all their lives sometimes disqualify themselves for pension by moving within the twenty years, before applying for pension, to the United States or to some other country and remaining for periods in excess of the four-year limit permitted by the present regulations.
The amending bill makes provision to cover such cases. It provides that any gaps in Canadian residence during the twenty years prior to application may be compensated for by earlier periods of residence. These earlier periods of residence must be double in amount to the periods of absence during the twenty-year period before application. In other words, if a person makes application for old age pension at 70 years of age, and it is shown that he has been absent for ten years from Canada between his fiftieth and his seventieth birthday, it does not necessarily follow that that person is ineligible for pension. He can get a pension if he can prove that he resided in Canada prior to his fiftieth birthday for a period of twenty years. This provision thus compensates on a two-for-one basis for the ten-year absence from Canada during the latter portion of his life.
It is felt that this provision will enable the pension authorities, which under the act are

Old Age Pensions
the provinces, to deal with a significant number of cases where, under the present act, there has been obvious hardship on this score.
5.	Hon. members will also note that the requirement regarding national status has been eliminated by this amending bill. This is consistent with the provisions of the unemployment insurance and the family allowances acts, neither one of which limits eligibility for benefit in this way. It is felt that the requirement of twenty years' residence in Canada as a minimum provides an adequate safeguard.
I am sure there will be general agreement with the view that, as a matter of equity, any person who has spent twenty years or more of his working life in Canada and paid through taxes his full share towards the maintenance of public and other social services should not be debarred from application for old age pension when he reaches his declining years.
6.	One special change in respect to the blind should perhaps also be noted. The existing provision debarring blind persons who marry from receiving more than one pension between the two of them will now be eliminated. This provision was originally inserted to discourage persons suffering from hereditary types of blindness from marrying. While it is undoubtedly true that no one wishes to encourage the marriage of persons suffering from hereditary blindness, it is not felt that the existing provision has been particularly effective, nor is it felt that this represents the constructive approach to the solution of this problem. This problem should not be met by depriving a blind married couple of this subsistence which they require for their actual maintenance.
7.	There is one final change of importance which I have left to the last because it concerns the provinces much more than it does the federal authority. This change affects the determination of the province responsible for the payment of the provincial share of pension.
At the present time there is a complicated provision which says that the provincial share of pension shall be divided proportionately between those provinces in which the pensioner has resided during the twenty-year period prior to his application for pension. For example a pensioner may reside in British Columbia but his twenty years of residence prior to coming on pension might be divided between eight years in British Columbia, six years in Saskatchewan, four years in Quebec and two years in Prince Edward Island. British Columbia has to bill each of the three other provinces for their respective shares of
the $6.25 monthly, which is the provincial portion of the pension. This is an obviously cumbersome method of apportioning provincial costs, especially since for most provinces these amounts paid out and the amounts received from other provinces balance off fairly evenly in the long run.
This amending bill introduces a simpler method of apportioning the provincial cost. It provides that the entire provincial share shall be paid by the province in which the pensioner has lived for the greatest number of days in the three-year period prior to his reaching pensionable age or prior to making application for pension, whichever is the later.
Needless to say the provinces have been consulted on this change, as they have indeed been advised of the intentions of this government with respect to the principles involved in the other proposed changes in the act.
I should like to have it noted that as a result of the bill, the contribution to pensions for the aged offered by the federal government represents an increase of 125 per cent over the contribution originally offered under the Old Age Pensions Act of 1927.
The bill provides in permanent legislative form for an increase of $10 in the amount of pension at present authorized under the Old Age Pensions Act itself. This is so because the order in council authorizing a .$5 supplementary payment was never incorporated in the Old Age Pensions Act itself and will expire when the Continuation of Transitional Measures Act runs its course within the year. The bill, therefore, incorporates this supplementary payment, and the pension payable under the act is increased by $10.
But the bill actually does more than that. It does not merely make it possible for the provinces to raise the pension to $30 a month. By removing the pension ceiling and by increasing the federal contribution, the government is, in fact, opening the wav for the provinces to pay more than $30 a month. If the six provinces which are now paying supplemental allowances continue to do so, the result will be a pension in most parts of Canada substantially in excess of the standard rate of $30 a month, and this in most cases without an additional - cent of expense per pensioner to the provinces.
Take the case of Alberta, for example. This province is already paying a combined pension and supplemental allowance amounting to $30 a month. Of this amount the Alberta government is currently paying $11.25, made up as follows: $6.25 a month as Alberta's share of the $25 pension provided by the federal law and wartime orders in council, and an additional provincial bonus of $5 a month
Old Age Pensions

which has been paid since 1942. The federal share payable at the present time is $18.75 a month, which, under the provisions of this amending bill, will be increased to $22.50 a month. If Alberta does no more than continue its present payment from provincial funds amounting to $11.25 a month, this sum, together with the increased federal contribution of $22.50, will mean that Alberta can actually raise its pension rate to $33.75 a month without an additional cent of cost per pensioner to the province over what it is paying at the present time.
Exactly the same situation, and I know there will be special interests in this, prevails in Saskatchewan.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: Is it not a fact that
the province under this bill may pay less than $30 a month?


Paul Joseph James Martin: We have no control over
what a province may do.


Mr. COLDWELL:: Under this bill they
are permitted to pay less if they so desire.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No bill which this parliament can pass can in any way affect what a province may do within its own constitutional jurisdiction. What applies to Alberta applies in equal measure to Saskatchewan. The house will recall that the government made known in January of this year its intention as to amending the act. Saskatchewan is now, since April of this year, paying a combined pension and allowance of $30 monthly, the provincial share consisting of the $6.25 a month which represents the province's part of the combined federal-provincial old age pension and, in addition to this, a $5 supplemental allowance. This means that the provincial contribution from these two sources currently amounts to $11.25 monthly. With the increase in the federal contribution from $18.75 to $22.50 provided in this amending bill, it will now be possible for Saskatchewan to pay a pension as high as $33.75 a month without an additional cent of cost per pensioner to the province over what it is paying at the present time.
Turning now to the province of British Columbia, we find that there the province which started to pay a provincial supplement of $5 monthly in 1942 is now paying a provincial supplement of $10 a month, in addition to the sum of $6.25 a month representing the provincial share of the combined federal-provincial old age pension. In other words, the provincial contribution here amounts currently to $16.25 a month compared to the federal contribution of $18.75 a month which, under this amending bill, will be increased to $22.50 a month. This will mean that the

province of British Columbia will be enabled by this legislation to pay a pension as high as $38.75 a month without an additional cent of cost per pensioner to the province over what it is paying at the present time.
Ontario is paying a somewhat smaller pension and allowance, not exceeding $28 a month. It too provides a provincial supplement over and above its statutory contribution of $6.25 a month under the federal-provincial old age pension plan. This contribution in Ontario is a variable one, being 15 per cent of the actual amount of pension being paid, up to a maximum of $3 per month in any one case. In other words, the maximum provincial contribution to any pension at the present time is $9.25 a month, consisting of the $6.25 monthly contribution .which is required of the province under the federal-provincial old age pension plan and the additional $3 provincial supplement. Since this amending bill calls for an increase in the federal contribution from $18.75 to $22.50 a month, it will be possible for the province of Ontario, by maintaining its current rate of contributions, to pay a pension of $31.75 a month without increasing its current expenditures per pensioner on old age pensions.
In summary, it will be apparent that the result of the present amending bill will be in effect to set a standard minimum pension of $30 per month in all the provinces, assuming, of course, that all the provinces will be anxious to take full advantage of the federal contribution. More than this, however, it will undoubtedly result in a number, and perhaps even a majority, of the provinces of Canada going beyond this $30 pension to set higher pension rates in their respective provinces. The illustrations I have just given make it clear that in a substantial number of cases the provinces will be able to do this without increasing in any way the commitments that they have made already, on their own initiative, with respect to the limits of their contributions to old age pensions at the present time. Nothing in the federal Old Age Pensions Act as it will be amended by this present bill debars any of these provinces from incorporating their present provincial supplements into their basic pension rates, and it is thought that the provinces already pajdng provincial supplements will, in fact, be encouraged to maintain their provincial contributions on at least the present basis. If this is done, the result will be that we will have in actual fact a pension rate throughout all of Canada which, on the average, will

Old Age Pensions
exceed substantially the standard pension rate of $30 contemplated by these present amendments.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that after consideration of this measure the house will conclude that this bill goes a long way towards easing the lot of our aged people and those who have been afflicted with blindness. It is a progressive and advancing step. It will aid and assist both the present pensioners and those who will, for the first time, become eligible for pension. What this bill will accomplish, if the provinces take full advantage of its provisions, may be summarized in this way:
1.	It does away with the provision limiting the maximum pension which any province is permitted to pay.
2.	It establishes a basic standard pension of $30 a month to which the dominion will contribute and leaves the provinces free to increase the standard pension rate as they deem advisable.
3.	It raises the statutory pension to which the dominion will contribute from $20 to $30 a month.
4.	It increases substantially the amount of outside income which a pensioner may have and still qualify for full or partial pension.
5.	It increases the amount of allowable income for a single aged person, from $425, inclusive of pension, to $600 a year.
6. It increases the maximum allowable income for a married old age pensioner from $850, inclusive of pension, to $1,080 a year.
7. It increases the maximum allowable income for an old age pensioner married to a blind person from $925, inclusive of pension, to $1,200 a year.
8. It increases the maximum allowable income for a single blind pensioner from $500, inclusive of pension, to $720 a year.


Mr. GREEN:: May I ask the minister if these figures include the extra allowance paid by certain provinces?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Of course, that is part of the income. I think that my statement is pretty clear on that point.
9. It increases the maximum allowable income for a married blind pensioner from $925. inclusive of pension, to $1,200 a year.
10.	It increases the maximum allowable income for a married blind couple from $1,000, inclusive of pension, to $1,320 a year.
11.	It will add to our federal-provincial pension lists, because of the more generous provisions, between 60.000 and 65,000 additional pensioners.
12.	It modifies and makes more generous the present residence provisions and eliminates national status as a requirement for pension.
13.	It increases the federal contribution for old age pensions and pensions for the blind by an estimated $20 million a year.
14.	It simplifies the division of provincial responsibility for pension in cases where a pensioner has lived in more than one province before applying for pension.
15.	It does more than raise the pension to $30 a month. Six provinces are now paying supplementary allowances. If the provinces continue to do this, the result will be in most parts of Canada a pension substantially in excess of $30 a month, and this, in most cases, without an additional cent of expense to the provinces over what they are paying at the present time.
The hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith) said that no member of this house has any monopoly of interest in the aged people of this country. I believe that to be a correct statement. The government is very much aware of the need for improving the lot of our aged people. Our older citizens are the people who have built this country and made it the nation it is today. I firmly believe this parliament will recognize that it has a solemn obligation towards those who on reaching the later years find themselves in need of assistance in maintaining themselves.
What we do now-Ind I cannot emphasize this too strongly-must be consistent both with present need and the need of tomorrow. It must be consistent with what we are trying to achieve with the joint cooperation of the provinces. It must be consistent with the ultimate realization of a self-sustaining and nation-wide contributory system of retirement insurance.
In conclusion I should like to summarize the objectives and the general nature of these proposals made by this government two years ago, particularly in relation to the establishment of a national health programme and a national social security programme, because they are inextricably intertwined and interwoven with the matter that we are now discussing. The national health programme as laid down by the federal government included financial assistance to the provinces in establishing health insurance, to provide health services to individuals, health grants to assist and extend public health and preventive medicine, a grant for organization and planning of medical services, and provision for low interest loans for the construction of hospitals. The dominion also proposed the extension of unemployment insurance to cover a much wider range of workers. It was proposed to
Old Age Pensions

provide unemployment assistance to cover able-bodied unemployed who do not have benefit rights at present.
Finally, to achieve security for the aged members of our population, the federal government proposed to establish a system of universal old age pensions paying S30 monthly to all persons 70 and over without means test. Additionally, the federal government undertook to share on a fifty-fifty basis with the provinces-


Donald Methuen Fleming: When?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Just as soon as my hon. friend can persuade some of his colleagues to come to an agreement.
Additionally, the federal government undertook to share on a fifty-fifty basis with the provinces the cost of means test pensions at a similar rate to the blind at 21 and to the aged 65 to 70.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: May I ask the minister a question?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No; sit down.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I prefer to finish my statement.
The measure which is today being placed before hon. members of this house for consideration has been dehberately designed to keep within the frammvork of the dominion's proposals to the provinces on assistance to the aged, so that it may be abundantly clear that we are not offering this measure to the house and to the country as a substitute for the proposals themselves, but rather, indeed, as a forward step taken to provide a greater measure of assistance to the aged at the present time, but taken in a manner that will be completely consistent with the proposals and within the broad framework of the social security objectives that the government enunciated therein.
Ten governments of Canada today-federal and provincial-by establishing ministries of health and public welfare, have indicated their acceptance of the fact that the provision of public welfare services is an essential responsibility of government in a modern democratic society.
Canada is already in the forefront of nations who seek to raise social standards and) protect the wage earner and the family, the veteran, the farmer and the needy aged. We can only proceed by progressive stages and it is as an additional stage that I present this bill today.
We have set our hand to the attainment of long-range social objectives. Upon the attain-

ment of those objectives a great deal depends not only for the present day but for the future.
The task of this government in cooperation with the provinces is to provide for the welfare of the nation as a whole. It is with this in mind that the government has made clear its objectives in regard to national health, social security, public investment.
National programmes of such a broad and fundamental nature cannot be achieved in a country like Canada only by the central government. They can be achieved by all governments, dominion and provincial, acting in cooperation to ensure the greatest possible measure of well-being, economic security and social welfare for the Canadian people.
This present measure, representing as it does a joint cooperative effort of the dominion and the provinces, brings us one step nearer to the achievement of the objective that we seek-all governments alike-the greatest measure of security for all the people of Canada, in whatever part of this great country they may live.


John Bracken: The measure before us is a
bill to amend the Old Age Pensions Act. The minister has put his own interpretation upon the details of this bill, and he has supplemented that interpretation with a review of the government promises of the last twenty-five years and their repetition in detail to date. He has told us of the great plan that was put forward two years ago, a plan which the government voluntarily brought forward, declaring it would undertake to pay $200,000,000. And now he tells us that the proposals which are now before us will cost this nation only $20,000,000. He says that is a great step forward. I suggest that if it is a great step forward it is a very short one. The government has laboured and brought forth a mouse. The mouse has been a long time coming and it is very small when it gets here.
I want to compliment the minister upon making much out of little. He has told us about this grand scheme of two years ago, which everyone in this house, I think, feels was a grand scheme, and then he comes along with a plan which will cost the government only one-tenth as much. Then he takes two-thirds of his speech to excuse himself for bringing such a small edition of the main plan.
In starting out he tells us to keep in mind one basic fact, that the needy aged of this country are getting only $240 a year and that now they will get $360. What he failed to emphasize is that the needy aged of the country are now getting $300, not $240, and

these proposals represent an increase of only $5 a month or $60 a year. That is the basic fact.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What about the maximum income allowed?


John Bracken: You are not paying that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am not paying anything.


John Bracken: The basic fact about
this bill is that the government is proposing now to increase the old age pensions by $5 a month. That is basic, and all the other features which the minister has elaborated are just details-important, yes, but of relatively minor importance. That is the basic fact. The minister has gone a long way today to talk about national health, public investment and other things, but what this country wants to know is what the government will do now for the needy aged. That is the question before us, not the promises of two years ago or twenty-eight years ago, or any promise for the future, but what will be done now.
I do not propose in my remarks today to deal with the details of this bill. I propose rather to discuss the general principles involved in it. My criticisms of the measure can be' briefly stated. There are four general criticisms. The first is that the measure has been too long delayed.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The bill is retroactive to May 1, of course.


John Bracken: The minister is excusing himself by saying it is retroactive to May 1. It should have been retroactive to several years ago.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If that is the case-


John Bracken: You made your speech and you refused to let anyone interfere.


Mr. GARDINER:: If it had been patterned after your action of a few years ago it would not have gone very far.


John Bracken: You will get your chance to speak too. The second criticism is that it provides only partial justice to the aged. I propose to elaborate on these criticisms later. I say, Mr. Speaker, that the measure has been too long delayed by far, both in this session and in previous years, and it provides only partial justice to the aged. The third criticism, an important one, is that the measure is a complete reversal of the government's policy as announced two years ago. Two years ago the government promised old age pensions at 70 without a means test. In this measure they are continuing the test. This government promised two years ago-
Old Age Pensions


Paul Joseph James Martin: I rise to a question of privilege.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I rise to a question of privilege, and no one will recognize it more than my hon. friend. I know he will agree-


John Bracken: Let us have the point of privilege, but do not make a speech.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The point of privilege is that the government has not reversed its position at all. What it has done is perfectly consistent with what was proposed in 1945.


Mr. FRASER:: That was an election year.


John Bracken: I say it is a complete reversal of the government's policy. Two years ago the government proposed old age pensions at 70 without a means test, but in this measure it is perpetuating the means test. Two years ago it proposed old age pensions at 70, the whole cost to be borne by the dominion government. Under this measure a portion of the cost is being put upon the provinces.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No change made in that at all.


John Bracken: There is a change from your promises.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Not a bit of change.


John Bracken: Now, another point. Two years ago this government proposed an old age assistance plan to apply to persons from 65 to 69 years of age, a joint plan to which the dominion and the provinces would contribute. There is nothing in this measure providing assistance for persons between the ages of 65 and 69. And I suggest there should be particularly for widows between those ages; they form a class of people who need assistance at this time. It should apply to persons between those ages. My fourth criticism is that the measure gives no consideration at all to blind persons under 40 years of age-none whatever. I suggest that if there is any justification for aiding blind persons over 40, if there is justification for increasing assistance to them, there is justification for some assistance to blind persons of 39, 38, 37 and lower ages.
I have one other observation to make and a question to ask. In the original old age pensions bill there was no assistance for the first inhabitants of the country, the Indians. They were excluded. That exclusion is continued in this measure. I would ask the government to state its policy with respect to this particular group of people.
I wish now to make a brief statement on the historical background of this measure. As
Old Age Pensions

the minister said, it was in 1927 that legislation relating to old age pensions was first enacted in Canada. In that year this parliament passed an act which enabled the dominion government to negotiate agreements with one or more of the provinces by which the dominion and the provinces would each pay fifty per cent of the pension provided that the age of seventy years had been reached. The dominion government prescribed in this legislation that the pension itself was to be limited to $20 per month. The minister today says the provinces can increase the amount beyond what the dominion pays. Some members raised the question-and it could not be denied-that under the bill the provinces can also lessen the amount they pay. Under the original bill they were required to pay, first, half the cost, and then 25 per cent of the cost.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No.


John Bracken: That was in the agreement.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend has not
understood it.


John Bracken: I know something about it ^ because it was my responsibility and privilege to sign that agreement for Manitoba.


Mr. KNOWLES:: It was either the whole thing or none at all.


John Bracken: That is correct. The
record speaks for itself. The minister is quite wrong in denying what I have said.


An hon. MEMBER:: He doesn't know.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Wait until we get in
committee.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Order.


John Bracken: The pension could only be paid to a British subject not less than seventy years of age who had resided in Canada for twenty years, and for five years in the province where application for pension was made; who was not an Indian, who was not in receipt of an income of more than $1 a day, and who had not transferred any property for the purpose of qualifying for a pension. That was the condition. Those are simple statements of fact in the record.
I might point out the order in which the provinces came into the scheme. The dominion came along and said, "We will pay half the cost of this plan in any province where the province will pay the other half under these conditions." The provinces came in in the following order:	British Columbia
in 1927-


Thomas Reid: We lead.


John Bracken: -Manitoba, 1928; Alberta and Ontario, 1929; New Brunswick, 1930; Nova Scotia, 1931; Prince Edward Island, 1931; Quebec, 1936. The Yukon was brought in in 1927, the year in which the measure was passed, and the Northwest territories in 1929.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: In what year did
Saskatchewan come in?


John Bracken: 1928.


An hon. MEMBER:: One of the first.


Mr. JACKMAN:: They are in all right.


John Bracken: It was after British Columbia and after Manitoba. In 1931 a major change was made in the act, namely, in the distribution of the costs. The dominion then began to assume seventy-five per cent of the cost and the provinces twenty-five per cent. And in 1937 the blind over forty years of age were made eligible for the pension scheme. For twenty years there has been no statutory revision of the amount of pension paid; in fact, there had been no financial revision of any kind until the war came along, and then by order in council, I think in 1943, provision .was made for a $5 increase a month. That increase which was made possible by dominion order in council did not precede but followed the action of certain provinces. Certain provinces went ahead on their own to make increases when they found the dominion only slowly recognizing its responsibilities.
During these years almost all other incomes have increased in this country. From 1939 until the present time the cost of living has increased from 22 to 25 per cent; I am calling on my memory there. Industrial wages have increased by about 25 per cent. Many other wages and incomes have increased. This government itself made provision for increasing the incomes of members of parliament by $2,000 a year. Yet in that whole period of time only $5 a month or $60 a year increase was made for the old people, and now $60 more a year is being added to their income.
As I said, after the war the provinces and not the dominion began to take action in increasing the amount to be paid. British Columbia and Alberta in 1942 passed legislation authorizing increases. Early in 1943 Manitoba- and Nova Scotia took similar action. The dominion government in August 1943 passed an order in council by which pensions payable could be increased by $60 a year, or $5 a month; but the dominion provided also that the amount of other income which could be received by the pensioner had to be reduced by a similar amount. I am glad to see that today the government is changing that attitude.

Old Age Pensions
I wish to go back to these detailed criticisms. I said this measure had been too long delayed. I pointed out that it is twenty years since it first came in, that there was no change in the rate of pension until the war was half over, and then only So a month. Now the minister brings in a measure which goes only one-tenth of the way toward meeting the objective or the plans which they announced so boldly in the press and otherwise two years ago.
Secondly, I said that the bill provides only partial justice to the aged. Twenty years ago the pension was $20 a month; four years ago it was raised to $25 a month.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Why did the Conservative party oppose it?


William Ross Macdonald: Order.


John Bracken: Now it is to be raised to $30 a month. I pointed out the increase in the cost of living, the increase in industrial wages, the increase in the incomes of everybody else. These old people now get only $60 a year increase from this government. I said this was a complete reversal of government policy. Two years ago they promised old age pensions at seventy without the means test. I want to read their promises of that time, found in this document "Proposals of the Government of Canada". Here is what they have to say on national old age pensions at age seventy, on page 37:
As part of the general proposals now put before the conference, it is proposed that the federal government would establish a system of national old age pensions entirely financed and administered by the federal government, and paid at the uniform rate of $30 per month regardless of means to men and women aged seventy and over in all parts of Canada.
As I said before, the present bill does not carry out either of those promises. Then it goes on:
The cost of national old age pensions by ,1948, for example, is estimated at $200,000,000.
Now the government brings in a watered-down proposal which, according to the minister himself, will cost them no more than $20,000,000 and probably less. Our estimate is considerably less.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I said the very opposite.


John Bracken: It goes on:
There would be a partial recovery- from people over seventy paying income tax.
Then they enlarge upon these promises in this way:
The principal feature of the proposed national old age pensions is the elimination of the means test after reaching agt seventy,-
But it is not eliminated in this bill.
-regarding this (the means test) as unsuitable for the oldest group in the community over eighty per cent of whom are not in fact capable of supporting themselves in useful remunerative work. Payment of pensions as of right to people of this age offers the best kind of economic security.
Yet they do not do it in the bill they bring in. I read on:
It removes the fear of destitution much more certainly than any other method, and relieves old people of the necessity of seeking work, or of endeavouring to keep on working in unfavourable circumstances and beyond the age at which they should be able to retire, without dependence on charity or burdening the family.
These are all arguments for a great programme; then they come along with this mild edition of it and ask us to accept it.
In addition to providing a minimum subsistence for those with no other resources, this system would enable other persons with moderate private savings to retire from active work sooner, or in more comfort, than would otherwise be possible.
Then they go on:
The removal of the means test would make it possible for these pensions to be administered by the federal government alone on a uniform national basis, without the necessity for provincial participation, and would therefore considerably relieve provincial finances.
Yet they do not remove the means test.
As the federal government would be assuming full financial responsibility, it would also administer the payment of these pensions.
So much for these particular promises of two years ago and the government's promise to carry it out. No wonder the minister devotes two-thirds of his speech to excusing himself for not carrying it out.
Then I said the government had completely reversed its policy in another way. It promised an old age assistance plan for persons between sixty-five and sixty-nine years of age, the cost to be borne equally by the dominion and the provinces. Here is what they had to say on that point at that time. I am reading from page 38 of the government's document. These are the words of the government:
In addition, it is proposed to provide old age assistance for persons of age sixty-five-sixty-nine, in eases of need and in accordance with local conditions and individual circumstances, under dominion-provincial agreements broadly similar to those presently existing with respect to old age pensions for persons of age seventy and over, but with certain changes designed to liberalize the conditions under which assistance is given.
Those are the promises to persons between sixty-five and sixty-nine years of age, but there is nothing at all in this proposed measure
Old Age Pensions

which would give them any assistance whatever.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is not true.


John Bracken: I quote again:
The proposal is that the provincial governments should administer this old age assistance and that the federal government should contribute fifty per cent of the cost, up to fifty per cent of $30 per month. The total cost of this measure by 1948 is estimated at $34 to $40 million . . .
This one feature of their 1945 proposals they say would cost from $34 to $40 million; now the minister himself estimates that the whole additional cost of all the government is proposing will be only $20 million.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Twenty million more.


John Bracken: Then in elaborating this particular feature of the policy which they have now discarded they go on to say:
The minimum age for national old age pensions must be definite and fixed; it cannot vary with individual cases. It must be recognized, however, that there will be an intermediate age group in which a significant minority of persons will be unable, by reason of age, to support themselves without assistance. These persons who, in fact, suffer from the disability which old age pensions are intended to assist, should not be left with no other resources than local poor relief for the temporary period which must elapse till they reach the qualifying age for old age pensions.
Yet they bring forward a measure that contains nothing for these people between sixty-five andl sixty-nine years of age.
Accordingly, it is proposed that the existing system of joint dominion-provincial old age assistance on a means test basis, which it is proposed to supersede as regards persons of seventy and over, should be adapted to meet the needs in particular cases of persons of age sixty-five-sixty-nine, with a federal government contribution of fifty per cent of the cost.
Those are the three main features of the much-heralded policy of the government of two years ago, which I believe most people in this country thought was a good plan. And this bill is the watered-down sample brought forward today by the minister. It carries out none of these promises. My fourth criticism is that the government plan offers no consideration for blind persons under forty years of age. A few years ago an amendment was brought in to the old age pensions legislation providing for pensions to blind persons; but it was stipulated that no blind person under forty years of age could benefit by the provisions of that legislation. Now the government comes along and proposes certain additions to the pensions for blind persons over

forty years of age, but does nothing at all for those under that age. I suggest this is a serious criticism of this measure.
The question of cost has been referred to. The minister has told us what it is estimated this plan will cost, and has given some other figures. I took the trouble to have some figures of an historical character looked up in connection with this measure. This legislation was passed in 1927. It did not get going fully for several years. The first year it only cost this country $131,000. In 1931-32 it cost approximately $10,000,000, in round figures. In 1941^12 the cost was $28,000,000. Under the present act it will be about $65,000,000.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Not to the government; to the people of Canada.


John Bracken: It is estimated that pensions for people seventy years of age and over, with no means test, at $30 a month, would cost $200,000,000 a year. It is estimated also that pensions at sixty-five and over, at $30 a month with no means test, would cost about $336,000,000 a year; and it is further estimated that a plan covering people sixty-five years of age and over, at $50 a month with no means test, would cost this nation $560,000,000 a year. That is the material side of this question, which of course is important, just as it is important to recognize that the aged poor must have from some source, this government or the governments combined, enough to meet their needs on a cost of living basis, regardless of all other conditions.
I have here some details in connection with the supplemental allowances granted by the various provinces for old age pensions. That might be put on the record at a later stage, when we are in committee. It indicates that the different provinces have proceeded along somewhat different lines. Some have been more generous than others. But perhaps it might be well to put this information on record now; I can do so in three or four minutes and then it will be there for the information of hon. members.
Manitoba, British Columbia, Alberta and Nova Scotia made provision for the payment of supplemental allowances to old age pensioners before the passing of the dominion order in council, P.C. 6367, dated August 10, 1943, which authorized a supplement of not over $5 a month to be paid by the dominion and the provinces on the same basis as the pensions, 75 per cent and 25 per cent respectively.
Alberta was one of the first to move in this direction. In 1942 they authorized an addi-

Old Age Pensions
tional allowance of So a month from January 1, 1942, and authorized an agreement with the dominion government relating to supplementary allowances. That is still being paid.
British Columbia made its increase effective on April 1, 1942. It authorized a cost of living bonus of $5 a month. This was raised to $10 on January 1, 1947. No part of the bonus is recoverable from the dominion, and it is being paid in addition to the dominion government increase granted in August, 1943.
I do not suppose the minister has any intimation from any of these provinces as to what their attitude will be with respect to *	- supplementary aids, when this new
ii.ensure comes in.
In 1943 Manitoba made provision for a supplementary allowance of $125 a month, which it recognized as its share of a possible contribution of $5 a month by the dominion. This is still being paid.
Nova Scotia commenced its supplementary assistance in April of 1943. It provides for a supplementary allowance not exceeding $10 a month. It could allow up to that much, if the income exclusive of pension is $125 a year or less. But the allowance with the pensioner's income is not to exceed $365 a year. No such allowance was to be paid for any period before June 1, 1943. This allowance is still being paid.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Can the leader of the opposition indicate under what conditions that allowance is paid in Nova Scotia?


John Bracken: 1 made it clear that the measure only gave the government permissive power to pay up to that amount, $10 more a month. Just what they have paid I cannot say.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We can get it all later in committee. It is a very complicated story.


John Bracken: In 1944. after the dominion order in council, New Brunswick, Ontario and Saskatchewan made provision for supplemental allowances as follows:
In New Brunswick there is an arrangement which is retroactive to the commencement of the New Brunswick old age pension act, authorizing supplementary agreements with the dominion government. My information is not positive, but I understand there was no New Brunswick bonus.
The Ontario plan was made retroactive to April 1, 1942. It empowers the lieutenant governor in council to provide for a cost of living bonus. It is a bonus of fifteen per cent of the pension, which is still being paid by the province from its own funds.
In 1944 Saskatchewan took power to enable the lieutenant governor in council to provide for a supplementary allowance of $1.25 a month. The act as revised in 1945 enabled the lieutenant governor in council to provide for a supplemental allowance, without stating the amount. The regulations of April 6, 1945, authorized an allowance of $3 a month, payable from May 1, 1945. This has been increased during the present year to $5 a month.
That concludes the summary of these supplementary allowances, the information for which was obtained through the official records of the library in the Department of Labour here in Ottawa.
I do not propose to keep the house longer at this time. As I have said, my criticisms of this measure, speaking broadly, were four in number, some of which can be amplified.
First, it comes in too late. The government is too late in bringing it forward.
Second, it provides only partial justice- and the government's own proposals of two years ago are the best evidence of that fact. As I said, it is a complete reversal of the government's policy as announced in August 1945.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Why does my hon. friend
say that?


John Bracken: With respect to the means test, and with respect to the amount to be paid by the dominion-


Paul Joseph James Martin: A leader of the opposition is a leader of the opposition-


John Bracken: I know that without your telling me. If you have anything else to say, go ahead.


Paul Joseph James Martin: There is a rule, a tradition, of the house, which is always respected, and I know the hon. member will respect it. It is that a minister of the crown is always given the privilege of asking a question of the leader of a party. I ask the leader of the opposition: Why does he persist in making a statement which is so obviously wrong?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: What rule?


John Bracken: I suggest, with all respect, that hon. members ought not to be allowed to interrupt a member who has the floor.


An hon. MEMBER:: Answer it, then.


John Bracken: I will answer it. This government promised two years ago, in this public document I have read, a pension plan which would provide for elimination of the means test.
Old Age Pensions


Paul Joseph James Martin: If the provinces accepted it.


John Bracken: But the government has not done that. The dominion government can do it; it is the dominion government's own plan.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If the provinces accepted it.


John Bracken: This government then
proposed to eliminate the means test. Now they are bringing forward a measure which retains the means test. They promised old age pensions at seventy, all to be paid by the dominion. They now bring forward a measure in which they leave twenty-five per cent of the cost to be paid by the provinces. And they proposed old age assistance for people between the ages of sixty-five and sixty-nine, half to be paid by the dominion and half by the provinces. Yet there is nothing of that in this bill which they have taken so long to prepare, and which the minister has promised us so often would be forthcoming soon. One other thing:	they
have provided nothing whatsoever for blind persons under forty years of age.
That is my submission. As I said at the beginning, the government has laboured and brought forth a mouse. The mouse has been long in coming, and it is very small even when it gets here.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, I am sure our disappointment in the minister's pronouncement this afternoon will be shared largely throughout the country. His long expected and long delayed measure will be a bitter disappointment to all who are interested in improving the conditions of old age pensioners.
The promises that the minister made this afternoon regarding future social security measures we can take with a grain of salt as the people of Canada should have taken the promises made in 1918. I have in my hand a bound1 volume of Liberal platforms of the years 1918 and 1921. A reference to the 1919 platform, adopted in this city in 1919 and specifically to a paragraph dealing with labour and industry, will show what I mean. "Oh", someone says. Yes; I know they do not like to be reminded of a twenty-eight-year old promise which in many respects has never been fulfilled or attempted to be fulfilled. But again, as with the minister this afternoon, there were so many ifs and buts with regard to what might happen in the future; that is; if something is done, we will do something else.
So we find in this volume:
And further resolved that in so far as may oe practicable, having regard for Canada's financial position, an adequate system of insurance against unemployment-
That came in 1940.


Paul Joseph James Martin: And by this government.


Major James William Coldwell: And in a special war emergency. Then, "sickness"

which we have not got; "dependence in old age", which we have not got, not because it is not required. It continues:
-and other disability, which would include old age pensions, widows' pensions and maternity benefits, should be instituted by the federal government in conjunction with the governments of the several provinces;-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Major James William Coldwell: Just a moment with "hear, hear." It goes on:	.
-and that on matters pertaining to industrial and social legislation an effort should be made to overcome any question of jurisdiction between the dominion and the provinces by effective cooperation between the several governments-
And so on. What I have read was adopted in the city of Ottawa as part of the Liberal platform in the year 1919, twenty-eight years ago. I ask you, Mr. Speaker and hon. members of the house, to look it over and see how many of those promises have been fulfilled in the course of twenty-eight years.


Mr. MITCHELL:: You have a manifesto issued at Regina.


Major James William Coldwell: Certainly, but we have never been in office. Let me say this to my hon. friend, that one C.C.F. government that was elected to office in a province in its first two years in office put into effect every promise it made to the electors of that province. Laugh that off. That was done not in twenty-eight years but in two years. This afternoon what have we got?


Humphrey Mitchell: Saskatchewan does not pay as high an old age pension as British Columbia, if you want to talk about what Saskatchewan is doing.


Major James William Coldwell: To begin with, the
federal government recognizes that Saskatchewan has not the resources of British Columbia. That was recognized in the grants made to Saskatchewan through the dominion-provincial tax agreement. Moreover if Saskatchewan is not paying as high an old age pension as British Columbia, the government of Saskatchewan on slender resources has done something which is even more appreciated by the old age pensioners of that province, and that was to give them free medical, dental, optical

Old Age Pensions
and other services for the last two years. Count that up in dollars and cents and see what it is worth.


An hon. MEMBER:: And how much are the people taxed there?


Major James William Coldwell: I am not discussing
British Columbia, I am not discussing Ontario, and I am not answering the foolish and revealing question just interjected by my hon. friend of the Progressive Conservative Party. I am very glad to have the support of hon. gentlemen to my right this afternoon, but I know their record in regard to old age pensions. It was the Conservative party in the old days which did its level best through its friends in another place to block the introduction of old age pensions.


Paul Joseph James Martin: They did block it.


Major James William Coldwell: I remember that. We have heard a great deal from my hon. friends to my right in the last few months about the necessity of cutting the estimates by one-third. If you do that, you cannot grant mcreases to the old age pensioners in this country.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Oh, yes; you can.


Major James William Coldwell: My hon. friend says, you can. I challenge my hon. friend to come before the house and say where he will cut the estimates to that extent. Let him give us a clear indication of where he would save the money.
What I rose to say this afternoon was this. The view of the party I have the honour to lead in this house at the moment is well known to every hon. member, and it is pretty well known throughout the country. I say with a good deal of pride that my predecessor in this seat, the late J. S. Woodsworth, toiled unremittingly to establish in this country a system of old age pensions and social security. I want to tell my hon. friends on both sides of the house that one of the most cherished possessions we have hanging framed on the wall in our national office is an exchange of letters between the late leader of this movement, Mr. Woodsworth, and the present Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mackenzie King) in that fateful year, 1926, when neither Mr. Meighen nor the present Prime Minister commanded a majority in this house but were dependent upon the votes of Mr. Woodsworth and his labour colleagues. A letter was written to both hon. gentlemen. Mr. Meighen promised that he would consider the introduction of old age pensions and of unemployment insurance if he were accorded support on a vote of confidence motion. Mr. King said that if he were accorded that support he would
introduce old age pensions at that session and would consider unemployment insurance. Mr. Woodsworth supported the vote of confidence in the present Prime Minister of Canada, and that is how old age pensions came to Canada. I am glad to pay that tribute to the late Mr. Woodsworth. My hon. friend the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) knows perfectly well that when he ran as a labour candidate in the city of Hamilton and was elected to this parliament, before he jumped the fence-


Humphrey Mitchell: As you did too.


Major James William Coldwell: No, that is wrong, but let me put it this way: before he fell over the fence when straddling it my hon. friend was largely elected on the statement that Mr. J. S. Woodsworth and the Labour party had secured old age pensions in this country.


Humphrey Mitchell: I wish my hon. friend would give some credit to the trades union movement in this country and to many of us who came to see the Prime Minister of Canada.


Major James William Coldwell: I will give credit where it is due. Mr. Woodsworth was not alone. No one man in this country could have achieved it alone. I am pleased to pay tribute to the labour movement in this country which first nominated and elected Mr. Woodsworth to this parliament. I think it is a tribute I should pay.
It is now twenty years since the present government introduced some measure of retiring allowance for-I am not going to refer to them as the aged poor; let me call them the senior citizens of this country, those who have performed a service to Canada over the major portions of their working lives. Once more across this country we have heard the swelling of the voices demanding a greater measure of justice for these people. A short time ago I had the honour and privilege of presenting to this house a petition signed by over 250,000 citizens, and may I say that not very much effort was required in putting the petition before the people across this country. Signatures were easy to get for it, because the people of Canada want a squarer deal for senior citizens. I do not think there is a member of this house who has not been receiving in his mail almost every day letters pointing out the necessity of improving conditions for the aged; and may I add, that many of the persons who signed the petition and sent in letters are to my personal knowledge not themselves in dire need. The people of Canada, men and women of all ages, have come to recognize that the treatment of our
Old Age Pensions

old folk in Canada is entirely inadequate. They recognize that no mere five dollar increase such as is proposed in this bill, of which the federal government pays 75 per cent of the cost, is sufficient to alleviate the conditions under which those who are dependent upon the old age pension are now suffering. As the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) indicated, no group in this country has been harder hit by increased prices and by the removal of price controls than the aged people about whom we are talking this afternoon, those who are trying to get along on some sort of pension, and others who are attempting to live on a small fixed income. Parliament at this session decided to allow the cost of living to rise. Consequently many of the disabilities from which the older citizens suffer today are due to the action of this parliament in permitting an increase in the cost of living through the removal of beneficial controls. Now we say that the aged- and this bill covers only those of seventy- and the blind-and, as the leader of the opposition pointed out a few moments ago they are covered only if they are over forty-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Forty and over.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: If they are forty and
over. We say that the aged and the blind require at least fifty dollars a month in order to maintain anything like a little home and receive some comfort in it. I have no doubt that in this debate we shall have this bill compared with old age pensions of other countries. The minister nods his head.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What I meant by that
nod was that this country compares most favourably with any other country in the matter of social security.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: I shall deal with that
in a moment. And it will be said-


Paul Joseph James Martin: It will be said fairly.


Major James William Coldwell: -that there are no
countries with pensions as high as $50 a month. Well, in some of the Scandinavian countries they are going up toward that figure pretty rapidly; but I should like to point out in that regard that you cannot make comparisons without comparing the cost of living.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right.


Major James William Coldwell: It may be said that
in New Zealand, for example, those who get old age benefits and universal superannuation will receive only about $35 a month. But in this connection I draw the minister's attention to the fact that it is possible to rent a decent house in New Zealand for $18 a month.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Subsidized.


Major James William Coldwell: Of course it is subsidized. I know it is subsidized, but whether subsidized or not it is possible for an aged couple to get a decent house at $18 a month. Where can you get a decent house in Canada at that rate?


Mr. IRVINE:: Where you subsidize
millionaires.


Major James William Coldwell: Yes, and insurance
companies to build houses. I am certain that you cannot do it under the policy which was enunciated in the house by the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Howe) a short time ago, that four or five-roomed units were to be built to rent at from $50 to $70 a month, not more than $70 a month.


Thomas Reid: Is it not the fairest way to ask how much labour a man puts in to purchase these things?


Major James William Coldwell: Yes, that is true, but
let me point out to the hon. member that the minister is comparing money values.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No.


Major James William Coldwell: The minister said that
they did not have as much as $50 a month.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am sorry to interrupt
the hon. gentleman, but when I come to comparisons I shall show that, after taking into account the cost of living in Canada, the system of old age pensions envisaged by this bill will compare favourably with that of any other country in the world.


Major James William Coldwell: We shall wait until
the minister does that. In the meantime I am going to have my say on the same point.


Paul Joseph James Martin: And no one will listen
with greater pleasure than I.


Major James William Coldwell: I dispute the point.
I go to Britain where there has been a substantial increase in the old age pension. While it looks very little in pounds, shillings and pence, I hold in my hand something I clipped from the Montreal Gazette of today just as I was coming down to the house. It is an article written by a gentleman whom I do not know, but I imagine the minister knows him because his name is Richard Graybiel of the Windsor Star.


Paul Joseph James Martin: An excellent journalist and a good friend.


Major James William Coldwell: The article reads as follows:
Goodbye, England. You have been a good host to us during the last eight months, and we are really sorry to be leaving.

Old Age Pensions
We've done a great deal of grousing about conditions here, probably haven't praised you enough for your achievements. Our basic food items-bread, milk, fats, meat, potatoes-cost less than they would almost anywhere else in the world. We marvel at the modern apartments you have built on the site of sprawling slums, apartments where a working man can house his family for two or three dollars a week.
I just put that before the house to indicate that a dollar in some countries will buy a good deal more than it will buy in our country.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I say at once that that is absolutely inaccurate.


Major James William Coldwell: I must contradict the minister flatly. I know better. I can take my hon. friend to any of the large cities, Sheffield, Birmingham and the suburbs of London and I can show him the kind of houses that can be rented for that amount.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I know them all.


Major James William Coldwell: Yes, the minister knows them. Why contradict me?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Because I think it is wrong. I think the prices there are wrong.


Major James William Coldwell: Therefore I say that you cannot compare dollars and cents between two countries. Of course there they have now a social security system which gives them a measure of security from the cradle to the grave. A little known fact in this country is that the necessities of life and rent have been pinned down rigidly in Britain and, as I have been told by members of parliament who are not of the party in power, that the stories of starvation in Britain are wrong; that the working man and the little child are today better fed than they were before the war, because of rationing and that the present government has had the moral courage to maintain controls and rationing and so on to ensure that that shall be so. That is true. My hon. friend shakes his head.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am sorry to interrupt again; it is impolite. I have met several people from the old country in the last two or three weeks and my information is entirely contrary to what my hon. friend has said.


Jean-François Pouliot: The hon. gentleman should take lessons in diction from the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I ask the hon. member for Temiscouata not to be a pot-bellied valiant.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, I should be very grateful if these pleasant exchanges
between the minister and the hon. member for Temiscouata were kept out of my speech.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I tender my apologies to my hon. friend.


Major James William Coldwell: What I was going to add was this, in spite of the devastation of war, in the British isles they have been able to improve the conditions of the old age pensioner, while we, suffering from no devastation and no destruction from war, with a functioning economy and prosperity such as we have seldom if ever known, are able to do only what is being done this afternoon.
We have always said that the amount of the old age pension should be based upon the national income of our country, bearing in mind its total population, and that it should be considered in relation to the per capita income of our own people. Our national income has doubled during the war while our population has changed relatively little, so that our per capita income must be high. During the war a very large proportion of our production went into the war effort. I was interested this afternoon in hearing the minister give the figures which he thought would be involved in the old age pension bill now before the house. He said it amounted to $65 million.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The amount is $68 million; that is the federal share. Provincial and federal will be approximately $100 million.


Major James William Coldwell: We will take $100 million.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Excuse me; that is for this year. It will increase every year.


Major James William Coldwell: Yes. My hon. friend will remember that during the w*ar our national budget amounted to over $5 billion a year. In other words, the total cost of the old age pension under this bill this year, including the provinces, will be equivalent to one week's cost of the wTar. Let us put it in that light: one week's cost of the war to provide what this bill provides both federally and by the provinces for the aged of Canada.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is only one payment of many.


Major James William Coldwell: If my hon. friend will let me make my speech, as I allowed him to make his, and reply afterward, I shall be greatly obliged.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am very sorry.


Major James William Coldwell: I accept the apology. I think the house and the country will be more
Old Age Pensions

interested in getting a proper reply to the criticisms I am making now, and that reply cannot be given in these interruptions. Surely with our 750,000 or 800,000 young people back into active production, we could, if we properly planned the economy of the country, utilize our resources to produce sufficient to give our senior citizens a reasonable and decent standard of living, which we say should not be less than $50 a month.
I want to make a plea again this afternoon, as I have done before, for the complete abolition of the means test. I see no reason whatever for continuing this humiliating test, which is entirely unnecessary. In another act the government have recognized the validity of not applying the means test. They have recognized this in connection with children's allowances.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What about New Zealand?


Major James William Coldwell: I am a member of parliament for Canada and I will not assume responsibility for any other country.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We hear a lot about New Zealand.


Major James William Coldwell: I will say to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, who is muttering under his breath something which I do not quite hear, that the means test should be entirely abolished. It is humiliating, and I am pointing out that it was abolished in connection with family allowances. If it is not applied in connection with family allowances the same principle can be followed in connection with old age pensions. The fact is that many well-to-do Canadians receive family allowances and indeed were urged to apply for them, and over and above the allowance it was taxed back through income tax in proportion tc. the amount that was not needed. That is the way in which we should deal with old age pensions. If the principle is just and valid with respect to family allowances it is equally just and valid for old age pensions.
My hon. friends who believe in free enterprise are invariably telling us that we need to encourage thrift, that saving is something which is absolutely essential to the free enterprise system. I know of no greater discouragement to thrift than the means test for old age pensions. Let us take a look at it. Here is a young man, or a young woman, twenty-one or twenty-two years of age. This young man decides to take out an annuity. Suppose he goes to an insurance company or to the government. Let us say he goes to the government.


Mr. McIVOR:: Hear, hear.


Major James William Coldwell: Hear, hear, says my hon. friend the member for Fort William, and I agree with him. Well, this young man takes out an annuity for $50 a month payable at the age of sixty-five. The amount he has to deposit every month-and I believe I am using the actual figure-is $8.37 or thereabouts, or approximately $100 a year. Under the scheme we have before us, when that young man, or young woman, reaches the age of sixty-five he will have denied himself at the rate of $100 a year the pleasures that some other young man or some other young woman in the same condition has enjoyed in the interval; for when they reach the age of seventy the young man and the young woman who have not denied themselves anything get the old age pension, whereas the young man or the young woman who has saved all through life at the rate of $100 a year to buy an annuity is told, "You cannot get the pension because you now have $600 a year", which in this bill is the limit of income, including pension, that anyone may receive.
That, I say, is a distinct discouragement to thrift, and I may add that in my own circle of young people, as soon as they are old enough to earn I advise them to take out a government annuity in the hope that some day the means test will be abolished and their thrift will be rewarded instead of being penalized.
I say to all my friends, particularly those who believe in free enterprise, that one thing which they should be doing is to urge, as I am doing, the abolition of the means test.


Douglas Charles Abbott: For non-contributory pensions?


Major James William Coldwell: Oh, yes. I am saying this, that if a young person contributes to the purchasing for himself of a pension of $50 at the age of sixty-five or seventy he should not be penalized under this bill.


Douglas Charles Abbott: My question was this: Is my hon. friend advocating the abolition of the means test in connection with non-contributory pensions?


Major James William Coldwell: Yes.


Mr. MacINNIS:: On the same basis as judges' pensions.


Major James William Coldwell: Or family allowances. If I may interject this, I believe that this house would be wise to give consideration to a comprehensive social security system including old age pensions, health and all the rest of it, to which individuals would contribute during their active life. I do not know whether my hon. friend's party are on record in this regard, but we are on record-


Paul Joseph James Martin: I just 3aid the same thing.

Old Age Pensions


Mr. COLD  WELL@: I do not know whether the hon. gentleman's party is on record, but we are on record that that is a reasonable proposition, but not for a paltry $30 a month and nothing else.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Forty-eight years hence.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: Yes. I have in mind a social security plan that will cover invalidity and the other hazards of life as well as old age.


Mr. BERTRAND (Laurier):: My hon.
friend spoke about not providing for the annuity because, with the means test, young people would be debarred from having the full extent of the pension. Does that not apply to every other saving as well as the saving of $100 a year for the purpose of the annuity?


Major James William Coldwell: Yes.


Ernest Bertrand: Then the hon. gentleman is arguing in favour of everyone spending every cent he gets.


Major James William Coldwell: Oh, no. I am urging the very opposite. I am saying that the policy of the government now encourages young persons to spend every cent and not even to own a home, because if they own a home they are penalized.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Not under the regulations.


Major James William Coldwell: Oh, yes; $2,000 is the limit on the estate.


Paul Joseph James Martin: When we get into committee my hon. friend will see that under the new regulations that is not the case.


Major James William Coldwell: I have looked at the bill.


Paul Joseph James Martin: When we get into committee I will show that that is not the case.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Why did you not say all that in your speech?


Major James William Coldwell: Instead of entering into a political address, why did my hon. friend not explain the bill?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That goes both ways.


Major James William Coldwell: The speech I am making now and have made this afternoon is not the type of speech I intended to make when I came into the house at two o'clock. It was the political atmosphere engendered by the minister that changed my speech this afternoon.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend and I are good friends and I know he would not accuse me of being politically minded.


Major James William Coldwell: Then the hon. gentleman is a poorer judge of a political speech than I thought he was. That is all I can say if he says that.
As far as the age goes, we are far behind some of the other countries. Not one of the following countries has a starting age as high as seventy:	Denmark, Sweden, France, the
United Kingdom, New Zealand, Australia and the U.S.S.R. Only one of those has a higher starting age than sixty-five and several have a lower one. It seems to me that the system in use in some countries whereby the pension is increased if the recipient is prepared to wait for a few years, is also a system which might be considered by this house, and I throw it out as a suggestion. However, that is something for the future. The point is that we are now discussing an old age pension plan to come into effect immediately, and I say that plan should be more generous and should come into effect at age sixty-five.
I agree with the leader of the opposition regarding blind pensions. I have always had a personal reason for taking a keen interest in them. I think that to set the blind pension at forty years of age is to cause hardship to large numbers of people under forty. As soon as the child! passes the period of dependency, the pension should be available. In some of our provinces that age of dependency, under the children's allowance act, is sixteen; in other provinces it is eighteen. As soon as the individual passes out of the age of dependency, the pension should be paid to the blind person.
The bill before us then is inadequate. It fails to recognize the dominion's responsibility for old age pensions. I say that the entire responsibility for old age pension payments should be in the hands of the dominion. I know that never has been the policy of my hon. friends opposite. They started with the dominion contributing fifty per cent, and when my hon. friends to my right got into office in 1930-after their leader, Mr. Bennett, had promised that the old age pension would be entirely borne by the federal authority- they raised the federal contribution to seventy-five per cent. For the reasons which I gave when I first rose to speak, I want to see the federal contribution raised to 100 per cent. Some provinces have limited resources; other provinces have greater resources. Some provinces can afford to pay something in addition while others cannot. This bill, drafted in the way in which it is drafted, does not compel any of the provinces to pay $30 a month.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We cannot do it.

Old Age Pensions


Major James William Coldwell: My hon. friend says we cannot do it. I want to tell him that time and time again his government has said, and even today is saying to the provinces of Ontario and Quebec: "You can have certain benefits under dominion legislation if you will enter into certain agreements with us." I say that the same thing could be done with regard to old age pensions-


Paul Joseph James Martin: There is no doubt about what the provinces would say.


Major James William Coldwell: -instead of saying to the province, "If you want to pay $25 or $20, we will pay seventy-five per cent." What is actually being done under this bill is, of course, to cause a good deal of unfriendly discussion as between the various provinces. At a time when we need national unity the government is putting into this bill something -which aims a direct blow at national unity.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And the old age pensioners will be the victims.


Major James William Coldwell: Yes; as my hon. friend says, the old age pensioners will be the victims. Why should the old age pensioner be penalized because he lives, we will say, in New Brunswick where there are inadequate natural resources as compared with an old! age pensioner who lives in British Columbia where there are tremendous resources?


George Alexander Cruickshank: They all ought to live there.


Major James William Coldwell: Why should that differentiation exist? All Canadians should be entitled to the same benefits under national legislation. My hon. friend reminds me that, when war comes, all Canadians have to defend the country no matter where they may live.


George Alexander Cruickshank: They will not all do it, though.


Major James William Coldwell: I said that some provinces, instead of giving an additional amount of money, gave additional services, and that is something which should not be overlooked when we are discussing how much a province is doing. My own province is doing a great deal in the way of additional services to the aged. Moreover, I hope they will endeavour to do something for that group of people not provided for in this bill, namely, the indigent people who are under seventy. They have a real claim on the people of this country. If we are to ration poverty, which the government's measure is actually doing, then let us see that we ration it so that those

who are really in need get some small ration as well. The position I have referred to is a desperate one for any province to be in, and is a desperate thing for this government to put upon the country at the present time.
I see that my time is just about exhausted. I have not covered all the points I should like to have covered, but I think I have said enough to show that we are bitterly disappointed with the inadequacy of this measure, that the people of the country were expecting something better, and that after twenty-eight years since this Liberal platform of 1919 was adopted.


An hon. MEMBER:: The pages have
become yellow.


Major James William Coldwell: Yes, as someone
remarks, the pages have become yellow. They have become as yellow as the government has become with regard to its own programme.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I ask my hon. friend a question? Is he opposed to the increased benefits in this bill?


Major James William Coldwell: My hon. friend need not ask that question. He knows perfectly well that, while we asked for more, we shall take the little that is given and try to make the best of it in the meantime. However, we are expressing our belief that the people of this country will be as dissatisfied with this measure as we are.
Mr. SOLON E. LOW (Peace River): I am sure that the minister who introduced this bill will want to know exactly what our group thinks about his offspring; and I am going to try to tell him, in a short space of time, exactly what I think about it.


Mr. JOHNSTON:: Using parliamentary
language.


Mr. LOW:: I shall be using parliamentary language.


Mr. BENTLEY:: But you will not be meaning it.


Solon Earl Low: I am speaking for my group, Mr. Speaker, and I do not intend to take more than ten or fifteen minutes. While the minister was making his statement I had visions of the hon. gentleman on his hands and knees, struggling with all his might to push with his nose a peanut from here to the Rideau river. It was a great struggle.


Charles Edward Johnston: It is too bad he did not reach the river.


William Irvine: The peanut bill!


Solon Earl Low: That is just about the way we look at this bill. It is just about the size of

Old Age Pensions
a peanut so far as help for the aged citizens and the blind pensioners across this country is concerned. Let me say further, Mr. Speaker, that no group in this house has any monopoly on interest in the aged people. We do not pose as being the lord protectors of the aged and the blind; not by any means. I agree with what the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith) said in debate a short time ago, to the effect that the C.C.F. cannot lay claim to being their sole protector, nor can the Social Credit group, the Progressive Conservatives or the Liberals. In spite of the fact that the Liberal government is reputed to have introduced a bill back in 1927, I think the minister said, and that in the twenty-year period following they have brought the benefits up to the present level, I feel they must give credit to other hon. members in other parts of the house for continuously pressing for and advocating these changes, being consistent day in and day out, year in and year out in their endeavour to have these pensions improved.
There is, however, one thing I should like to say in that connection. Our movement generally, from the first year of its administration in Alberta, undertook to translate its views and philosophy into action; and, as has been stated already in this debate, in 1942 we attempted to get the dominion government to join us in increasing the pension to $30 instead of $25. The federal government could not see its way clear to do so at that time; therefore the Alberta government went it alone and paid an extra $5 per month per pensioner. That does not seem like a very large amount of money, but I would remind hon. members that with approximately 11,000 pensioners it meant a yearly outlay of over $700,000, which the Alberta government had to make by itself. That is a considerable achievement for a province the size of Alberta, with fewer than 800,000 people, particularly in the period following some devastating years through which the province had to pass. In the intervening years a programme of medical assistance has been worked out, and now Alberta is extending medical, dental and hospital facilities to the aged and blind pensioners of that province and their dependents, as well as mothers and their dependents who come under the mother's allowance there. I understand that Saskatchewan has a similar programme, and I say all honour to them for recognizing their responsibility toward the older and unfortunate citizens of this country. I merely mention these things to emphasize that at least some groups other 83166-275J
than the Liberal party have had at heart the welfare of the senior citizens and the blind in Canada.
Some things in the bill I look upon as great improvements over the old act, and I congratulate the minister on having introduced those improvements at this time. Let me say quite clearly that we do not fail to recognize that the minister is trying to operate within the restricted confines of a financial structure which perhaps makes it impossible for him to do a great deal more than he is doing at the moment. He must dip into the pockets of the taxpayers of this country to get the money he pays out in old age pensions. We realize that, and we have sympathy for him under the circumstances. I have been in a similar position, vying with other ministers in asking for money, and I know exactly what he is up against and the competition he runs into. So, as I say, while I may make some disparaging remarks about the child he has brought forth today, at the same time I have great appreciation and sympathy for him in the circumstances. It makes it very hard for our group to vote against this measure, because there are some improvements over the old act and some great benefits to our aged citizens. So I must make our position clear. We will, of course, support the minister in paying these extra benefits and in relaxing the qualifications, and what-not; but we must register our complaint that the bill falls far short of what senior Canadians had a right to expect.
For a few moments I should like to deal with the suggestion of the minister that we must have a long range programme looking toward the day when Canada can introduce a system of contributory old age pensions and social security. While the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) and the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) were speaking, I made a few hasty calculations. They may not be exactly right, but the figures will convey the general idea. I took the average head of a Canadian family. At the present rate he will have to surrender to a very much inflated state, that is to the government of Canada, $700 worth of the fruits of his labour every year in taxes. Over a period of fifty years, if this average head of a household began his active earning career at twenty years of age, he will have to surrender $35,000 to the state. When he reaches seventy years of age he has a life expectancy of eight years and 296 days, according to the latest insurance mortality tables. If at that age he becomes a pensioner and lives out his expectancy he will receive back under the

Old Age Pensions
new bill just introduced eight times $270 plus $242.50. or a total of $2,402.50, in the form of a pension.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: And will pay hidden taxes on every dollar of it.


Solon Earl Low: Yes; as my hon. friend says, he will pay hidden taxes, sales and excise taxes and so on, on every single penny he spends. Let us ponder these figures for just a moment. This average head of a Canadian family is forced to surrender to the federal government-and I am speaking of the federal government only; I have neglected to calculate what he would surrender to provincial and municipal governments-$35,000 of the products of his own labour over the active years of his life. So I ask this question. Can anyone seriously or successfully argue that this average head of a Canadian family has not thereby purchased for himself social security in his old age, so long as the Canadian economy can produce sufficient goods and services to keep him in decency in his old age? I would challenge anyone successfully to argue that he has not so purchased a decent security in his old age.


John Horne Blackmore: Without contributing.


Solon Earl Low: Yes, without contributing anything more. I maintain that he has; and I maintain, further, that all the talk about the desirability of a contributory pension in the years to come is so much eyewash. We already have a contributory shadow of a pension, and I contend that every Canadian during his active years, particularly under present circumstances with the burden of taxes he has to surrender to the state, buys a pension as of right when he is ready to retire from employment in the productive enterprise of of sixty or sixty-five. Anyone who thinks he our country, any time after he reaches the age has not should present his arguments during this debate to show that is not so.
All our tendencies in this country today are toward robbing men of their independence through taxes and death duties at rates that are punitive; and those tendencies are toward reducing the productive individual to a mere vassal of a non-productive state. As a result, many individual citizens in Canada are kept on the borderline of poverty throughout most of their lives, so that in too many cases our people simply cannot reach the age of retirement with the means to keep themselves in decency for the rest of their days. Might I suggest that if the government do not want to make pensions represent a reasonable living allowance they leave with the individual Cana-

dian over the years of his active life a greatei portion of the product of his own labour, and he will look after himself.
The Social Credit group in the house has felt since 1935, and now feels, that it will be necessary to lower the pensionable age to sixty years and to bring in a general pensions act providing for not less than $50 a month, without a means test. We have advocated that consistently.
The Alberta Social Credit government has consistently passed resolutions to induce thinking Canadians to insist that such changes be made. We do not think we should go any longer under provisions for the means test. It is unfair; it is unjust, and in future years it will become obvious that it is unworkable.
On another occasion I made our position clear by saying in effect that the absolute necessity for bringing up the pension, abolishing the means test and bringing down the pensionable age will become more apparent as the problem of unemployment develops to its full intensity, under the discredited system of finance which this government persists in following.
We are reaching the time right now when unsaleable surpluses are beginning to appear in the Canadian economy, and when provision will be made to destroy or to waste those so-called surplus products in our country. I suggest that, unless a scientific method of distributing these surpluses be found soon unemployment is bound to follow within a matter of months.
The paying of a pension of $50 to every Canadian at the age of sixty years or over may sound like a big undertaking. But in the light of the colossal gifts which Canada made to her allies during the war, and to other friends during the same period of time, and in the light of the further fact that in the giving of those colossal gifts we made ourselves more prosperous than we ever were in our lives before, the aggregate sum required to carry out the undertaking we propose becomes quite commonplace.
I know the minister is hard pressed and will continue to be hard pressed for money. He would find it difficult to implement the set of conditions we propose so long as pensions must be paid out of taxation. While that condition obtains, he will continue to have trouble. I suggest that the old age pensioners of this country, if they ever expect to receive anything like a decent standard of pensions for their maintenance in the twilight of their years, must advocate a system different from the taxation system of today. Ade-

Old Age Pensions
quate pensions will never be paid if the government has to dip into the pockets of the taxpayers to pay them.
In addition to our humanitarian interest in the welfare of our aged and blind citizens, we have other interests in this matter of old age pensions. Our interest is not in catching votes. We say that from an economic point of view it is absolutely necessary that we increase allowances to our pensioners and to the blind, if we are ever to balance consumption with production in normal times.
The minister is anxious about the selfrespect of Canada's senior citizens. That is a worthy concern. I, too, am concerned about their self-respect; and I suggest that a man's self-respect can easily be lost if he knows he is the object of charity or that what he gets by way of pension is taken from the pockets of other people. Certainly in those circumstances he loses his self-respect; I agree with that. But I say now without fear of successful contradiction that the self-respect of any man in Canada is not lost when he is placed in the position of a shareholder in Canada Unlimited -a Canada that can produce enough that every citizen can live in security during his lifetime as well as in his declining years. If he receives during those years a pension out of moneys which do not first pass through the channels of industry, more particularly will his self-respect be retained. If he sees that, while he is a shareholder in Canada Unlimited, there are being wasted hundreds of millions of dollars worth of goods and services he may be sure it is because we are proceeding under an outdated and outmoded financial system which will not distribute those goods and services.


John Horne Blackmore: We are decreasing purchasing power where we should increase it.


Solon Earl Low: Perfectly true. It is high time we began to recognize the need for saving what is otherwise wasted. When we do save, let us see that it is not wasted. The first thought that comes to the mind of any Social Creditor-indeed, to the mind of any decent Canadian-is: let us use the millions of dollars worth of goods and services in normal times wasted to improve the lot of the unfortunate citizens of this country, including the aged and the blind.
I wish to say just a word with respect to one other feature of the bill. After it has been passed, and while the minister is carrying on what I think should be conferences with the provinces, I hope he will have in mind the possibility of simplifying the administration of old age pensions. I had something to do with their administration for a period of eight years in Alberta, and I know the many difficulties of administering pensions under a divided authority and under the regulations as they have existed.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member has had wide experience.


Solon Earl Low: Thank you.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes; the hon. member was a very good minister, despite his politics.


Solon Earl Low: Since I learned about it, I have often wondered why pensions are not paid in the Yukon Territory. Perhaps in his rebuttal the minister will answer that question. If a person is a citizen of the Yukon for, let us say, a period of fifteen years and moves into Alberta or Saskatchewan, or some other province and, while there, reaches the age of seventy years, he is denied his pension upon application, because the Yukon Territory does not as yet pay pensions to its citizens. Many a hardship results.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Depending upon the action of the elective body in the territory.


Solon Earl Low: Yes. I must say it seems to me that the federal government is much more responsible to the people in the Yukon than it is to the people in the other provinces. It has a direct responsibility. However, the minister will have a chance to answer that point.
One further matter. I am hoping it will be possible for the minister to announce that reciprocal arrangements have been made with Britain -and perhaps some other countries, whereby pensions can be paid to British people and others who come to Canada and, while here, reach the. age of seventy years. Let us say that they reach that age after living in Canada for eight or ten, or perhaps even only five or six years. At the present time I understand- that there is no reciprocal arrangements between Britain and Canada, with the result that many Britishers who have reached the age of seventy years while in Canada and find themselves without the means of sustenance, are not able to obtain pensions. If I am wrong I should like to be corrected. Perhaps in his rebuttal the minister will make that point clear.
In conclusion, let me, say that certainly we will support what the minister has brought forward; but we deplore the fact that the pensions paid to the aged people of Canada have not in any way increased with the cost of living in this country. We deplore the conditions under which many of our citizens have had to live during past years. We will continue to press with all our might for a sane and Christian system of pensions which at, let us say, the age of sixty or sixty-five, will provide to
Old Age Pensions

every Canadian a reasonable amount on which he or she can live in happiness during declining years. Let that pension be as a matter of right. That is our position.


Mr. DAVID CROLL (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this bill for the good it contains-and it contains a great deal of good. Under the circumstances, the minister has perhaps sweated out the best possible bill he could. I do not think it is good enough; perhaps he does not think so, either. But it is the best he can do, within certain limitations.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: What are the limitations?


David Arnold Croll: 
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: British Columbia
always leads.


David Arnold Croll: Nova Scotia will be able to pay $35.41; Saskatchewan S33.75, and Ontario, $31.75. The reason I give those figures will be evident in a moment. Ontario at the present, time is paying less in old age pensions

Old Age Pensions
than it was on November 1, 1929. When it first came into the scheme Ontario was paying $10 and the dominion was paying $10. In 1931 the dominion government increased its share by one-half, from $10 to $15, and thereupon Ontario reduced its share by one-half, which meant that its $10 contribution was cut to $5. Now the Ontario government's share of the $25 that is authorized by the present Old Age Pensions Act is 86.25, which is what the pensioner receives each month at the present time from the province. To this we must add the provincial bonus, which is fifteen per cent of the actual pension, but not higher than $3. If we add the S3 we shall find that the Ontario government is now paying $9.25. At the present time Ontario is paying $9.25, whereas in 1929 it was paying $10 to the pensioners, and that is the sum that it originally undertook to pay.
I wish to emphasize that Ontario has a much smaller percentage of persons seventy years of age and over actually on pension than any other province. Only three persons out of ten in Ontario over seventy years of age qualify even for a partial pension; whereas in New Brunswick the figures indicate that six persons out of ten over seventy years of age qualify. The point I make is that if Ontario were paying a pension in accordance with her ability and in accordance with the need of the people comparable with that which is being paid by British Columbia she would now be paying $46.50.


Mr. TUSTIN:: Why did the hon. member
not increase it when he was minister?


David Arnold Croll: I am glad the hon. member
asked that question. My hon. friend wants to know why I did not increase it. I was minister from 1934 to 1937. In those years in Ontario we had 400,000 people on relief. We spent $15 million of our own money for people on relief. At that time $20 was a tremendous sum of money and was worth far more than $30 that is being paid now or even $40 at the present time. At that time our sole interest was to make sure that the people got the $20. Instead of talking about increasing it, we had to hold it. We were then in the depths of the depression. That is why we did not increase it at that particular time, if my hon. friend wants to know. But we never stopped advocating that-


George James Tustin: The Liberal government
was in power until 1943.


David Arnold Croll: I should take some of the
responsibility. It must also be remembered that we gave the supplement in 1942, which was in accordance with what the others
had to pay, and we provided medical attention of the kind that is provided by the other provinces. We were in line up to 1942, though my responsibility as a minister finished in 1937, as the hon. member knows.
May I now return to the argument. At the present time Ontario provides about forty-nine per cent of the revenue of the Dominion of Canada. Under the various agreements with the provinces, Ontario money is being used for the purpose of raising this pension. With that I have no quarrel. I am wholly in agreement with it, but it seems to me to be foolhardy that this attitude should obtain between the provinces whereby the old and the sick, the lame and the blind are being used as a pawn in a political campaign.


Howard Charles Green: By the dominion.


David Arnold Croll: Not by the dominion. The
same agreement is open to Ontario, and the other provinces seem to find satisfaction in it. Under the present bill, it is possible for Ontario to pay the maximum pension of $31.75 without increasing her current contributions one bit. My appeal to Ontario is that they should pass on-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear.


Howard Charles Green: That is all the hon. member is interested in.


David Arnold Croll: -to the old age pensioners at least the benefits which are being provided at the present time in this bill. In my opinion there is no reason why the wealthiest province in all Canada should not at least be on a par with British Columbia.
I have said that the percentage of old age pensioners in Ontario-


Howard Charles Green: Why did thev not do it in 1942?


David Arnold Croll: -as compared with British Columbia and other provinces is no greater. Ontario owes it to these needy people to see that the pension is brought up not only on a par with British Columbia but in accordance with the need of the people.
There are two other matters on which something needs to be said. I am not going to deal with the administrative part of the bill. The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) indicated that there might be administrative difficulties. There are administrative difficulties, and they are not easy to hurdle. Steps should be taken to lay down a uniform administration of some kind and to simplify the administration. Today we have local boards. We are the only province
Old Age Pensions

in Canada which still maintains these cumbersome local boards whereby the old age pensioner in a small town has to pass through various hands. Rather than face up to it, many of them go without pensions far longer than they ought to. These are administrative matters that are of some consequence.
There are two things in this bill that particularly appeal to me. One is the matter of clarification of residence and the other that of nationality. They did not attract a great deal of attention when the matter was discussed, except for a few words here and there, but they are important. A large minority of Canadians will rejoice over the liberal wording of these two clauses in the resolution. At times every hon. member has had instances of persons come to his attention who were born in Canada and who lived here almost all their lives. Because they went away from Canada for five or ten years in the period between their fiftieth and seventieth years they found on their return to their native country, that they could not qualify for old age pensions. I am thinking now of a specific case_ of a man who was born in Canada and lived here until 1916. He went to the United States and was absent from 1916 to 1935. At seventy years of age he applied for the old age pension. This man had lived in Canada fifty-one years but had lived here only twelve years out of the last twenty. At that time he was advised that he was not eligible for the old age pension. This bill now corrects what I thought was a mistake and what is now recognized to be a mistake.
The bill is also more generous with respect to those who are now in Canada but who are not citizens of Canada. There are a great number of people who were born in other lands and who, for some reason or another had not become naturalized. They have spent the required number of years in this country. They have contributed to the general economy even though they were not citizens. They have paid their taxes; they have worked in our factories and on our farms; but, for one reason or another, perhaps because they came too late in life to learn the English or the French language, or perhaps for some other reason, perhaps just from neglect, they have not become naturalized. It is to the credit of this government that they have decided to follow the precedent established in the unemployment insurance and the family allowance measures and extend the benefits of old age pensions to all persons in this country

over seventy years of age who have completed the required period of residence or otherwise complied with the act.
I said a few moments ago that this debate would be an acceptance of what we have offered to do, but that we would immediately begin a new fight for improvements. In the field of social service we can never stand still. The status quo is never good enough. We must continue constantly to go forward and we must do a thorough job of it. I appreciate that putting a few blow-out patches on the 1927 act, now twenty years old, is just a beginning. We are now living in an age that calls for a new social deal, not only for the underprivileged, but for the aged and the needy.
It must be said in fairness that this bill is a step forward, but it only touches the fringes of the problem. In an appreciation of the problem of old. age pensions there are three considerations which are uppermost in our minds and which have been touched on by speakers who have already taken part in the debate. These are the means test, the amount of pension, and the age at which pensions become payable.
I should like to consider these for a few moments. Two years ago I described the means test by referring to it as invidious or, as I believe a member of the house referred to it, as the poverty test. I have not changed my mind on that. It is a hangover from the old days of the poor laws when a person claiming a pension had to prove himself completely destitute and without relatives to support him. I know it is beyond question that a great number of deserving people are debarred from receiving a pension because they cannot submit themselves to the indignity of the means test; yet we are forced to insist upon it and, by doing so, we condemn some of them to an old age that is barren and cheerless poverty. This bill is an improvement. A person may have an income of $600 a year. It is a tremendous improvement over the previous limit of $425, but I, too, say that it is not enough. It seems to me that we are setting a maximum living standard of $600 a year for our senior citizens, and I would ask this question: Are we justified in requiring old persons to live on a maximum of $600 a year when we consider that the benefits of unem-ploj'tnent insurance, inadequate as they are, assure to a single person without dependents, who has been earning $26 a week, a maximum of $636 for a year? A man of seventy years of age has basically the same needs for food1.

Old Age Pensions
clothing and recreation as the man who is younger and he must pay the same prices.
I have always been opposed to the means test. It is archaic and ungenerous. I wonder if we in Canada cannot afford the dignity of an old age pension free from that test. I could not agree with the leader of the opposition when he said that we had reneged on our promises made in this house two years ago in the white paper. I have here the statement made today by the minister in which he recalls the proposals made in August, 1945, to the provinces with respect to a programme for national health, public investment and social security, and he reiterates that we stand by them now as we stood by them at that time. That certainly envisaged a contributory old age pension scheme.
May I touch upon another matter. I wish it were not necessary to shame ourselves into taking some of these forward steps in social services. I am a little bit tired, as I know other members are, of pointing out what other governments are achieving in progressive little countries like New Zealand, Denmark and Sweden, and then calling upon this great country of ours to catch up with them. In every branch of social welfare, from old age pensions, yes, to divorce, we have always had to wait for someone else to show us the way. Why can we not show these other countries an example of humane and advanced social legislation?
I said a few minutes ago that we did envisage such a plan in 1945. In so far as the basic pension is concerned, it will be of little value to specify an optimum amount of pension that should be paid. Clearly $28 a month paid in Ontario is not enough. Previous speakers have suggested $50 a month as adequate. I should like to have voted for $50 a month. I believe it would far more nearly meet the situation. But personally I think it is a very poor idea for the various political parties to start bidding against one another in this matter. For my own part I should like to see the old age pension raised to the highest possible level, but rather than name an arbitrary figure I think the government should relate the old age pension directly to the cost of living as it fluctuates from time to time.


Solon Earl Low: Starting where?


David Arnold Croll: The food index has risen 48 points above the pre-war level, or almost fifty per cent, whereas the statutory amount of the pension until now has increased from $240 to $300, which was a matter of twenty-five per cent. The bill now raises it to $360, 83166-276
or fifty per cent of an increase, which brings the pension into line with the present cost of living.


William Irvine: Assuming that they could
live on it before.


David Arnold Croll: I am trying now to see where we should start from. I have no quarrel with the hon. member on the old figure; I am trying to see that we improve the new figure. This might be done by paying a cost of living supplement to augment the basic pension. Such a supplement would rise or fall with the cost of living index, always leaving the basic rate unchanged, which is now $30.
Finally, there was a question of the qualifying age, the age at which the pension should be payable. In different countries opinions vary on this point and they change with the economic cycle. In bad times there is a tendency to lower the pension age and to tempt the needy people out of the labour market and so make room for younger workers. While it is true that in an expanding economy like ours there is room for every employable person, I consider it wrong for us to compel senior citizens to work by setting the qualifying age so high. As a guiding principle we ought, to adopt the recommendation of the 1932 international labour conference, that the pensionable age be set at not more than sixty-five, and in doing so we would only be following the example set by almost every other civilized country in the world, as was pointed out by the leader of the C.C.F. (Mr. Coldwell). In at least nine countries-the United States, England, New Zealand, France, Australia, Czechoslovakia, Sweden, Denmark and the Soviet Union-the pensionable age has been fixed at sixty-five or less.


William Irvine: It is fifty-five for women in the Soviet Union.


David Arnold Croll: Among the great middle
powers, we are still holding out with respect to age. I think it is time that we fell into step with these other countries.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We are prepared to do that.


David Arnold Croll: That is good.


Stanley Howard Knowles: After twenty-eight years.


William Irvine: Why does the government not do it and get ahead with it?


David Arnold Croll: There is another matter which I think ought to be given consideration. There is a situation which frequently arises-and it was referred to on the floor of the house, I think by the hon. member for Swift Current (Mr. Bentley)-where the head of the house is unable to work and draws the old age

Old Age Pensions

pension. His wife is younger than he is, but not eligible under the statute. Both of them must try to live on his pension. I think it is high time, in cases where the wife is unable to work, that the regulations be changed so that the pension to her becomes automatic. That may appear to be a small point, but I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the lack of just such a simple provision is causing real hardship in many families throughout this country.
These many things about which I have been talking-abolition of the means test, increase in the amount of pension, lowering of the qualifying age-cover only half the problem. Taking care of Canada's senior citizens is more than a matter of dollars and cents. Even though they have withdrawn from active participation in business and industry, we cannot feel that they are not members of the community and that they have not a place in society. They are not to be just pensioned off and forgotten. This is becoming a really serious social problem in view of the changing position of Canada. We have always looked upon ourselves as a young country. The emphasis has always been on youth. Yet it is calculated that, within a generation and a half, thirty per cent of Canada's population will be over fifty-five years of age. This inevitable trend toward an older population is a matter of some significance. I have here a newspaper report, from the New York Times, of a statement made last month by the director of the social science department of the university of Michigan. This is what he said in part:
For one thing the political power of the older person will grow. With that development will come more and more demands for social security. Old age insurance will become more important. Business will be giving more attention to annuity and pension plans. Taxes for support of old age persons will rise sharply. Positions of importance in government and business are more apt to be held by older persons.
Consumer demands also will change. Our recreation planning will have to take into account the demands of older persons. Travel should increase and books and concerts should become more popular. Population shifts will continue as the older people, who have retired, drift to the states with the mild winter climates.
These are just a few of the changes which we may expect to find mirrored in our own society in the next twenty-five years, and we must begin to plan now to cope with them. We must prepare to face the growing problems of support, physical and mental health, recreation and social relations, of our senior citizens who, within the next thirty years, will comprise at least one-third of our population. In the post-war world we are trying to fit everyone
[Mr. Croll.l
into a spot. We have not yet successfully fitted our older generation in at all. Unless we do something more than we have done up to the present time, we shall build up a Townsend movement for social security which will crusade with more zeal than good sense. If we can ensure for all Canadians a broad programme of social services, we are not likely to be troubled with fabulous plans for $200 or $300 a month pensions and the like.
But money payments are not the whole answer. Britain and other countries supplement the cash pension, not only with medical services, but with extra food, recreation, health services, and even domestic aids for pensioners. In my own province of Ontario we not only pay low pensions but provide none of those social services. It is the duty of the government and the community to do more than they are doing at the present time. They must provide community centres, clubrooms and other facilities for the use of the old people. Perhaps some of our existing facilities might be reserved exclusively on specific days for these older people, as is done in the United States and Britain. The older third of the nation made Canada what it is today; and to them we still look for counsel and example. We must neither forget them nor take them for granted. As members of parliament charged with responsibility, we must do everything in our power, not only to make their lives richer, but to make them more meaningful.
Mr. DONALD M. FLEMING (Eglinton): We have listened to some unusual political speeches during the course of the debate this afternoon. I think it is fair to observe-in line with some of the observations which have been made here today, particularly those that harked back to a remark dropped in the house a few days ago by the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith)-that is a pity that the subject of old age pensions should be made the vehicle for political speeches. While on the subject of political speeches, I wish to say with some vigour that the two speeches we heard this afternoon from the government benches certainly struck a partisan note. I feel confident in saying there was not anything which could have been said by way of extenuation of the government's failures in times past in the field of social security and old age pensions, which was not said by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (MI. Martin).


Paul Joseph James Martin: It hit the spot, apparently.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It struck home.

Old Age Pensions


Donald Methuen Fleming: There was not anything that could have been said, concocted or imagined in praise of the government which was not said, concocted or imagined by the minister. I say of him that he undoubtedly did a masterly job this afternoon, but not of making a presentation of this bill in its true proportions and proper perspective. It was a masterly job of inflation.


Mr. HALLE:: Let us talk business.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I shall have more to say about that later.


Maurice Hallé: I hope not.


Donald Methuen Fleming: As to the speech made by the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll), I should like to say that his detour from the theme of his speech in order to make a deliberate, partisan attack on the government of his province and mine was an obvious attempt to play politics with a national issue.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member must not impute motives.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I shall have more to say about that. My hon. friend has not yet heard all that I propose to say in regard to those two efforts. I ask the hon. member for Spadina, for instance, why, in trying to abuse the government of Ontario and make that province appear to be a laggard in the matter of social security, he did not tell the house, as he might well have done, that Ontario was one of the first provinces to come into the old age pension scheme.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No; British Columbia.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I said one of the first. If the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie) will permit anyone to discuss any other province, perhaps I might say a word concerning Ontario. I think the minister has had a pretty good inning this afternoon, and he might let Ontario have a little time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Let us give the old age pensioners an inning, too.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That was a sound remark. It is about time the old age pensioners had their inning in this debate. I am glad to say that Ontario has been no laggard. It has been well to the front in matters of social security.
I will say that Ontario takes second place to no other province in Canada in matters of sound social security. When I was interrupted I was saying that Ontario was one of the first provinces to come into the old age pension scheme, coming under it in 1929. It is to be remembered also that Ontario was the pioneer 83166-276J
province in providing free medical service and free medicine for old age pensioners. It was far ahead of those provinces which are making much of the fact that they do this now. Why did the hon. member for Spadina not say that?


David Arnold Croll: I didn't want to brag, because I did it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member for Spadina may have started it, because he had the opportunity to do so when he was head of that department in the government of Ontario. He did not say it has been carried on by the government that has been in office since that time. He did not say the government of Ontario has maintained that leadership. To those not acquainted with the situation in this province, his remarks today must have left the impression that Ontario was lagging behind, whereas Ontario has been the pioneer and, under the present government of that province, still holds the leadership.
Neither were we told by the minister or by the hon. member of Spadina that it was a Conservative government under Mr. Bennett that in 1931, on behalf of the dominion, recognized and assumed the dominion's primary obligation with respect to old age pensions. You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that up to that time they had been a matter of equal financial responsibility as between the dominion and the provinces. Mr. Bennett's legislation placed three-quarters of the responsibility upon the dominion. That was a recognition of the primary obligation, the primary responsibility of the dominion in respect of the provision of old age pensions.


Mr. HARTT:: Did he carry it out?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, he did; he put it on the statute books. He did not leave what he had to say to moulder in musty books containing party platforms; he put his promise into the form of a statute in 1931, and not even the present government have dared depart from that principle. They have not increased the proportion, nor have they reduced it. That proportion has stood since that time. This is very important, because I am going to place before the house today the contention that in the speech we heard this afternoon by the Minister of National Health and W elfare there was an attempt to reverse the policy which has been recognized ever since 1931. The primary responsibility was recognized then by the dominion. It has not been disavowed since, until we come to the speech by the Minister of National Health and Welfare today.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask a helpful question? Where did the province, whose govern-
Old Age Pensions

ment my hon. friend lauds so much, stand through its premier in regard to family allowances?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The government to which my hon. friend refers, which is the government of his province and mine, did not say it did not believe in family allowances. The premier of that province did attack the motives of the administration in introducing that measure at that particular time; but he said then and has often repeated since that he believes in family allowances.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: A national bribe.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Oh, well, now, if the Minister of Veterans Affahs is making that as a statement, who am I to disagree with him?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am quoting your leader.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think the hon. member for Spadina did create the impression-I hope quite innocently, though he has been in political life for a good long time-[DOT]


An hon. MEMBER:: He is not that innocent.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not mind answering questions if I can hear them.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Go on; you are making a good speech.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Thank you; may I continue? I think the hon. member for Spadina did create the impression this afternoon that the matter was closed as far as the other provinces are concerned.
Now, here is a government which for months has been trumpeting its intention to bring in changes in old age pensions. There has been a great deal of fanfare, as there always is about the intentions of this government. They are never slow or backward in tooting their own horn. It has been trumpeted throughout the length and breadth of Canada that great changes were coming in the old age pensions; increases, of course. They did not say how much; they did not dare say how much, because it was so little. The governments of the provinces in the main have been waiting to see what would come out of ah the fanfare, and they did not know until very late last night.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Why does my hon. friend
say that?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I lay at the door of this government responsibility for the fact that none of the provinces, with the exception of British Columbia, have been taking steps in

this field in recent months. Why should they, when the air was filled with uncertainty because of the vaporizing of this government?
While I am on that subject, may I remind hon. members that the premier of British Columbia has been asking this government to call a conference so that this whole question may be the subject of sensible negotiation. The dominion government still refuse to call that conference; apparently they do not want negotiation. The premier of British Columbia also made it clear that he hoped the increase introduced at the recent session of the British Columbia legislature would not be required for more than a temporary period, because it was his hope that this government would rise to its responsibilities and not seek to cast the burden on the provinces. Here is a Canadian press dispatch under date of February 11, reporting on the joint announcement of that day by Premier John Hart, finance minister Herbert Anscomb and provincial secretary George S. Pearson, with regard to the increase in the old age pension in that province, at the entire expense of the province. The dispatch states:
Old age pensioners in British Columbia will receive a '$5 cost of living bonus retroactive to January 1 this year, a joint announcement by Premier John Hart, finance minister Herbert Anscomb and provincial secretary George S. Pearson said today.
May I just pause there to say that British Columbia had the courage to make the increase in old age pensions retroactive to January 1. The best this government can do under the present measure is to start it from May 1. The dispatch continues:
The bonus, second to be granted by the province, will bring the monthly old age allowance to $35. Of this amount British Columbia will pay $16.25 and the federal government $18.75.
Premier Hart said the bonus was being given for a temporary period pending revision of the old age pension arrangements by the dominion government.
Let us bear that well in mind. Let the Minister of Veterans Affairs, who comes from that province, bear that in mind when he gives some indication of support for the proposals advanced today by the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and when he takes great credit-as credit is due-to the government of British Columbia for doing what the delays of this government compelled that province to do.
I shall read that again:
Premier Hart said the bonus was being given for a temporary period pending revision of the old-age pension arrangements by the dominion government.
The premier said that, while in Ottawa last November, he was assured by Prime Minister King that the moment a sufficient number of

Old Age Pensions
provinces had signed agreements, he would call a conference to discuss the question of implementing the social security measures and public investment programme submitted to the dominion-provincial conference in August, 1945.
I interject there that they have seven provinces now, but they are no nearer to calling a conference. The government always has some excuse for not calling a conference together, when everyone knows it ought to be called.
The dispatch continues:
"It now is my intention to press for a convening of that conference and I have every hope that more generous treatment will be accorded those in receipt of old age pensions," Mr. Hart said.
The new bonus will cost the province $900,000 annually. Total amount now paid out in pensions to British Columbia's 18,000 pensioners is $5,700,000 annually, of which the dominion's share is $3,761,000.
It is perfectly clear from the statement made by Premier John Hart that he expected the dominion would rise to its responsibilities. He demanded or requested that the dominion government should measure up to its responsibilities, and call a conference to work out a new agreement. But it is clear that the government of British Columbia was not recognizing any obligation on the province to assume the primary load or the primary responsibility in respect of old age pensions. That responsibility, in his statement, rests with the dominion government.
If that responsibility is not to be discharged, if the dominion government is simply going to fold its hands in the face of the need, and say to the provinces, "Well, thus far we will go, and no farther; if pensioners do not get enough, from that point on it will be your responsibility"-


Paul Joseph James Martin: No one has said that.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -then they are turning their backs on an obligation which has been recognized by parliament and by the government of this country ever since 1931.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Who is playing politics?


Donald Methuen Fleming: You are.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I ask a question. I do not like to interrupt-


An hon. MEMBER:: Oh, not


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Does the hon. member not think it is better for the old age pensioners to receive the benefits projected in my colleague's legislation than to wait upon the contingency of a potential provincial conference?


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is a double-barreled question, and I should like to deal with both parts of it, in justice to the minister who has asked it. I shall take the second part first. Implicit in the second part of the question is apparently the assumption on the part of the minister that his government is not going to call a conference together.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No.


Donald Methuen Fleming: If that is the minister's idea, then I say this government is false to its trust.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No, no. My hon. friend is imputing motives which have no foundation in fact.


Paul Joseph James Martin: This is too important a matter for a minister of the crown to let pass, this suggestion as to a conference. My hon. friend should-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Is the minister asking a question?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am asking a question.


Donald Methuen Fleming: One at a time. I will deal with one at a time. First, I shall deal with the question put by the minister from British Columbia. I do not think the Minister of National Health and Welfare should break in when I am attempting to answer his colleague's question. I do not think that is fair to his colleague.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I would' not wish the hon. member to give the country the wrong impression.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am trying to give a serious answer to a question by the Minister of Veterans Affairs.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. The hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) has the floor.


Paul Joseph James Martin: On a question of privilege-


William Ross Macdonald: If the minister is rising to a question of privilege, very well.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Make sure it is.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I thought the minister was just asking a question.


Paul Joseph James Martin: As the hon. member knows, he and I have been friends for many years.


Donald Methuen Fleming: And still are.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I would not interrupt him unnecessarily. But I do not want him, in a
Old Age Pensions

matter affecting the welfare of the people of this country, to give the impression that the government of Canada is not prepared at the earliest opportunity to sit down with the provinces to discuss this important matter of social security, which this government since 1945 has been prepared to do.


Mr. STIRLING:: That is nothing like a question of privilege.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I wish to say this to my good friend the Minister of National Health and Welfare, that he can trump up more excuses for making speeches on bogus points of privilege than, I believe, any other minister on the government benches. Anything serves as a pretext for him to jump in on a point of privilege. No matter who has the floor, he does it. I never object to a question. My good friend the Minister of Veterans Affairs had asked me several, and I was endeavouring to give answers to them. But the Minister of National Health and Welfare will not even give justice to his colleague. He has to break in with one of his bogus points of privilege.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I admit I was wrong.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I come back to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, and deal, first, with the second part of his question. If I were to make the assumption which I think was implicit in the second part of his question, namely, that the dominion government is not going to call a dominion-provincial conference together-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -then I would have to say half a loaf or perhaps a tenth of a loaf- for that is all we have here-is better than no bread.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is not true, and you know it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I pleaded with the government before and I plead with them again. I plead now with the Minister of Veterans Affairs, who has a big heart, in the hope that he will hear it. I plead with the minister of Veterans Affairs to influence his colleagues to call that dominion-provincial conference together. This question, and all other questions in the country which must be settled in a dominion-provincial conference, should be settled, and that soon.
On motion of Mr. Fleming the debate was adjourned.
At six o'clock the house took recess.

After Recess
The house resumed at seven o'clock.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Golding in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

[Stage Direction]
1,51,. Departmental administration, $1,651,360.
Item stands.

[Stage Direction]
*Special-
SB. To reclaim and to prevent the flooding of valuable agricultural lands in the valley of the Lillooet river, near Pemberton, B.C., $100,000.
Thomas Reid: I was asking some questions on this item when the house rose last night. I want to make it clear that we from British Columbia are not objecting to this money being spent there, but should like to know whether the provincial government and the farmers concerned are putting up any money? How is it that this particular project was given preference? If the minister would give an explanation the item might pass.


James Garfield Gardiner: The item is to cover a project which has been under way for some time. It was undertaken, in the first place, by P.F.R.A., but not as a P.F.R.A. project. People of that area made representations to the government to the effect that a number of returned soldiers had been settled in that area by the federal government and that each year the area was flooded just about the time the returned men were ready to put in their crops. The land was flooded as a result of waters coming down from the glacier which feeds the stream. About seeding time the floods were at their height and it became almost impossible for these men to make a living on this land. I had the privilege of visiting that area myself some years ago, I think in 1938. I looked over it, and anyone knowing the circumstances that exist there should be able to see that people cannot make a living on that land unless something is done. Personally I think that when a government, be it federal, provincial or municipal, puts a number of human beings on a piece of land I am satisfied that it has assumed a responsibility towards those settlers and that it should attempt to rectify the circumstances which prevent such men from making a living.
It is one of the most beautiful valleys that can be found anywhere in the dominion, and the land these men are on can be made the finest farm land in Canada. I cannot imagine any finer homes anywhere in the world than

Supply-Agriculture
can be established in this valley. These men are in there-I have forgotten the exact number of them, but I could get that information if requiredr-and they have built nice little homes. Most of them have put up bams, and then they found that all that was needed to destroy their work for the whole season was for a few trees or some other obstruction to fall into the stream to cause it to overflow and flood their land. Because of the river being held back to a level which came up almost to the level of the land, a slight blockade would cause the river to overflow and flood their land. After having seen this actually happen at a season of the year when the land was being flooded, and believing that I knew something of the possibilities of that area, I asked the government to provide $10,000 to have an investigation made as to what might be done purely as an experimental project to ascertain what could be done, in British Columbia in spots of that kind, and more particularly to give some service to these returned men who, some years ago after the end of the first war, had been placed in that area.
We had an investigation made and our engineers examined the whole project and made a report. I have a summary of their report before me, and I do not think the remarks that were made last evening should be allowed to stand as made without some correction, because they give a different impression from the facts as we know them.
The area is divided into three different projects, area No. 1, area No. 2 and area No. 3. I quote now from the report:
Area No. 1
Lillooet river between Lillooet and Tenasse lakes
In considering the reclamation of area No. 1 above, being the area from Lillooet lake to Green river, the method that gives the greatest assurance of success is to lower the elevation of Lillooet lake, both at its high and low stages.
In order to lower the level of Lillooet lake, both at low water and at high water, we proposed to construct a channel 300 feet wide at the bottom with side slopes of two to one over its entire length of 6,000 feet.
The report goes on to deal with the estimated cost per acre of the reclaimed land in this area, and says:
The cost per acre of land which will foe reclaimed directly due to the lowering of the lake will foe $131.50 per acre.
I think that was the figure mentioned by my hon. friend last night as the cost per acre of the project. It goes on:
This land at the moment is not being used for agricultural purposes, nor can it in its present state so be used. This is the cost when the total estimated cost has been charged to the land directly benefited. However, the effect of this lowering of the lake will be felt far beyond this
area, as the success of the proposed works farther above in area No. 2 will depend in considerable degree on the lowering of the high water in Lillooet river at the mouth of Green river. Thus a certain proportion of this cost should be charged against lands in area No. 2.
In any event the reclamation of 2,706 acres of land at a price of $131.50 per acre appears to us to be worth while. The amount of such arable land in British Columbia is limited, and only occurs in our valleys. The benefits of this productivity to the district as well as to the province are quite apparent.
Area No. 2
Area No. 2 comprises all the land lying south and west of the Lillooet river, lying between Green river on the south and Miller creek on the north. The success of the reclamation of this area depends in a large measure on the degree of scouring of the bottom of the Lillooet river below Green river clue to the lowering of the high water level of Lillooet lake. This scouring will have to be assisted where submerged logs or snags occur.
Cost per acre: The cost per acre of the works is $27.96. The benefits derived should soon pay the cost. Total cost of this project would be $55,915.
We are confident that the work outlined for area No. 2 will ensure reasonable reclamation.
Area No. 3
Area No. 3 comprises all the land west of the Lillooet river lying north of Miller creek and south of the north fork of Ryan creek. This area includes the district called Pemberton Meadows and is the most thickly settled and best improved area in the valley. The land produced some of the best potatoes and turnips in the district, yields of ten and twelve tons of potatoes per acre and twenty tons of turnips being average crops. The danger of overflow from Lillooet river has al ways been present, but the good farmer usually was able to gather in his crop as only the higher ground was utilized. Ryan creek runs along the west side of the valley at a higher elevation than the most of the land. Thus we have a strip of land between the Lillooet river and Ryan creek averaging from one-half to three-quarter miles in width, in which the high ground is close to the banks of the river and the creek, and the intervening ground is three to four feet lower than the banks. Of course this is on low ground which under certain conditions becomes flooded.
Of late years the water table has risen due to seepage and overflow from Ryan creek There appears to be very little seepage from Lillooet river as its banks are composed of fine silt closely resembling clay in its appearance. Many of the farmers now find it impossible to grow potatoes on land which formerly gave good crops, and have had to use the land for grazing. This does not give nearly the returns formerly received, as there was and still is a great demand for Pemberton potatoes to be used as certified seed.
Cost per acre:	The cost per acre of the land
which will be directly benefited by these proposed works, on the basis of $62,1115.62 distributed over 2,120 acres is $29.30 per acre. We are confident that the added returns from this land will more than make up this amount.
Supply-Agriculture

Area No. 4
This comprises all the land lying north of the north fork of the Ryan creek. This area consists of land which is approximately the same height as the average high water. The grade of Lillooet river is increasing in this area. It has been frequently changing channels. Drainage ditches will help. We think that for the moment this area should not be considered. This is one of the most costly areas. We think that its treatment should be postponed until the experience gained from the river area No. 3 can be used to design the protection for this area.
All the lands in the valley are covered by the proposed agreement between the dominion, the province and the proposed Pemberton valley dyking district. Assuming that the Indian department becomes part of the Pemberton Valley dyking district-this suggestion was made last night; as our part of it is the reserve, it could be-we are informed that there is a total of 30,000 acres in the valley and covered by the agreement: 10,000 acres privately owned lands, 10,000 acres government lands and 10,000 acres Indian lands. We have no detailed break-down as to the occupancy of privately owned lands; neither have we in detail the arable acres of crown lands. The same holds for the Indian lands in the project.
There was a report made, which was known as the McGugan report, dividing the area of the Pemberton valley which will be directly benefited by the proposed works into roughly four portions, the areas of which I have just spoken. These are pretty well covered by what I have just read.
The expenditures which have been made up to date are expenditures made by the federal government. An agreement was drawn up as between the province and the association at Pemberton which has to do with the utilization of the lands afterwards and the maintenance of these lands. A copy of the agreement has just been handed to me. Since that is the question which has been asked directly, I shall deal with it from that point of view. The agreement runs as follows:
His Majesty the King in the right of Canada as represented herein by the Right Honourable James G. Gardiner, Minister of Agriculture for Canada, hereinafter called the Dominion
of the First Part
and
His Majesty the King in the right of the province of British Columbia as represented herein by the Honourable Edward T. Kenney, Minister of Lands and Forests for British Columbia, hereinafter called the Province
of the Second Part and
Pemberton Valley Dyking District, hereinafter called the district
of the Third Part
Whereas it is necessary and in the public interest to reclaim an area of fertile agricultural lands in the valley of the Lillooet river in the province of British Columbia and
Whereas these lands were largely settled by returned soldiers after the first world war; and
Whereas these lands are being damaged from seepage silting, stream erosion and periodic flooding from the waters of the Lillooet river and its tributaries and also great damage is being caused in the lower section of the valley by the formation of a barrier in the river between Lillooet and Tenasse lakes, which barrier raises the level of Lillooet lake and thereby causes progressive inundation of some of the best agricultural lands in the valley; and
Whereas these conditions have resulted in the almost complete abandonment of a large area of said lands by the original settlers; and
Whereas the prairie farm rehabilitation branch of the dominion Department of Agriculture has completed surveys of certain areas of the Lillooet river valley to determine what remedial works can be undertaken for the reclamation of the agricultural lands, and the rehabilitation of the settlers now resident, in the section of the Lillooet river valley above indicated; and
Whereas the surveys indicated that these lands can be reclaimed; and
Whereas the remedial measures that can be undertaken are set out in detail in a report signed by D J., McGugan, consulting engineer for the federal Department of Agriculture, dated the 10th day of August, 1945, a copy of which report is hereto attached and marked appendix "A" to this agreement;
Now, therefore, this agreement witnesseth that in consideration of the premises and the agreements hereinafter contained, each with the other, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1.	The dominion agrees forthwith with the funds appropriated by parliament in the current fiscal year and with such funds as may be appropriated for the purpose by parliament from time to time hereafter, to undertake the construction of such reclamation works as it may deem feasible and necessary to effect the reclamation of agricultural lands and the rehabilitation of settlers now resident in the section of the Lillooet river valley above indicated;
2.	The province agrees to furnish free of cost to the dominion all rights-of-way for canals, dykes, ditches, access roads, and relocation of existing roads, or such other rights-of-way as may be required for the execution of the works, provided such title thereto is now vested in and will remain in the province;
3.	The district agrees to make available free of cost to the dominion or province all rights-of-way for canals, dykes, ditches, access roads and relocation of existing roads, or such other rights-of-way as may be required for the execution of the works not provided, as above by the province.
4.	The province agrees to improve existing bridges so as to enable the dominion to transport the necessary equipment and machinery to the scene of operations and from place to place during the construction of the -work and to improve and condition such provincial roads as may be necessary to transport the necessary equipment and machinery to the scene of operations and from place to place during the construction of the works; so far as the title to said bridges and roads is now vested in the province;

Supply-Agriculture
5.	The province further agrees to obtain the release of any, and all, timber and mining leases of lands required for or in connection with the execution or construction of the works herein referred to and to make available to the dominion free of all let or hindrance the use of and access to all or any part of the lands so required;
6.	The province further agrees to make its crown lands lying in the area referred to in the premises to this agreement available for the reestablishment of returned soldiers and that, to this end it will for an indefinite period reserve such lands from other disposition;
7.	The province further agrees to cooperate with the dominion and the district and to provide any necessary legislation, and to make available its administrative machinery, to facilitate the execution of the work herein contemplated and generally to carry out the intent and spirit of this agreement;
8.	The district agrees to take over and to assume the control of the said works as soon as notified in writing by the dominion that the said works has been completed; the district further agrees that upon assuming control it will operate the said works efficiently and maintain the whole of the said works in a proper state of repair and in conformity with any statute or any statutory provisions applicable thereto, and agrees to operate and maintain the whole of the said works without expense to or assistance from the dominion;
9.	The district agrees to save, defend and keep harmless and to indemnify the dominion of, from and against all claims, charges and actions that may after the signing of this agreement be brought against the dominion by reason of anything the dominion has done or failed to do in the performance of the works undertaken pursuant to this agreement.
10.	If any question arises as to the interpretation of this agreement or whether the dominion has performed any of the things by the dominion agreed to be performed, such question shall be decided by the Minister of Agriculture for the dominion, whose decision shall be final and binding upon the parties hereto.
I think it will be agreed that the agreement makes it possible for us to go into the valley and carry on experiments in a place where we can at the same time do a great deal of good, and the results obtained from that experience can be utilized in order to set up other projects elsewhere in the province.
I would say, in answer to the suggestion contained in the question, that it is not the intention of the government to proceed with projects of this kind, with the total cost assumed by the dominion government over large areas. The intention is to use this as an experiment if we can, and utilize it for the purpose of deciding what to do elsewhere and at the same time provide relief to returned men put on the land at the end of the . first war.


Mr. FULTON:: I was glad to hear the minister speak in defence of this item, as, of course, one would expect him to do. I have
a considerable interest in the question myself, and on March 6, I made specific reference in this house to the Pemberton Meadows project. Hon. members will find reference to it at page 1074 of Hansard, where I mentioned that an area of several thousand acres could be brought under cultivation, an area which is considered to be one of the most fertile in the province.
As the minister has pointed out, this is designed to help settlers who have been there for many years and have done a great deal of work on the area themselves, and who now find it beyond their resources to cope with the flooding of the land without government assistance. I think it is proper for the dominion government, through the Department of Agriculture, by means of the prairie farm rehabilitation administration, and as an experiment, to go into projects of this kind, because it is not a case of throwing away money. It is not a wild-goose chase, because we know, from the fact that these have been valuable farms in the past, that whatever work may be done there will be of value to the settlers themselves, and give some indication of how this work can be carried on in the future.
The minister pointed out, I believe, that there are 30,000 acres of valuable agricultural land involved in the project, and in that connection I would refer to what the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) said last night, as reported at page 4277 of Hansard. He said:
We have to go back to our people and tell them why the dominion government are going to spend nearly half a million dollars in connection with land which some of us think is not worth very much.
I would be the last to suggest that the hon. member does not know the province, because he does. He knows it thoroughly, since he has made a great study of its resources and has spent a good deal of time travelling. But he is not quite accurate in thinking that this land is not worth very much, because all reports, as verified by the minister, indicate that it is some of the finest agricultural land in the province.
I am sorry to hear any member from British Columbia discourage or criticize work that is being done by the prairie farm rehabilitation administration in that province. We have been urging for some time now that the administration should go there in a larger way than they are doing. They are undertaking only scattered surveys and we have been urging that they should go there in a larger way than contemplated in
Supply-Agriculture

this particular project on which they are working. I think we should encourage any and all work done by the administration along these lines.
There was one thing to which the minister referred that I should like to emphasize. He said that they undertook a preliminary survey, and I believe the initial outlay was some $10,000, as a result of which they were satisfied that it would be a valuable and paying project to go ahead with the work which is now being undertaken. I would repeat the request that was made last night, that they do the same thing for the whole interior of the province and make a survey. We are not asking them to rush in and spend large sums of money without investigation. We are asking that they send engineers throughout the area to make an investigation along the lines I suggested last night.
Again, with reference to this particular scheme, the hon. member for New Westminster referred to the interest of the Indian affairs branch in the question. As I understand their attitude, they are not opposed to the development, but they rather want their own lands brought under the same work which is being carried on for the white settlers. It is a question whether it will be enlarged rather than a question of their opposing any work at all.
In conclusion, I have no hesitation in supporting this particular item because it is work which will repay the capital outlay. It is work that is being done on behalf of settlers long established there who are unable to carry on without government assistance, and it is work which will enable the settlement, when this land is reclaimed, of a large number of returned soldiers of this war. I think the money involved in this item oi $100,000 is something that we should support and encourage rather than criticize.


Thomas Reid: There are one or two things that should be said for the purpose of keeping the record straight. First of all, regarding the remarks of the hon. member for Kamloops, I am grateful to him for bringing to my attention what I said last night. It is true I did make the remark which he quoted, but I am frank to say that it was made after eleven o'clock and a little in haste. I did say at the time that the land was of little value. That is on record but it is somewhat of an exaggeration. I am willing to admit that tonight.
I am not objecting to this item. My principal reason in rising last evening on this item was to put my position before the committee. To my way of thinking, there is more fertile land in danger in the lower Fraser valley and elsewhere, but every time we approach the gov-
ernment we are turned down and can get no such assistance. When we see an item for $500,000 to be expended, naturally we want to know how it comes about that the dominion government can make such an expenditure and yet, when we want relief and some assistance, we are told that it is not a dominion matter, and that we have to wait until the P.F.R.A. is passed. I^e are curious to know how this item without P.F.R.A. being passed could pass the financial council of the government.
I want also to put on the record certain facts because the minister made a statement intended to correct me in regard to the figures I gave last night about the $131 an acre. I have the documents before me. There are three areas. The first will cost $355,456, which works out at $131.50 an acre. The minister rather suggested to the' committee that this $131.50 had to be spread over the three areas. Well, there is a total in the three projects of 6,826 acres and as the total expenditure is $473,785 in areas 1, 2 and 3, dividing that, the average is around $80 an acre.


James Garfield Gardiner: The minister did not say anything. The minister read the report which my hon. friend says he has before him. The report says that.


Thomas Reid: Let us look at the report and be clear about it because I do not want the minister to get away with that and to suggest that I am quoting figures which are wrong. For area No. 1 the report gives 2,706 acres. The total expenditure is $355,756.50, and the cost per acre is $131.50. In area No. 2 the report gives the total cost as $55,913, and then at the bottom of the page gives the cost per acre as $27.96. Then we go on to area No. 3 where the total cost is given as $62,115.62, and the cost per acre as $29.30, as the minister has said. I do not know what it is going to cost per acre over the whole district, but if you take each of the areas-area No. I costing $131.50 per acre and areas No. 2 and No. 3 costing the amounts I have just quoted -and lump them altogether, as the minister,
I think, said we should have done, it works out at $80 per acre as the average. That is the record. Is it any wonder I criticize when we in the Fraser valley at the moment are faced with the loss of hundreds of farms? We are losing the fight with the Fraser river. Two or three thousand farmers do not know whether or not their farms will be washed away, the river rose so many inches today. It is different from the Ottawa river. It rises when the heat strikes the interior and the snows begin to melt. The farmers have worked hard. The last danger we had there

Supply-Agriculture
was in 1936. The fanners are taxed to the limit to keep the Fraser river within bounds. That is one of the most fertile areas in British Columbia, notwithstanding the statement made about Pemberton Meadows. Then when we are asking for relief and come here for it we are told we have to get prairie farm rehabilitation. If that is the case, how does the government come to be spending half a million dollars up in Pemberton Meadows? I leave the answer to the committee.


Howard Charles Green: I hesitate to venture into a discussion on an agricultural item, but it happens that I go up through this district every summer. There is no doubt that the money voted is being well spent and there is great need there. As the Minister of Agriculture has said, the land is fertile and the settlers themselves have gone to great trouble and expense to try to solve their own problem. They have convinced both the dominion and provincial governments that something should be done. I believe the minister will agree with me that the provincial government have been in there too, have made surveys and are entirely convinced that this work should be proceeded with. I know the former member for Cariboo, who is now Hon. J. G. Turgeon, took a great interest in this work and I suppose he had a good deal to do with getting it started.


Thomas Reid: I think he did.


Howard Charles Green: I do not think anything should be said in this house which would prejudice the work being carried through to a successful conclusion. We should like to support the hon. member for New Westminster in his request. I do not know, but perhaps he has been a little bit slow in making that request to the government. I know a good deal of money has been spent in his riding, in dredging and in other ways, none of which we begrudge him. But certainly it is not right that any British Columbia member should take the position that this particular vote should be cut out.


Thomas Reid: Nobody has suggested that.


Howard Charles Green: It is necessary work, and I am glad the Minister of Agriculture has decided to go ahead with it. I can assure him that he will have our support.


William Irvine: I have listened with a good deal of interest to the remarks made by hon. gentlemen on both sides of the house in regard to this item. It has to do with an area which happens to be in the southern part of the Cariboo riding and I know it very well. I want to commend the minister for the vote and to assure the committee that the work
being done there is essential and that the land is undoubtedly fertile. The government is to be commended for its efforts in this regard. I have no doubt that the hon. member for New Westminster has a legitimate protest with regard to certain parts of the country to which he has referred, but I do not think we shall get anywhere by setting one against the other. I think both these projects should be undertaken. Perhaps when the project to cope with the Fraser river which my hon. friend refers to is undertaken and when, it is worked out to so much per acre, he may find that the figure is quite as high as the figures he has just been giving the committee with respect to Pemberton Meadows. I do not wish to do any more than merely assure the committee that the work is well worth doing. Now that it has been started, I hope it will be carried through to a conclusion. Can the minister tell us just how far the project has been carried to date, how much has been spent so far on it, how much more will be required to complete it, and when he thinks it will be completed?


James Garfield Gardiner: We spent $48,000 last year, and at the present time we are busily engaged in spending more money. However, until this vote is through we are not able to proceed as rapidly as is wished.


Mr. WHITE (Middlesex East):: This spring when the Thames valley authority had a meeting in London, there was considerable disappointment over the announcement here that prairie farm rehabilitation would not be extended beyond the three western provinces. Ontario farmers have seen considerable amounts of money spent in the west, and when I noticed this item being spent in British Columbia on river control I was a little bit alarmed about it. I understand the explanation given by the minister. On the other hand, I believe the government did not deny the fact that if a project were undertaken there, they would be prepared to help. I should like to know just what position we are in, in that regard. Some have said that the fact that prairie farm rehabilitation was not being extended did not mean that help would not be extended to that valley if and when the project was undertaken. I should like to have a statement from the minister regarding that.


James Garfield Gardiner: The works which were undertaken on the Grand river in Ontario, in so far as the dominion had anything to do with them, were undertaken by the Depart -ment of Public Works just as the works on the Fraser river in British Columbia have always been undertaken by the Department of
Supply-Agriculture

Public Works. Similar projects all over Canada have been undertaken under votes provided for public works. If there is any work of that kind to be done in Ontario it will come up under the public works vote here rather than under agriculture.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Special-
37. Agricultural research special projects,
Percy Ellis Wright: This item shows a decrease this year of $100,000. What special projects are being carried on and are any of them being dropped?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, none are being
dropped. The special projects being carried on are projects such as that at Portage la Prairie having to do with flax; there is one at Morden, and I think one at Lethbridge, and there may be some other smaller undertakings. Those have been established, and it was not anticipated that this year we would spend more than $100,000. As a matter of fact, while the item has been $200,000, we have not spent that much in past years, and we think $100,000 will cover all we shall be able to accomplish this year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
James Garfield Gardiner: There are some special items attached to my estimates, on the inside of the first page; I am not sure whether or not the Chair has them. The first is item 609, for the Agricultural Products Act, and the next is item 610.


The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN:: I have supplementary estimates 609 and 610.


James Garfield Gardiner: Are those ready for
passing?


William Henry Golding: I imagine they have been passed; they have been signed.


Mr. BROOKS:: I do not think hon. members have those items.


Thomas John Bentley: Yes; we have had them for a long time.


James Garfield Gardiner: They were passed around, and I think were on the desks for a long time. As far as I am concerned, there is no objection to leaving them until the other supplementaries are being considered, if hon. members desire to do so. I might explain, however, that one is for the necessary expenditures under the Agricultural Products Act, which we passed a few days ago, and for which we have to supply funds. The amount is $100,000. The next item is to authorize and provide for payment of subsidies on oats

and barley used as feed for live stock under such regulations as may be approved by the governor in council. These are the subsidies being paid down to August 1, which many hon. members are suggesting we should continue beyond that date. Those are the two items. I think they must have been carried.


William Henry Golding: Those two items have been carried and signed by the chairman.


James Garfield Gardiner: Then that is all right; we will not start another discussion. Demobilization and Reconversion

485. Agricultural Prices Support Act, 1944 (formerly the agricultural food board), $2,030,500.	-


Edward George McCullough: There is an item which I think comes under this vote, which concerns me. I refer to what I consider a rather shortsighted policy on the part of the government in regard to barley. I might just indicate that in 1943 we exported to the United States 35,800,000 bushels of barley, and in 1944 we exported 35,400,000 bushels.


James Garfield Gardiner: Which item are you on?


Edward George McCullough: I am on item 485. I want to indicate the price for barley, in relation to the government's policy.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is not under the Agricultural Prices Support Act. That is the act which sets a floor under prices.


Edward George McCullough: But we set'a floor and ceiling for barley. My understanding is that we have a floor of ninety cents under barley.


James Garfield Gardiner: We are not utilizing any funds from this vote for that purpose. Those funds come under the item I was just talking about, No. 610, which I now recall was passed just after the legislation went through.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Demobilization and Reconversion-
491. Dairy products board, $19,546.
Mr. DROPE:: The minister said that under this item he would make a statement concerning the cheese contracts. I should like to hear that statement.


James Garfield Gardiner: The dairy products board was set up during the war for the purpose of entering into contracts and providing cheese for Britain. Since then, it has been continued as the body under which these contracts which have been negotiated are carried out. I think

Supply-Agriculture
the question, in the hon. gentleman's mind is how we are to proceed now, whether we are to requisition cheese or whether we are buying on the market. The position at present is that we are buying on the market. The price we offer is twenty-five cents. For the time being I think the price being bid is 261-16 cents, which I believe would mean that, while that price is being offered, the board will not get cheese. The facts are that about thirty per cent of the cheese is consumed in Canada and about seventy per cent goes to Britain. That is approximately true every year; and since we do not intend to take all the cheese this year, as we did for two years during the war, we have not considered it necessary to requisition cheese. We say we will buy cheese at twenty-five cents, which in all probability will mean that, after Canadian supplies are obtained, cheese will sell at around twenty-five cents. I quite understand that the hon. member might say this will probably have the same result as * though we requisitioned the cheese, except for the thirty per cent for
Canadian consumption. That is the plan under which we are proceeding, and under which we hope to be successful in obtaining about seventy per cent of the Canadian cheese production.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Demobilization and Reconversion	^
1,92. Meat board, including quality premiums on A and B1 grade hog carcasses, $5,657,818.
Mr. CHARLTON:: I see an increase of $489,019 in this item. From all reports, and according to government statistics, the production of bacon hogs has gone down this year. Would the minister give the explanation for that increase.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have a statement showing the position in regard to hogs marketed in Canada, comparing 1947 with 1946 and 1945. If hon. members so desire I can place this table on Hansard.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed.


James Garfield Gardiner: The table is as follows:
Canada
January .... February ...
March	
April	
May	
Total ...
Prairie Provinces
January ____
February ..
March	
April	
May	
Total ..
Ontario
J anuary February March ..
April ____
May ....
Total
Quebec
January February March .. April ... May ....
Total
Hog Marketings			Percentage
			Increase-Decrease
1945	1946	1947	1946-47830,274	514,318	400,032	-22-2582,330	395,215	305,660	-22-7553,602	411,624	345,012	-16-2538,089	397,784	396,593	- 0-3558,227	449,594	486,322	+ 8-23,062,522	2,168,535	1,933,619	-10-8657,591	314,943	203,907	-35-3361,354	214,159	129,612	-39-5319,404	201,422	126,745	-37-1303,159	193,774	135,366	-30-2322,685	220,127	174,970	-20-51,964,193	1,144,425	770,600	-32-7179,577	151,681	151,084	-150,294	126,817	125,304	- 1-2158,256	147,091	146,984	- 0-1164,464	152,829	192,660	+26-0186,027	182,790	242,375	+ 32-6838,618	761,208	858,407	+ 12-852,495	37,805	39,230	+ 3-857,856	45.582	44.381	- 2-659,485	50,695	61,130	+20-651,375	39,287	55,761	+ 41-033,132	31,780	55,012	+73-4254,343	205,149	255,514	+24-5
Supply-A griculture

In reference to the table which has been placed on the record, it will be noted that in respect of the hog marketings for Canada we reached a low point in February, 1947. as compared with the same month for 1946. The percentage of decrease was reduced to 16-2 per cent in March, and then in April it reached a point where it was approximately the same as last year. Then, in May of 1947 we have come up 8-2 per cent above the figure for 1946.
In respect of the figures for the provinces it will be noted that in Ontario we started out in January of 1947 with a small loss, and in February we had a loss of 1-2 per cent. In March, it will be noted the loss was only 0-1 per cent, and in April there was a gain of 26 per cent. Again in May the gain amounts to 32-6 per cent. So that in Ontario it is climbing fast.
However, the big improvement is seen in the figures given for Quebec. In January of this year we were up 3-8 per cent. In February it went down to the extent of 2-6 per cent, but in March it was up 20-6 per cent; in April, 41 per cent, and in May it was up 73-4 per cent. I give these figures to indicate that in our opinion the low point in the decrease in hog marketing has been passed. The figures show that during the first five months of this year Quebec has accomplished what the farmers there were asked to accomplish at the conference held last December. We asked them to produce in 1948 as many hogs as they had produced in 1945. They are now ahead of that programme. They have produced more hogs in the first five months of 1947 than they did in the first five months of 1945.
It will be noted from these figures that Ontario has accomplished the same thing. They are really a year ahead of the programme as it was set last December. Up to date our difficulty has been in the west. The figures show that in the three western provinces there was a decrease of 35-3 per cent in January, and 39-5 per cent in February. But, just as happened in the other provinces, the change came in March, when the decrease was reduced to 37-1 per cent, to 30'2 per cent in April and to 20-5 per cent in May. While our figure is still a long way below the 1915 figure, so far as the production of hogs is concerned, it will be noted that the production is on the increase. We are estimating that by August or September of this year we shall be producing in western Canada as many hogs as we produced in 1946. And we are hoping that, even in the western part of 
Canada, we shall overtake the programme set out in December and, by 1948, get our production up to the 1945 level.


John Alpheus Charlton: I hope it is not wishful thinking on the part of the minister. As a matter of fact the statistics show that the over-all drop throughout Canada is a little more than ten per cent in respect of hog production. All hon. members know what is happening in the west. Early this spring both in the west and here in the east sows have been going to the slaughter-houses by hundreds, and the prices on little pigs have dropped by over fifty per cent in the eastern provinces in the last month. Little pigs are now being offered, and cannot be sold.
The minister thinks that by August the increase will come up to the 1946 figure. I venture to say that might take place, because so many pigs are reaching the slaughter-houses before they are ready, on account of the shortage of feed. Sows have gone, and pigs light in weight are being offered. If the minister will look into the grades he will find that within the next two months they will be light in weight. The minister considers that he will need half a million dollars more this year for grade A and B1 premiums than he needed last year. I think it will be just the other way around.


James Garfield Gardiner: Would the hon. member like to cut it down to that and place the producers in the position in which someone said the cheese producers were placed?


John Alpheus Charlton: I did not say that.


James Garfield Gardiner: It was one of the
members from that corner of the house.


John Alpheus Charlton: I venture to say the
minister would admit that if the amount were cut down it would have to be made up, regardless of where the figure was. This is a contract made by the government with respect to grade A and B carcasses, and the money has to come from somewhere, whether it is in the estimates or not.


James Garfield Gardiner: If it was not there we would have to ask them to go without it to the end of the year.


John Alpheus Charlton: Well, that is characteristic, anyway. But we can say that the amount of bacon which has been sent to the United Kingdom has been less so far this year than it was in 1945 and 1946.
I should like to refer to the way in which our bacon is marketed in England. I understand on good authority that our bacon is

Supply-Agriculture
still being marketed there by interests who have more interest in Danish bacon than they have in Canadian bacon. If that is true-and I believe it is-it is a serious state of affairs. The minister said the other night that at the present time we are not allowed to advertise any Canadian products in England. My only comment on that is that in the main we are giving Great Britain products at a fairly good price; that is, a price reduced as compared with world prices. But if we are not given some consideration for that, then I believe the Canadian producer should have some preference over foreign producers in the English market.
I would ask the minister to make a statement with regard to the commission houses which are dealing in our Canadian bacon and selling it, and to state whether the people who have an interest in Danish bacon are also dealing in our bacon.


James Garfield Gardiner: There are no commission houses selling bacon in Great Britain at the present time. The commission houses which were doing business before the war did handle both Danish and Canadian bacon. The prices were determined by a board which sat at the beginning of each week and determined what the prices were on bacon coming from Denmark, Canada and elsewhere. But that was all discontinued during the war. There are people who say-and probably they are correct-that the same persons are making this distribution under the instructions of the food ministry, and there is, of course, the suggestion that if that condition continues until they get back to the natural system of marketing again there would be a preference shown probably for Danish bacon.
But the thing that is promoting Danish bacon to a much greater extent is what Canadians are doing themselves. If any member of this house were to go into Eaton's or Simpson's or any other of the larger stores tomorrow and order a parcel to be put up for delivery in Britain the parcel would in all probability be put up in Denmark and Danish bacon would be sent to Great Britain, paid for by a Canadian. That, of course, is one method of getting around the British regulation which says that you cannot advertise. We feel that the British are doing just what we ourselves would do under similar circumstances. The British have a situation where they are not able to feed their people as their people want to be fed and they must ration most of the food they are distributing. So the British authorities say: If we must distribute the food and tell our people this is what you have to take, we cannot at the same time permit others outside Great Britain to come in here and advertise urging our people to buy Canadian bacon instead of Danish or Danish bacon instead of Canadian; our people will have to take what we have to distribute to them. That is, I think, the only way in which the government can keep itself out of some difficulty, and this government or any other government would do the same thing under similar circumstances. That is what the British are doing. But we are helping the Danish to get around that when we walk into our stores and, instead of putting up a parcel ourselves and sending it to Britain, order and pay for a parcel to be made up in Denmark and sent to Britain from there. In almost any daily paper in Canada you will see advertisements of the products that can be sent to Britain from Denmark. I submit that if our Canadians assist in that advertising programme they are not helping Canada.


John Alpheus Charlton: Was that practice not started because of the postal restrictions imposed by the government here?


James Garfield Gardiner: No; that movement started just as soon as the German troops were out of Denmark. We have had it stopped once or twice but it started up again. There is no way in which we can legally stop it.


John Alpheus Charlton: There were restrictions all during the war and since on the kind of food we can send to Britain.


Percy Ellis Wright: How do they get Canadian funds into Denmark to purchase this food?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not going to
explain that. I had too much difficulty on the continent in getting money exchanged to try to explain how it is done. But they get paid for what they send.


Percy Ellis Wright: Surely there is some way to stop it. We have a foreign exchange .control board with control over Canadian funds that are going abroad to be used abroad. Surely we are not going to lend the money to Denmark through some department of our government to enable them to carry on advertising against ourselves?


James Garfield Gardiner: We have tried to stop it and will continue to try, but we have not succeeded up to date.


Mr. BRYCE:: I do not want to get into any argument about bacon. But I agree with the minister that this time he is right. I said once before in the house that I had been over there, and I am going to repeat what I said then, that the best bacon going to Britain today is Canadian. It is ahead of even the Danish product. I sympathize with my hon.
Supply-Agriculture

friend in our not being able to advertise over there. The only advertisement we have is when a British housewife gets good bacon and says, "That is the best we ever had," and I would1 always assure her that it was Canadian bacon she had that morning. Bacon that goes out in sliced form, no matter how you may advertise it, loses its identity when it gets there. I would be very sorry if this country, both east and west, fell down in bacon production, because we have a wonderful market in Britain. The people there want our bacon, and I hope we shall be able to maintain that market. ,
At page 102 of the estimates two bacon specialists are listed. What are their duties? Are they for the use of the meat board, or have they other functions?


James Garfield Gardiner: They are two inspectors, Doctor Miller and Major Leighton. Doctor Miller is on this side inspecting the bacon as it is loaded on the ship, and the other inspector inspects the bacon when it is landed in Britain. The condition of the bacon is reported on from each end, when it is shipped and when it is landed, to see if it is in good condition.


William Scottie Bryce: There are six stockyard agents employed. Is there any liaison between these agents and the meat board?


James Garfield Gardiner: Their task is concerned with administration in the stockyards.


William Scottie Bryce: For the meat board?


James Garfield Gardiner: For the department.


William Scottie Bryce: They have nothing to do with the meat board?


James Garfield Gardiner: No.


William Scottie Bryce: I should like to ask a question as to the meat board protecting the farmer's produce. Some time ago the meat board announced that they would buy all the lambs at one-quarter of a cent less than the ceiling or the floor price, whichever you call it, and that was supposed to help the farmer. But it did not really help the farmer anyway, because the farmer sent his lambs to the stockyard or to the abattoir, and they paid just what they liked in a competitive market. It was only after the lambs were in the hands of the packing companies that that price came into operation. You have the same situation in regard to a carload of steers. I know what the minister's answer will be before he gives it, because he is going to say there are times when the farmer gets more than he is entitled to; but over a number of years I know that the

farmer is always on the wrong, side of the deal. If the packer pays more for something in one month or two months of the year, in the other ten months he pays less than he should. I wish to know if the minister has altered the policy of the meat board to give the farmer better protection than he has had in the past. I think the meat board is good, but it is only after the carcass is hung up by the heels that the price is considered. Something should be done on a hoof basis. They do it in other countries. I have seen it done in other countries. They bring the animal in and grade it, and when they hang it up by the heels there is not much difference in the grading. As it is today, the meat board is more help to the packing industry than to the farmer. Will the minister give me some information on it? The way it is done is not right.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think the hon. member knows as much about the transactions on the Winnipeg market as anyone; he has always been close to it and has had considerable to do with trading on it. He will agree that we have never had, up until the time we established the meat board, the same stability in prices over the years as we have had since the establishment of that board. Prior to the establishment of the meat board, our prices were quite high in July as a rule. It is true that they still go up to some extent in July, as do other markets, but only slightly when compared with what they did prior to the operations of the meat board. In the fall of the year when stock was coming off the pastures, and when farmers were getting a little anxious to get their hogs on. the market because the cold weather was coming, the market went down. In many years there was no limit to where it went. Then again we had difficulties when we started to put the finished cattle on the market in the spring of the year. For two or three years, and maybe three or four years after the bacon board, which eventually became the meat board, came into existence, there was a tendency on the part of everyone to say that we ought to provide a high price in July because it cost more, to feed hogs through the winter, to have them carried through the winter and delivered in June and July; and that we ought to provide for the price going down in the fall just as it did when the market was following the natural rules of supply and demand. We tried that for one year at the beginning of the war. We did not set seasonal prices, and we found out that on hogs it simply resulted in approaching what had always happened; when you had a volume your price went away down and when you did not have a volume your price went away up.

Supply-Agriculture
No one can gain by that method of marketing excepting the packer. He had the means of storing meat in cold storage from one period to another and he could benefit greatly by it. There was only one group of people in Canada who might have had any reason for saying that we should continue that, and they did. We did not continue it. We tried to establish a flat floor price at least for hogs and finally for cattle. It took us two years longer to persuade the cattle producers to agree that it ought to be done with cattle; but finally we were able to persuade them to agree to a fair price over the year, so that the farmer could get just about as high a return when he had a big volume to put on the market as he could get when he had a small volume to put on. We think it is beneficial to the farmer to stabilize the price over the whole year. We think, too, that it is a good thing for the farmer to extend that stabilization over two or three years. For that reason we have expanded these contracts from one year contracts into two and finally into three-year contracts in order to be sure that the price can be maintained above the floor over a longer period, or stabilized over a longer period. That is what the board is attempting to do and we think they have done it successfully. There have been very few times when the price has been below what would be the established floor. I think if you examine the records-I have them in front of me for anyone who shakes his head about it; I will read them if you wish-you will find that prices have remained almost at the same level for months back.


William Scottie Bryce: Has the minister any policy which will permit the meat board to buy these animals and kill them?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


William Scottie Bryce: The minister has that?


James Garfield Gardiner: We bid on hogs, for example, and we have not had any serious difficulty about it. The hogs all go to some forty odd plants which are government inspected; that is, all the hogs on which we pay a premium, and these are the hogs that we desire to get 'for overseas shipment. Practically all of them go to some forty odd plants. It is a simple thing to go to forty odd plants, provided that you have authority behind' what you are doing, as we had under the War Measures Act and now have under the legislation which was passed this session. It is a simple thing to say to one of these plants, you must do what the others are doing, or to two or three plants, you must do what the others are doing. If we can say that, we
find we have no difficulty at all in getting the plants to cooperate in putting on to the domestic market what is required here, and putting on the British market the surplus. All of them are doing it in about the same proportion. Under that plan we have been able to get the hogs; but when it came to the cattle the situation was somewhat different. We had strong pressure, as I said, from producers, and more particularly from the larger producers, to set a price which was two cents lower in the fall than it was in the spring in order that cattle could be taken in and fed with the margin to begin with. We argued against that for about two years and finally got them, not exactly to agree, but to consent to trying out the other plan, which is working now. Here is how it operates, as the hon. member said a few moments ago. On the higher carcasses of beef we say we are prepared to buy every day at a certain price, which is only one-quarter of a cent below the ceiling. We are prepared to buy any time at a quarter of a cent below the ceiling all red and blue beef and send it to Britain. If the beef drops a quarter of a cent below the ceiling we get the beef that comes on the market during that period.


William Scottie Bryce: You buy only on a dead meat basis.


James Garfield Gardiner: We are buying on a dead meat basis; that is the only place we can buy meat.


William Scottie Bryce: You could buy meat on the hoof if you wished to.


James Garfield Gardiner: We could buy meat on the hoof, but I think it would be agreed that under the plan we are following beef is selling on the hoof at a higher level than it ever sold before.


William Scottie Bryce: It is never sold too high in the beef line.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is the argument, and I wish to correct what my hon. friend said a few moments ago. He said that the answer I was apt to give was that the farmer was getting all he was entitled to, anyway. I am a farmer. I never think that the farmer is getting all that he is entitled to. I think he ought to get more all the time.


William Scottie Bryce: I do not want to take up any more time. There is one thing the minister did not explain, namely, why we tried this two-eent scheme. I was one of the men on one of these boards when this two-cent system was tried out. We ran up against this. In a country so large as Canada there are many
Supply-Agriculture

types of farmers. There is the eastern farmer and the western farmer. You can feed steers in the west and sell them and find that the eastern farmer will buy them for as much as the packer will pay for them and then feed them on the grass farms in Ontario. The minister said that the westerner was offered the two eents more. You run up against a different type of farm in the east. They want to buy the steers cheap in the spring to put on these grass farms. There was a conflict of opinion.


James Garfield Gardiner: The feeder who wanted to feed grain wanted to buy as cheap as he could in the fall so that he could sell at a profit in the spring. We have pretty well overcome both these things.


Percy Ellis Wright: There is no provision
whereby a cooperative or an individual, if not satisfied with the bids on the open market for a carload of beef which they have for sale, can have it slaughtered and sold direct to the meat board at the meat board price. Is there any provision for that?


James Garfield Gardiner: There is no provision for it. If the cooperative is prepared to deliver beef to the meat board at a quarter of a cent below the ceiling, I will guarantee that the meat board will take every pound as fast as it can be sent in. That is what we are trying to do. Right now we cannot buy any.


Percy Ellis Wright: But the cooperatives have no packing plants.


James Garfield Gardiner: There are custom
slaughterers over the country who would slaughter it for them.


John Alpheus Charlton: The minister said that there was little fluctuation in the price of hogs since the meat board has been in operation, and he has also said that he has the prices before him. Will he quote the prices for last November, December, January and February on the Toronto market?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not quite sure that I can find the market the hon. member wants. Does he want hogs or beef?


John Alpheus Charlton: Hogs on the Toronto market, or Montreal.


James Garfield Gardiner: This is the monthly price of bacon hogs B1 live weight at Toronto in dollars per hundredweight: November, 1946, $15.13; December, S15.60; January, 1947, $16.28, February, $16.64 and March, S16.64. It will be remembered that in January we raised the price one cent and a fraction, just about the difference you have there, but the price 
right through starting in June was $15.62, $15.68, $14.90, $15.13, $15.60 and so on, the average being $14.89 for the year 1946.


John Alpheus Charlton: It is not necessary for the minister to give all that.


James Garfield Gardiner: Not to prove your point, perhaps, but it is necessary to prove my own point.


John Alpheus Charlton: These prices do not coincide with the prices in Toronto, because the prices in November, December, January and February ranged from $22 to a possible low of $18.


James Garfield Gardiner: These are official figures reduced to live hog basis for purposes of comparison with years before rail grading. I cannot tell you what some fellow went in and bought a hog for on a certain date. These are the official records taken on that market each day and averaged for the month.


John Alpheus Charlton: Those were probably weekly averages, but they ran from $22 to a low of around $18 in less than two months.


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: Has the minister taken into consideration the recommendations made by certain organizations in the west with regard to assisting in increasing hog production? There is no doubt that today the world needs hogs as badly perhaps as it did in 1944. If the farmer is to go through the work of growing barley and oats and raising hogs, staying with them day after day, particularly during the winter months so as to maintain production, and then finds at the end of that time that the amount of money he gets for his hogs as a result of doing all that laborious work in the winter is taken up in income tax, he will decide that it is not worth while. Has the minister taken into consideration the question of trying out for a period the granting of an immunity in respect of $400 or $500 of the farmer's first money received for hog production? It would not mean that hog production -would be exempt from income tax. It would mean the difference between what the farmer would get for selling the coarse grain and the price he would get for marketing grain in the form of hogs. It has been represented that if this were tried out the minister would find a great increase in hog production in the west.


James Garfield Gardiner: In reply to that, I may say that the advertisement I am about to read gives what the farmer himself thinks about the matter. This is an advertisement put out by a cooperative in Alberta:
An appeal to the farmers of Canada and North America.

Supply-Agriculture
Grow another hog for Britain. Forward, Canadian farmers.
Join the live stock march to greater economic prosperity. Britain is hungry. Britain will pay. Britain can pay, Britain has paid. This is not another charity campaign. Today prosperity is a pig! Never before have cash returns been greater for Canadian hog raisers. Never before has the overseas market promised greater permanence. One million extra hogs are needed from Canada to complete this year's contract with Great Britain. Many million more will be required. The "pig bank" will never again be a novelty. Launching the "Grow another hog for Britain" campaign opening in Edmonton, Alberta, April 29, 'KJA?. Special broadcasts carried at Edmonton, Calgary, Lethbridge and Grande Prairie on the ALC show, 12.15 noon daylight time. Why be content with income from grain alone when 25 per cent additional can be made from hogs? This campaign is sponsored by the Alberta Live Stock Cooperative Limited, Edmonton and Calgary. Copies of this announcement will be forwarded to British ministry of food, London, England.
That is one of the advertisements.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: It is a Liberal ad.


George Hugh Castleden: We will all support that.


James Garfield Gardiner: But that is not what my hon. friend was just saying. He is repeating the old story that if you gave somebody the right to produce without paying income -tax we would get more hogs. There are 138,000 farmers in Saskatchewan and only 7,958 of them paid income tax in the highest year of payment, which was last year, so that there are 130.000, or more than 130,000, who do not pay income tax. How will you get them to produce more hogs by deducting something from their income tax when they are not paying any? These farmers were not within $300 of the tax-free income that they will have this year, because the exemption was only $1,200 and now it is $1,500 for a married couple. Therefore they have to make another $300 in addition to what they made last year to get into the brackets at all.
The kind of campaign we want is the kind put on in Alberta with the support of the Alberta government and of the farmers and of this government. The thing for the farmers to do is to get into the income tax brackets instead of staying out of them. If every farmer were to produce what would enable him to get into the income tax brackets we would get our proportion of income in this country, and the sooner they get into those brackets the better for them. The government should not do anything to encourage them to stay out because they are not as well off when they are out. Let them get into the income brackets and it will be better for everyone, but particularly for the farmer.


George Hugh Castleden: They are not raising the hogs, though.


James Garfield Gardiner: We have brought them in from one per cent up to 3-7 per cent. We are getting along slowly, but we are getting along.


George Hugh Castleden: When will we be up to the 1944 production?


William Henry Golding: Order.


Mr. McLURE:: When the minister was giving the figures for the production of the various provinces, probably he had the figures before him with reference to Prince Edward Island as to whether there was an increase or a decrease.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am sorry, but in the sheet which I had-and I can find it here if it is desired that I should do so-it just gave the eastern part and the western part without dividing it into provinces.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I was going to say that the farmers in Prince Edward Island are taking a great interest in breeding a select class of hogs. Today they have an outstanding class of Yorkshires, so much so that they could sell practically fifty per cent of their hogs to the other provinces for breeding purposes. For instance, only within the last two or three months they have shipped to Manitoba a carload or two of breeding stock. Buyers from Saskatchewan and Alberta are there now, but there is only one snag with reference to the selling of our breeding stock that is of a good quality. When those hogs are slaughtered, over sixty per cent of them are in the class A premium class. The demand for this stock is great. As I said, we have one snag, namely, the long freight haul from Prince Edward Island to Saskatchewan and Alberta. Will the minister take this as a suggestion, and consider giving an allowance on their freight rate to purchasers of this valuable stock which can be bought in Prince Edward Island?


James Garfield Gardiner: At present purebred
stock gets a freight rate of one-half. That is arranged for purebred stock all over the country. I want to agree with everything that has been said by the hon. member. Prince Edward Island stands right "at the top in the production of quality hogs. Their hogs are being utilized all across Canada to improve our hog population. I do not think anyone can say too much by way of eulogizing the effort which is being made there.


John Alpheus Charlton: I realize, of course,
that there is a great variation in the number of days it takes a vessel to get across the
Supply-Agriculture

ocean. Can the minister give us, on the average, how many days it takes for the average cargo of bacon to go from Montreal to England? Can he also tell us how long it is held in storage in England before it goes out to the consumer?


James Garfield Gardiner: It takes about eight
days for the fastest boats that are carrying bacon across the ocean to make the trip. They are making it in about eight days. It is sometimes a little less than that and sometimes a little more, but it averages about that.
As to the matter of carrying the bacon in Britain, it is true that a few months ago- I would say a year ago-we had some difficulty in that there was a tendency to deliver in Britain freshly delivered bacon from Denmark. But there was an understanding entered into whereby the British bought only the heavy cured bacon from Denmark, the same as they were buying from Canada, in order that they could keep both Danish and Canadian bacon in storage for the same length of time. However, that difficulty is gradually disappearing; in fact, it has pretty much disappeared now. Britain is compelled at present to deliver to distributors over Britain practically all the bacon she gets as she gets it. That is partly because she is not getting as much from us as she got before and is not able to pile up storage that she utilizes in her rationing from time to time. I should also say that their transportation facilities have improved and their storage facilities are improving too.


John Alpheus Charlton: Having regard to the
way in which Canadian bacon was marketed in Britain prior to the war and in view of the fact that in the near future we hope we can get back to the ordinary system of marketing our bacon in Britain, can the minister give us any idea as to this government's policy regarding the building of storages in England and the handling of Canadian bacon in the old country?


James Garfield Gardiner: Both we and the British government would be tickled to death if we could get enough bacon to be able to store any. We cannot get it fast enough even to keep the rationing up to the level at which it ought to be kept. As a matter of fact, it has to be rationed very low by Britain. There is not any possibility of building up any storage at the present time, either on this side or on the other side.


John Alpheus Charlton: Is the government going to wait until the last minute to think about it?


James Garfield Gardiner: We have been thinking about it during the twelve years I have been

here, and we did a considerable amount about it before the war. We did a good deal about it in the first year of the war when Britain did not really want our bacon at all. We stirred them up to the extent of being able to sell them some fifty million pounds more than they wanted to take, in the second year of the war. But since that time they have been wanting far more than we can give them.


John Alpheus Charlton: Was it rented storage
that was used or were there Canadian facilities?


James Garfield Gardiner: The storage we used
in the early part of the war was blown all to pieces in 1940. It was not there at all, and it has to be reestablished.


John Alpheus Charlton: Was that storage
Canadian owned?


James Garfield Gardiner: Smithfield market was
bombed. The storages along the Thame* were completely destroyed during the first big raid that was made by the German air force. Those facilities have not yet all been put back, but they will be in due course.


John Alpheus Charlton: Was that a Canadianowned building which was destroyed, or Canadian-owned storage?


James Garfield Gardiner: No. Canadians did not own any storage. But it does not make much difference who owns it, as long as it can be utilized to full capacity. I did not know that my hon. friend was a socialist.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Demobilization and Reconversion-
49S. Special products board, $84,831.
Alfred Johnson Brooks: 
James Garfield Gardiner: They are just secretaries and stenographers that are there.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The secretaries and stenographers in 1946-47 were paid salaries of $38,985; in 1947-48 they are to be paid salaries

Supply-Agriculture
of $43,161 when there is evidently little work for them to do. The same applies with reference to the prices board and most of these other boards. Temporary assistance in the agricultural prices support board for 194647 was $18,460, and for 1947-48 it is $18,075. I should like an explanation from the minister. If the work of these boards is practically completed, as would seem to be indicated by the amount of money being expended, why is it necessary to maintain these staffs and pay them the same or larger salaries?


James Garfield Gardiner: We are not paying them any salaries under this item.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Then perhaps the minister will explain just what this item of $18,000 for temporary assistance means. I understood that it was for stenographers and temporary help.


James Garfield Gardiner: Perhaps I should say that the special products board is composed of Dean Shaw, Mr. Hamer and one representative from the Department of Trade and Commerce. They are not paid anything for this work, in addition to their usual salaries. They have been in the department for years; they draw their salary on the basis of their ordinary jobs, and are doing this work in addition. One other man, Mr. Neely, is also operating. He has been an official of the department for years; he has been asked to do this work, and his salary remains as for his usual position. This $18,000 is for the purpose of paying any additional help they may have to get from time to time in order to carry out their operations. That is, it may be to pay people at some point where they want conditions investigated, or it may be at the point from which we are shipping, where special investigations have to be made. The staff itself is very small, and is composed of people who are drawing their salaries from the government for their regular work and who are doing this work in addition.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: That is pretty hard for me to follow. Looking at these different boards, I see their cost is almost exactly the same-


James Garfield Gardiner: I am speaking now only of the special products board.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Well, in connection with the special products board the sum provided for temporary assistance, which the minister says is for stenographers and other help, is more for next year.


James Garfield Gardiner: What page are you reading from?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: From page 266. As a matter of fact what I say about this board applies to
all these boards which seem to be going out of business. The cost as far as the staff is concerned, still remains the same, if not more, as when they were administering large amounts.


James Garfield Gardiner: This board is not going out of business. It is administering amounts now just as large as it ever did; that is, in the way of dealing with farm products which are being delivered to Britain. We are still dealing with sums of money, perhaps not as large, but we have to go through the same operations as before in order to get delivery of farm products.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: If the duties of these boards are found to have more or less come to an end, are the temporary officials dismissed, are they absorbed by some other departments, or what becomes of them?


James Garfield Gardiner: In general it is as I explained a moment ago. These are special persons who have to be put out to inspect certain operations. Most of those who were put. out under the item of $38,000 were egg inspectors, at the time egg deliveries to Britain were high. The year before last they were at their peak; last year they were not quite so high, and this year they are not as high as last year. It was the setting up of the system to get those eggs delivered, and the inspection in connection with it, that cost the amount shown. As the hon. member has suggested, these men are removed when the work is finished. They are not civil servants in the ordinary sense.


Mr. STEPHENSON:: Is the minister in a position to answer the question I asked last evening in reference to the restricted area in Durham county?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am sorry I have not that information. I will have to get it for the hon. member when I go up to the office.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
200. Departmental administration, $531,954.
Mr. NICHOLSON:: When these estimates were before the committee previously I wished to make a few remarks but was unable to do so. Some of what I have to say will be of a critical nature, but before going on with that I should like to thank the minister for the announcement he made in the house on May 19 in connection with federal assistance to the Montreal neurological institute. I happened to be in Montreal in January visiting one of my
Supply-Health and Welfare

constituents who was a patient there. While I was in the city, I happened to see a copy of the Montreal Standard containing a feature story outlining the critical financial position of this internationally known institute. Perhaps I might read a portion of it:
Staff members at the neurological institute are mixing their neurology these days with discussions of the financial difficulties which have put the institute close to bankruptcy. The MNI faces a bleak future unless more money is forthcoming, and soon. Otherwise, the institute will be forced to close the hospital unit by April of this year. The MNI is owned by McGill university and, in certain aspects of its clinical activity, the Royal Victoria hospital acts as its agent.
My friend, who had been to Rochester previously, was extravagant in his praise of the neurological institute in Montreal; and I am very happy to learn that the minister and other members of the cabinet have regarded this as a national institute and that an adequate financial grant is to be made. I am sure that when the supplementary estimates come before the house hon. members in all sections will unanimously support the government in this wise decision.
Having said that, I consider that the minister is open to criticism because of his failure to place the problem of health in its proper perspective. The other evening the hon. member for Lanark gave an interesting address, outlining some of the major problems. Most of his material was not new; it was brought to the attention of the country in 1943, prior to the last election. I looked up some of the evidence given before the social security committee, and I find that on Friday, March 19, 1943, the late Doctor Heagerty gave evidence before that committee outlining the position in Canada. He said:
We have been losing an average of a thousand mothers each year. It is down a little during the last two or three years, due to the concentrated efforts of the provincial departments of health. When a mother dies, the child usually dies. The child dies because there is no one to take care of the child. We would like to have incubators-to take the newborn child to the hospital we haven't got them and we cannot et them, we have no money for them. Why ave we this condition? We have been losing over the past ten years on an average of 15,000 children under one year of age each year.
Then he referred to the situation in regard to tuberculosis:
And now, _what is the situation in regard to tuberculosis in the various provinces of Canada? Can you do anything about tuberculosis? Well, you take Quebec and Ontario. They are very very close together. They have the same air, very much the same living conditions* and you find that the death rate in Ontario'is 25, as compared with 80 in Quebec. Why is that? Ontario has provided practically free treatment, 
it is now X-raying all the people of the province at a cost of 30 cents per X-ray. In Saskatchewan the death rate is twenty-nine. Free treatment is provided in Saskatchewan.
There are three provinces which have adequate facilities for the prevention and treatment of tuberculosis; they are Saskatchewan, Ontario and Alberta.
I might mention that this interesting information was compiled prior to the last election. The present administration created the impression that they really planned on doing something about the health problem in Canada. I find that on April 29, 1946, in outlining the government's proposals before the dominion-provincial conference the Prime Minister made this suggestion in the field of health regarding planning grants. He said:
The dominion will pay to any provincial government which so desires immediately upon completion of the agreement, $5,000 plus five cents per capita of its 1941 population (but not less than $15,000) to be spent within two years on studies of the requirements of the province in the field of essential medical, hospital and related services. Quarterly reports would be submitted by the provincial governments.
Then there is a paragraph on health insurance, another on health grants and another on hospital construction.
I find that the present Minister of National Defence, who was then the Minister of National Health and Welfare, outlined in greater detail the government's proposals in the field of national health. He recognized definitely that there are great inequalities in the quantity and quality of. health care available in different parts of Canada, and in the* cost* of such public and private health services and medical and hospital facilities as were then available. He continued:
These inequalities in part reflect differences-in personal incomes, and in part are due to differences between rural and urban areas. Great differences between provinces arise from these same factors.
Then, to give an indication of what the government planned to do, he said:
To remove the disparities in standards of health services in different parts of Canada, to avoid the risks of sudden heavy expenditures, and distribute health costs more widely and equitably, and above all, to obtain the benefits of better health for the great majority of our people-these are the objects of the proposals which the federal government is now making with respect to health insurance for all, and increased public health services assisted by federal grants.
The minister went on to outline the grant for planning and organization, health insurance proposals, and different benefits to be made available for fighting tuberculosis,.

Supply-Health and Welfare
mental disease, venereal disease, aids for crippled children, and moneys for professional training.
It is not good enough for the Minister of National Health and Welfare to come before the committee and make the sort of speech he made the other night when discussing the problem of cancer. What the minister said was of general interest; but when he had finished he had not told us how much the federal government is planning on spending to fight this dread disease. The hon. member for Lanark drew attention to the fact that we have had about half a million dollars tied up in a fund for about twelve years, and that that is a fund which does not belong to the federal government.
The major part of the minister's speech was devoted to the setting up of a national cancer institute for Canada. He mentioned that this institute is not responsible to this or any other government. If the minister is so concerned about cancer he should be prepared to make an adequate grant to see that the necessary scientific personnel will be trained and will be made available in different parts of Canada to fight the disease. The amount of 8150,000 a year for the next few years is just a drop in the bucket when one considers the cost measured in lives caused by this disease in Canada.
I suggest that the minister, in introducing the item, should have made a statement indicating that he is now calling the ministers of public health from the provinces, and that he is prepared to recommend to the cabinet that the federal government now enter into an agreement with those provincial governments which have been able to reach agreement with the federal government in the matter of dominion-provincial relations.
I need not remind the committee that when the matter of old age pensions was introduced we did not wait until all the provinces were agreed at one time to introduce legislation for old age pensioners. We had old age pensions in some of the provinces for almost ten years before the benefits were claimed by other provinces.
I suggest that if the minister wishes to bring the premiers of Ontario and Quebec to reason, all he has to do is to announce that, if they want to, the other seven provinces will be able to go along with the federal government in carrying out the objectives which were outlined at the dominion-provincial conference, and that grants will be made for those services which were discussed at the conference.
May I mention that in my own province of Saskatchewan we have taken the federal proposals seriously, and we are proceeding to extend public services in many different directions. Hospital services legislation, the first of its kind on this continent, has been introduced in Saskatchewan. The experience we are having will be useful to other provinces in Canada, and it is hardly fair that, with our limited resources, Saskatchewan should be asked to bear all the expense in connection with this essential educational work which must be undertaken before any part of Canada can proceed with an over-all hospital or health services programme.
Then there is the matter of providing an adequate number of doctors, dentists and nurses. The hon. member for Lanark referred to the shortage of nurses. In some of the evidence presented by the federal government during the war, it was recognized that there are places in Canada where lack of medical services has placed the people living in those communities in an unfair position. When war breaks out, people in all the provinces are expected to offer their lives in the service of their country. If in some parts of the dominion there are young people who are rejected on physical grounds, that is a national misfortune. So in peace time I believe it should be our objective and goal to see that in all parts of Canada we should have a sufficient number of doctors, dentists andi nurses adequately to care for the people.
In the national health survey conducted by the Canadian medical procurement and assignment board during the war, we found that provinces with the lowest average incomes had the lowest number of doctors, and that in those provinces doctors had to travel greater distances over worse roads. In Ontario where the average income is highest there was one doctor for every 872 persons. In Saskatchewan where, in 1931, the income was down to $285 per capita there was one doctor for every 1,578 persons. The experience in my constituency has been that when the young people from there have attended medical colleges in Montreal, Toronto or Winnipeg they have established contacts while in college and have found it easier to practise medicine away from the communities in which they lived. The result has been that we have never been able to attract a sufficient number of professional people to that area to serve the population. At the present time our ratio is one doctor for 3,300 persons. In the Canadian army the ratio was something more than four doctors per 1,000, while in the United States it was even higher.
In most civilized countries it is considered that there should be at least one doctor for every 1,000 or 1,500 of population. While we are making some progress in Saskatchewan in attracting doctors to practise in that province,
Supply-Health and Welfare

we shall not be able with our own resources to train a sufficient number, nor shall we be able to provide the type of medical and hospital services that a country with the great resources possessed by Canada, should offer.
The same is true with regard to dental services. The boundaries of the constituency I represent will be defined in the redistribution measure, and we shall then have only one dentist for some 48,000 persons. At present we have three dentists in the area, in the ratio of one dentist to 19,000 people. The redistribution will take two of those dentists out of the area, and one of them is about to retire. While Saskatchewan is offering inducements to dentists to come to our province, we have not a dental college and hospital, and our young people have to go east or west to get their dental education and too many of them do mot return to the province.
I was interested in a study made by Doctor Clare Robinson in the field of providing medical education. Doctor Robinson is from Queen's university. He points out what is generally known, but I think the statistics will come as a surprise to a great many. He tells us, for example, that although thirty-six per cent of our people in Canada give agriculture as their occupation, only 12-2 per cent of our doctors come from this group. From finance we get over five per cent of our doctors. We have four per cent of our population in the professional groups and they supply twenty-eight per cent of our doctors. Doctor Robinson goes on to explain that a great many of our children have not much chance of ever becoming medical doctors under the present set-up. He mentions that earlier in the century it was possible for people to work their way through university, but that nowadays, with the cost of university education rising every year, it is next to impossible for young people, regardless of their mental qualifications, to find the wherewithal to get through university. A chart shows the cost of medical education. He says that if you want an expensive medical education choose McGill, and the next most expensive universities are Toronto and Dalhousie, where averages of $975 and $974 were reported. Next comes Montreal. The universities where you can start taking your university course at the lowest cost are the western universities, the university of Saskatchewan with an annual cost of $628, and the university of Alberta with $698, as compared with $1,206 at McGill university.


Mr. BLAIR:: In the western universities those are pre-medical courses, are they not?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: In Alberta and Manitoba the complete course is given, but in Saskatchewan it is a pre-medical course.


William Gourlay Blair: What was the cost in Alberta?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: It was $698 as compared with $1,206 for McGill and $975 for Toronto. In war time it was considered a national responsibility to train personnel for the air force, army and navy. I recall that the Minister of National Defence for Air told the house that it cost $25,000 to train a pilot for the air force, $27,000 for an observer and $28,000 for a navigator. It costs $5,000 to train a medical doctor, Doctor Robinson says. If we could spend $25,000 to train young Canadians by the thousands in the art of war it should not be a problem to find $5,000 to train an adequate number of people as doctors and dentists. It is very difficult for me to explain to the veterans in my constituency that Canada was able to supply one dentist for every 500 soldiers in war time and that now we have only one dentist for 44,000 or 45,000 people in peace time. It is not fair to say that this is a provincial responsibility, that the province should bear the cost. The students who graduate from these colleges are free to practise in any part of the dominion if they pass the dominion examinations. In war time the problem of financing the war was a national responsibility. In peace time the fighting of disease should claim a larger percentage of our total national income than has been the case. So I suggest that the minister should, without further delay, convene a conference of dominion and provincial health authorities and reach an agreement with those provinces which are prepared to go along and carry out the spirit of the decisons reached by the previous Minister of National Health and Welfare, so that a programme can be carried out that would be satisfactory to the dominion and provinces concerned. I am sure that the great volume of evidence placed before the social security committee before the last election demonstrates that health is a national concern.
I was particularly interested in the brief "Health on the March" presented by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. There are some striking paragraphs in the proposals submitted by the federation. For example:
(a)	The large majority of the people are unable to pay for adequate medical care with its rapidly increasing scope and costs; while at the same time, those who give the services are not receiving a just remuneration. This state of affairs is having a serious effect on the welfare of our dominion.
(b)	Health is a national problem which is becoming more and more evident under the stress of war conditions. The responsibility of

Supply-Health and Welfare
the federal government in calling on man and woman power from all classes entails federal responsibility for the people's health.
(c) A national health plan would encourage a strong national sentiment. Confederation was intended to foster a national economy. There is now urgent need to revive this interest.
They make recommendations how they would organize and find the wherewithal, a system of financing that would be equitable so far as the individuals are concerned, and they propose nine different methods of raising funds. They suggest that a fund should be raised by the federal authorities, that the plan should include all citizens, not merely those who can afford the luxury of good health, and they say:
Complete coverage is necessary to achieve financial soundness and to spread the cost equitably.
They go on to say that the promotion of positive health and the prevention of disease should be the primary purpose of the plan. I am not insisting that the minister should accept the plans which the members of this group have emphasized or the plan of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, but I submit it is imperative that the government's own proposals made to the provinces should now be presented again to the seven provinces which have made financial agreements with the government; the minister should be able to persuade members of the cabinet that an adequate budget for health should be provided, and his officers and his department should fight disease in peace time with the same imagination and the same determination as we fought it in war time.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I thought we were going to receive some information from the minister. I had asked for a break-down of the actual expenditures for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1947, as a guide to us in approaching the estimates for the current year, and for purposes of comparison. Has the minister that information?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think the best way would be for the hon. member to ask as we come to the individual items.


Donald Methuen Fleming: With respect, I submit that that would take a great deal of time. If we had the information now it might obviate the necessity of asking many questions. We are all desirous of economizing time, and to draw out the information required item by item will take a great deal of time. I suggest tfiat the information be made available early in the discussion in order to save time.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: A short time ago the Department of Health rented a place on Parkdale avenue.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will the hon. member wait until we come to the item on the laboratory?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Will "other properties" come under that item?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Under that one item?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Item 206.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Is the minister going to supply that information, or is he going to force us to ask for information on every item?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think it is the most convenient way of dealing with them.


Donald Methuen Fleming: With great respect, I disagree with the minister. I thought we were trying to save some time. If we are to stop at every item and ask for an explanation of it, that will take much more time. I am trying to cooperate with the minister to save time and to avoid asking questions on every item. If we were furnished with the information in advance, that would not be required, but apparently the minister is not prepared to do that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I can only say that I think my hon. friend is trying to cooperate and I am trying to cooperate with him, but I believe that is the most expeditious way of dealing with the item. As we come to each item, I shall be glad to give him the information.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I wish to repeat my question. How many different offices or laboratories has the department in Ottawa? How many different buildings are occupied at the present time?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Two laboratories only.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Where are they?


Paul Joseph James Martin: On John street, and the new one.
Mr. FRASER.: John street; is that the laboratory?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, and the new one is on Parkdale avenue.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That is the old laboratory?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The new one.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The new one on Parkdale avenue is not in operation yet.


John Horne Blackmore: I should like to ask the minister two or three questions regarding facilities for research into the cause of cancer.

Supply-Health and Welfare

What item would he suggest would be the proper one under which to ask these questions?


Paul Joseph James Martin: There is no specific item on cancer. I suggest that when we come to the item on epidemiology we might deal with it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I understood that the minister was going to say something on the subject of the various items scattered through the estimates under the headings "educational and informational publicity". I made a passing comment on this subject when the committee was last in session on the estimates of this department. In the fiscal year 1945-46, a total of $416,000 was appropriated for publicity and information-


Paul Joseph James Martin: If I might interrupt, I think when we come to that item we shall deal with it. I do not think we should deal with it under departmental administration. When we come to the item on information and educational publicity we can deal with that particular question. That is a more orderly procedure. If we wait until we come to each item and discuss the matter I shall be very glad to give all the information asked by the hon. member to the best of my ability.


Donald Methuen Fleming: This is not something that is found in any one item of the estimates alone; it is scatttered throughout. There are some fifteen items.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is a primary in many items.


Donald Methuen Fleming: In this first item "departmental administration" there is a substantial sum for this purpose. I wanted to make one or two general observations and ask for comr ment by the minister. I mentioned that in the fiscal year 1945-46 a total of $416,000 was appropriated for publicity and information. In 1916-47 the total appropriated was substantially increased; it was $570,530 altogether. According to my calculation, the aggregate is $300,000 in the various items this year. I should like to ask the minister a question as to the intentions of the department in this field, because last year quite a few of us were not at all satisfied with the evidence that was put before the committee by the then minister as to the way in which these substantial amounts of money were being expended. Undoubtedly the. work of dissemination of educational information is an important function of this department. We wish to be certain that what is being circulated is something really helpful to the public and that it will

assist in the maintenance and promotion of public health. Last year some of the evidence submitted indicated that money was being spent on things which were anything but helpful. I need only remind the committee of fillers that were being issued advising people, for instance, to expend their family allowances on certain necessities and then to spend the remainder to add zest to living. That sort of trash is an insult to the intelligence of the Canadian people. Just imagine telling people to spend their money to add zest to living. I should like, and I am sure all hon. members would like, some assurance from the minister that in all these items in the total of educational information scattered through these estimates the money is to be well and wisely spent; that it will not be spent on issuing fillers that have no more to commend themselves to the intelligence of the people of Canada than the one to which I have referred and which was not an isolated case by any means; there was a number of them.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
National health branch-
201. National health branch administration, $143,727.
Gordon Knapman Fraser: I should like to know what has been spent on advertising, because some of the advertising from this national health branch has been terrible.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Was the question about educational information or advertising?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Advertising.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No money is spent on advertising.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: National health across
Canada.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No money is spent on advertising.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: What about the national health league?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Health League of Canada is a private, volunteer organization.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Sponsored by this department.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It receives a grant.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Has the minister the amount of expenditure on these two items?


Paul Joseph James Martin: What two items?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Items 200 and 201. The
minister's attitude compels us to ask this-question on each item. The minister's refusal



IS, 1947

[Stage Direction]
Supply-Health and Welfare
to give us that information in advance compels us to ask this question on each item, and I protest that.
Paul Joseph James Martin: With regard to departmental administration, we have a publication called "Canada's Health and Welfare" of which there were approximately 58,000 copies in English and 25,000 copies in French distributed each month last year.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What is the total of the item?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The total expended was $24,276.54.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think the minister misunderstood me. I was asking for the total expenditure, first, as against the appropriation of $525,000, item 200, andi, then, against the appropriation of $226,537, item 201. That is the expenditure we are asking for.


Paul Joseph James Martin: $48,350, departmental, and under item 201, it is $36,250.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am sure that we are at cross-purposes. What I am asking for is the actual expenditure on this item. Surely the minister is not saying that, out of the appropriation of $525,000 last year, the total expert ded was $48,350. What I am asking for is the total of the. actual expenditure so that I can compare it with the estimated requirements for this fiscal year.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Covering the entire department?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, I want the item of expenditure corresponding to item 200, of the estimates.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Covering the entire department, it is $278,000 for educational and informational publicity.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I note there is a sizeable decrease of over $82,000, which seems to be made up, in the main, of a reduction in temporary assistance and a reduction in educational and informational publicity. Is the work of the department suffering from either of these decreases? I should like to know why there is such a considerable decrease in educational and informational publicity. Is it by any chance the result of attacks which my hon. friends opposite received last year, from hon. members to my right?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The decrease in this item
is partly explained by a decrease of $25,958 in salaries, and in other pay list items of $5,521.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Before the minister
leaves that, why are there these decreases?


Paul Joseph James Martin: There are a number of
positions that have been deleted, and a number transferred to other divisions, but it is not felt that the efficiency of this particular division has suffered in any way as a result.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There are no jobs that
were being done before that are not done now?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No. With regard to
educational and informational publicity, there is a decrease. A start has already been made on certain films previously recommended by the dominion council of health, a body which meets twice a year at the instance of the Department of National Health and Welfare to discuss matters of mutual and national interest. The council's special committee on films in 1945 suggested a representative list including restaurant sanitation, rural sanitation and rent control, and steps have now been taken to implement these recommendations. Certain films were suggested as a result of the health education conference last fall and are now under active consideration. This= will include such subjects as the common cold, immunization and tuberculosis. It w hoped that we shall be able to get on as quickly as possible with the scripting and shooting of a number of these films under this year's budget, but it will be necessary to' provide for a carryover of a considerable-quantity of work next year. This we feel will be adequately covered for the time by $32,000 requested, which it is thought is sufficient to produce two such films.
On the general item of public information, I did feel at the outset that there were some items which could be eliminated; for instance, one telling people how to ski. One of the first instructions I gave was that there be no further moneys expended on that publication. I must say at this stage, however, that my review of the educational work of the department convinces me that if we are to do the job which hon. gentlemen generally believe we should pursue, an assignment with which I am in full accord, we must take the suggestion of the hon. member for Lanark, who last year took issue with some of his own colleagues in saying that rather than curtail information we ought to extend it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I believe that is a sound view to take. It is all very well for hon. gentlemen to criticize this item, which has been reduced considerably from the sum of over $590,000 to $390,000. I am bound to say that at -the moment my view is that that is a curtailment, to which perhaps I would not have consented earlier in the year had I
Supply-Health and Welfare

known as much about my work as I do now. I say that quite honestly and frankly. If we are to bring home the facts to the people of this country, in pursuance of the constitutional responsibilities of this government in the matter of health, we should not hesitate wisely to bring home, in as graphic a manner as we can to all groups of the population, rural and urban, the steps which it is thought by our technical staff should be taken to improve the standards of health of the Canadian people.
We have heard a discussion tonight, an admirable discussion thus far, though not too complimentary to a minister who is doing his best within a short time to tackle the great responsibility that devolves upon him. We have heard suggestions tonight about a cutting down in maternity mortality rates, infant mortality rates, deaths resulting from tuberculosis, cancer and the like-all of them projects that cannot help but capture the imagination and the interest of any responsible minister-and I think I can say this to the membership of a house that knows my interest in these things. I feel keenly that we should do some of the things about which mention has been made tonight, and one of the ways of doing this is to bring the matter home to the people of the country.
Take the work of industrial health. We can bring home the importance of this to the men who work in our factories, pointing out ways and means of improving health standards. Take the work of Doctor E. Couture, whose book, "The Canadian Mother and Child" has now reached a total circulation of over 750000 copies. That kind of work is having an incalculable benefit. I have looked through carefully the criticisms which were leveled last year, responsibly directed criticisms I know, but which perhaps were made without a full knowledge of the facts. I must say that, having gone into the items carefully, I can find only a genuine demand throughout the country, from all kinds of groups, for the kind of publication we are putting out.
No two people will agree on what is the wise way of bringing home to the public information in regard to problems of health and the ways and means of meeting health deficiency. We must put ourselves at the disposal of those who, through radio or films or by writing, or through other methods of graphic portrayal, feel that these are the most effective ways of dealing with the matter. Take the question of press fillers. I am not convinced by the argument of the hon. member for Eglinton. I have been trying to find some way of agreeing with him, but I regret

to say that I have not found one item on which I am fully in accord with him.
These press fillers go, not only to the daily press, but to the weekly press as well, and I find that there are literally thousands of letters coming to the department from men and women on our farms and in our factories, workers and others, asking for further information of the kind disseminated by some of these films and fillers. I can only say that in my judgment they serve a useful purpose, and rather than complain about the quantity, perhaps we should be open to some suggestion with regard to increasing them.
A trial survey of the press some months ago convinced me that a widespread use of these educational fillers is a wise assignment. Newspapers large and small are slipping them in where they have space. Some of the most influential newspapers in Canada, such as the Toronto Globe and Mail, a well known Canadian paper, the Ottawa Journal, the Montreal Gazette, use them frequently.


Mr. MacNICOL:: Do not forget the
Windsor Star.


Paul Joseph James Martin: And the Windsor Star, Canada's first newspaper. In fact some of the larger newspapers have asked for more copy along the same line. The Montreal Star arranged for us to provide a continuous service on health hints to be used in connection with one of its special feature pages. The Northern Ontario called for additional material to feature on its woman's page. Editors of house organs and trade journals have asked to be included in the service.
I had a case brought to my attention only yesterday. The bulletin of the department had an issue on cancer about two or three weeks ago. From a nearby community not many miles from this city, a doctor wrote in telling us that he had left that at the home of a woman whom he was attending in connection with another malady. The pamphlet was lying in the home. The husband read it. As hon. gentlemen may recall, in that pamphlet there was a suggestion that an examination for cancer should be undertaken whenever any apparent symptom appeared or there was any thought of it on the part of the potential victim. This person read that health bulletin and went to a doctor, who is a member of this house. As a result of his diagnosis, this doctor found that the person had cancer in an early stage. I sincerely hope that as a result of that doctor's care, and the diagnosis which was immediately made, that particular individual may be relieved of the dreadful malady. That is one example. One could go on.

Supply-Health and Welfare
I can only say that I am convinced beyond peradventure of the wisdom of the department's programme. At the request of hon. gentlemen earlier in the session I tabled a list of the publications of this particular division. If there is any item to which any hon. gentleman takes exception, I shall be prepared to discuss it, argue as to its merits and deal with it right on the floor of this house.


Thomas Langton Church: I wish to say something in connection with this general administration. I want to congratulate the minister on the degree he got at Michigan university. He appears to be getting extremely popular by degrees. I visited Detroit a few years ago when Mayor Cousens was mayor of that city, just about the time of the discovery by Doctor Banting, who hung out his shingle in Toronto after his graduation from Varsity, and another medical student called Mr. Charlie Best, who was a joint discoverer of this great boon to humanity. At that time I was in Detroit city addressing the Canadian club in 1923 and I found fifty doctors there from the universities of this country, McGill, Queen's, Toronto and other universities. When I came back as a young member of the House of Commons, I had a long connection with public health, with the hospital system and the development of the hospital system in our city. We brought Doctor Hastings, a great health officer, into the Department of Public Health. At that time there were so many cases of typhoid and diphtheria that we had to get a new sewage system, a new water supply system, chlorination and filtration of water, inspection of milk and all that kind of thing. An ounce of prevention was found to be worth a pound of cure. I do not wish to interfere with other hon. gentlemen who desire to speak in this debate, but I just wish to bring two or three matters to the attention of the government.
The young minister has shown a great deal of activity since he joined this department. I do not altogether like a lawyer in his position. He is good at the law business, but a lawyer at the head of the health department is another matter. Once in a while I become ill and send for the best doctor I can get. I wish to point out to the government that we are losing a great many of the graduates in medicine from our universities. They are not staying here but are going to the United States. I found this to be true of the great Johns Hopkins medical school at Baltimore, before I came into this parliament; the head chairs were occupied by Canadians. There were Doctor Howard Kelly, Doctor Thomas Cullen, Doctor Llewellyn Barker, Doctor
Sweetman and those great men who brought medicine to the distinguished position it had in that university succeeding the greater Doctor Osier who went to Oxford. I brought before the house on February 27, 1923, this question of a large annuity to our scientists because I saw this general exodus. Doctor Banting was going to go to the states. Mr. Best was then a medical student. A great many of the medical students of our country are poor people, and have had to struggle to get a degree. I venture to say ninety per cent of them are poor people. I know that one of the doctors-I do not want to give his name- took menial positions on boats in the summer, sold papers and did all kinds of things in the summer months in order to earn money for the fees. In the faculty of medicine the fees have been going up in geometrical progression, two, four, six, eight. You need to be a rich man to be a doctor.
I wish to point out one or two things. On February 27, 1923. I spoke on this matter. I have the Hansard debates here but I will not read it all. I referred to the history of medicine, where all these discoveries which have been made in medicine down through the ages were made by people who never made a nickel out of them but gave their lives to science in the way that Doctor Banting and Mr. Best gave theirs. They got only a small amount of money from the government. If we want to do something, the Canadian government has got to be up and doing. There is no use in our having a skeleton department and turning the matter over to the municipalities and the provinces. It should be made a federal matter entirely. They have that in England, Germany, and France; they have a national system of health. It is the duty of the government to look after the health, wealth and happiness and prosperity of its people. Life has no object at all unless a person has good health.
Look at the poor Indians in this country, people who are not even citizens. We have spent two sessions trying to find out if they are citizens. If they are citizens, and they should have been fifty years ago, they are entitled to health laws. We have taken two sessions to find anything out about it. If you look down the history of medicine you will find that the discoveries of medical men to cure disease have been given to the world freely, without fee or reward, such as antiseptics which were given freely to the world by Lord Lister, anaesthesia bj' Simpson and Morton, vaccination by Jenner, and many others. For the most part, they never made anything out of them at all. There was only one case I think, where it was capitalized in
Supply-Health and Welfare

Germany, the discovery of what was called 606 by Erlich. Burdock's blood bitters and all those quack medicines which people buy unnecessarily in many cases are a commercial matter. There is one country which has done something, and that is France, where they honour men of science. If you go to Paris you will see monuments and parks called after Pasteur. Here in this country we have forgotten about these men. The other day I saw the grave of Doctor Banting in Mount Pleasant cemetery. There was a small monument on it about the size of this desk, made of concrete, with the word "Banting" on it. We do not want all our bright scholars to go to the United States. I call attention to the debate away back on February 27, 1923, where I introduced a resolution asking a grant of $7,500 for Doctor Banting and one for Doctor Best. The government of the day said they could not do anything then. I like to give credit where credit is due. Away back in June, 1923, I called attention to the fact that in the supplementary estimates Doctor Banting was given an annual grant of $7,500, and I said Doctor Best should be given an equal grant. That discussion will be found in the debates of this house at page 4439 of Hansard for June 27, 1923; and I also discussed the matter on February 27 of the same year. That was a creditable action on the part of the government. It led to the establishment of the Banting institute. At that time I was at the Johns Hopkins hospital, and I was informed by one of the leading doctors there that at that time they had nearly nine hundred thousand cases of diabetes in the United States. I do not know where we would have been in the second war had it not been for that great discovery.
I hope we may have a national policy in regard to medicine. I do not mean state medicine; I am not referring to that. For one thing I believe internes in our hospitals should be given $600 a year as well as living expenses. That would not be very much. Then there is the question of nurses. Four sessions ago, when you could not get a nurse, when they were not available, I asked what the government was going to do about it. They have not done very much, and the same difficulty still exists.
I might mention many other matters tonight, but I urge upon the government that these men of science should be kept in Canada, and that our universities should be given large grants of money. Instead of building up a great central health department here, I believe certain universities could take up different branches of this work, including the work on cancer; and they should have federal assistance

by large capital grants all along the line. The King George V cancer fund is now pretty well gone; by the end of this year there will be very little money left in the treasury, and I think the government should give a very large grant for that purpose. I believe the day is not far distant when we shall need a national health policy for this country. The housing situation is simply ridiculous, and it leads to a great deal of poor health in regard! to water supply and sewage disposal. I remember back in 1914 and 1915, when the late John Ross Robertson did such magnificent work in Toronto in connection with the sick children's hospital, Which has been a blessing to the children of our city and province ever since. At that time the question of medical and dental inspection in the schools came up, and we were the first city to have that service, which has since been extended to the secondary schools. So I hope the government will come to the assistance of the municipalities by means of substantial grants. Perhaps this should be done through the provinces, but the provinces seem to like to hang on to the money. I believe the government should do something for the hospital system of the whole country in order to help out the municipalities, because this represents a serious drain on real estate and the cost is going up by leaps and bounds.
I know other hon. gentlemen wish to take part in this debate, but I want to impress upon the government that something must be done to keep our young scientists at home, the way France and the United States and Germany have done for many years past. After all is said and done, we can take a lesson from what was done by the German people before the war in regard to medicine and many other branches of science, though no doubt some of them went too far. Instead of marking time, I believe we should have a large fund, perhaps $25,000,000 to start with, among other things for research into medical matters by Canadian students in our own universities; and we should also see to it that our university graduates in medicine are not exported to the United States.


William Gourlay Blair: To go back to the question of education, I agree that education, or propaganda put out fo the people, is one of the most effective weapons we have. I think that piece of literature on the cancer programme was one of the finest things I have ever seen. It is unfortunate that in an item which appears further down in the list the minister has had to cut expenditures on child and maternal health from $80,000 to approximately $46,000.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is not as bad as it seems. That was as the result of not providing for a

Supply-Health and Welfare
film such as that which was completed last year. When we come to that item we can deal with it.


William Gourlay Blair: Excellent work has been done under this item. I do not think a finer piece of work than Doctor Couture's book "Mother and Child" has ever been put out by any department of health. Some of the things put out under this educational policy are the very best, but some things still creep in that are very foolish. I have mentioned Doctor Couture's book, and now I will go from the sublime to the ridiculous. Here is a filler which I think must have been written by a sailor. He has it headed, "Woolies Away", he must have been thinking of "Anchors Aweigh." In it he warns the people of the country to have their woolies cleaned, because if they do not they are liable to get vermin. This may contain scientific facts, but I do not think it is any great contribution to Canadian literature. I want to point out that some of this ridiculous propaganda is still included in the fillers sent out to the newspapers. I criticized this practice last year. There has been a great improvement since then, but I think there is room for still further improvement.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: When the minister was speaking he mentioned industrial hygiene.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Laboratory hygiene.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Yes, but the minister said industrial hygiene.


Paul Joseph James Martin: There is a special item for that which we will come to shortly.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: But you were talking about it a few minutes ago.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I was trying to illustrate the value of educational work under item 200. We are now on item 201. When we come to the item dealing with industrial health I shall be glad to deal with any relevant question.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The minister also said he had considerably cut down the amount for publicity, which I think was a good idea because now he can start from scratch and build up again. I believe in pubilicity of the right kind, but in the past I think you have had the wrong land. Now you have a deputy minister who, I am sure, knows his business, and I think you will get somewhere.


Paul Joseph James Martin: He comes from Peterborough, which helps a great deal.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I know, but that is not what I mean.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Certainly that is not a harmful fact.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: No, I think that might help him; but now I think you may have a chance to get ahead. I feel quite sure the deputy minister had something to do with that cancer book which was sent out.


Paul Joseph James Martin: A great deal.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: If the rest of the literature jTou put out is of that calibre I do not think one member of the opposition will have any criticism to offer. But you have put out films that have been no good, and you have had advertising that has been absolutely no good, an absolute waste of money. In regard to publicitj- for industry, which you are coming to later, I think the more you put out for that purpose, of the right kind, the better it will be for this country.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Could the minister give us the cost of the two excellent booklets that have been referred to, the one on cancer and the one on the mother and child?


Paul Joseph James Martin: About $1,700 for the cancer bulletin. I shall have to get the other figure later.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The mother and child booklet was issued some years ago, and then reissued.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That mother and child booklet is distributed. to welfare and children's aid societies, is it?


Paul Joseph James Martin: To provincial health departments, and through them to all sorts of groups and individuals. Some 750,000 copies have gone out.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I find in the annual report of the director of health insurance, dated December 29, 1945-[DOT]


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is another item. That is item 217.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am trying to get the figures on expenditures for last year.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I will give them now. With respect to item 201, the estimate for 1947-48 is $143,727, whereas in 1946-47 it was $226,537. The expenditures for 1946-47 amounted to $89,421.74. The unliquidated commitments for 1946-47 are $13,437.11. The total commitments for 1946-47 are $102,858.85.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is just the reason why I think it is so important that we have the actual expenditures. Last year the minister asked for an appropriation of more than $226,000. He has actually spent or contracted
Supply-Health and Welfare

to spend $102,000. That indicates how different the estimates and the expenditures can be. I am sure the minister spent everything he felt it necessary to spend under the item. And yet we find that only about forty per cent of the amount of money he persuaded parliament last year to put at his disposal in respect of this item has been spent.
Surely we do not need any better example of the need for some better method of checking the estimates of these departments. This is the first example we have reached tonight. I have not the slightest doubt that the ministers-and when I say "the ministers" I mean ministers who have been in office from time to time; there have been two of them in the last year-* expended everything on that item they considered should be spent. It shows that last year parliament was imposed upon when it was asked to put $226,000 at the disposal of the department in respect of this item. We need no better proof of the fact that we ought to have, in respect of every item coming before the committee of supply, the actual expenditures in the preceding fiscal year on the item. The estimate of the previous year is no guide. Anyone running a business would insist upon the actual expenditures. Will the minister be good enough to furnish similar information on the other items?
Let me point out that, whereas hon. members talk about reductions in expenditures, what the committee is faced with in respect of this item is an increase in expenditures. It is all very well to bring before us in print these estimates which show reductions in estimated expenditures. Looking at this item, one sees what appears to be a handsome reduction of $82,810 from the appropriated amount for last year. But when one looks into it and finds what was actually spent, he finds that the department is asking the committee this year to provide $41,000 more than was actually spent last year.
Let us not be misled by what appear to be reductions in the estimates. Let us remember that when reductions appear they are only reductions as compared with the estimated expenditures of the preceding year, and have nothing to do with actual expenditure. We do not need any further proof of the fact that the way in which parliament is going about the task of checking expenditures is little better than a farce.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have listened with interest to what the hon. member has said. He has told me privately and in a kindly fashion his views on the subject. He will appreciate the task any government or business has to esti-

mate as well as it can, in the light of personnel available, and of proposed projects for the ensuing year.
But the picture is not exactly as my hon. friend has stated it. For example, part of the reduction is accounted for by a reduction of approximately $26,000 in salaries. Funds were provided for a number of vacant posts which remained unfilled for part or all of the year because of the difficulty of obtaining personnel. I say frankly to my hon. friend that in a department like this you cannot hire just anyone. The government had a policy of carrying on certain projects. That work entailed certain personnel. We simply were not able to do it, to the extent represented in this particular instance by the figure of $26,000. Another explanation is in the pay list item. Then in respect of the item for educational and informational publicity, because of the shortage of materials and due to other factors such as the lateness in obtaining a director it was not possible to proceed with the planned programme.
With regard to the other items, I must point out that this is a comparatively new department. It was only a year old when the estimates were finally made; and it is only fair to my predecessor to suggest that naturally in respect of some items he miscalculated. But that miscalculation is one which is not altogether provocative of criticism. My hon. friend and other hon. members would have a more legitimate right to criticize if, instead of overestimating the important work in connection with health, there had been underestimation. In so far as humanly possible, let me say we will endeavour to do our best to make our estimates accurate. But I have no doubt that when we come back next year, while I trust we shall not deserve censure to the same extent, we shall have to say that we were not able to spend this money. The important thing is to spend wisely the money allotted by parliament; and that we are undertaking to do.


Donald Methuen Fleming: To save time, would the minister just give the actual expenditures corresponding to the different items? He does not need to give the estimates for last year and this year. W'e have that information. Perhaps he would just run through these votes, giving the number of each vote and the actual expenditures. He will save us a great deal of time by so doing.


Paul Joseph James Martin: When we come to each item. My hon. friend can see that we have before us voluminous material and information. The information could be easily obtained

Supply-Health and Welfare
by him later in the public accounts. However, when we come to each item, and if he insists, I shall give that information. He is asking that we proceed in an unusual way. I suggest that the proper way is the one I have proposed.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I wish to make it perfectly clear, and all in good part, that I have no apology to make for asking for the actual expenditures in respect of the items in this department. However I am not going to repeat what I said before. If the minister would give what I have asked we would, save a good deal of time. If not, he will compel our asking for the expenditures on each item.
I repeat what I said last week, that it is the duty of this committee to see that the money is well spent. We are not going to be niggardly in matters of health and welfare, so long as we see that the people of this country are getting value for money spent.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Correct.


Donald Methuen Fleming: But we want to see something more approaching accuracy than we have seen in the present estimates, where one of these estimates has exceeded by 250 per cent the required expenditure.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We will give that information.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Then I would ask for the actual expenditures in respect of item 200. The minister gave a different figure.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We have passed that item.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think the figure the minister gave was obviously based on a misapprehension.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We have passed item 200. I shall look up the hon. member's question, and then tomorrow or at the next opportunity I shall have occasion to look into it. But I think we ought to stick to the item before the committee. We had a general discussion on item 200. Now we are on a specific item. I will look at his question and give him an answer at the first opportunity.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I can tell the minister my question now.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We must do it in an orderly way.


Donald Methuen Fleming: This is a disorderly way.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
National health branch-
202.	Food and drugs, $419,448.
Donald Methuen Fleming: What is the expenditure?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Estimated expenditure for 1947M8, S419.448; estimated expenditure for 1946-47, $3S5,240; expenditure for 1946-47, 8314,780.73; unliquidated commitments, 194647, $16,873.87.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
National health branch
[Stage Direction]
203.	Opium and narcotic drugs, $93,743.
Donald Methuen Fleming: What is the expenditure?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Estimated expenditure for 1947M8, $93,743; estimated expenditure for 1946-47, $94,820; expenditure for 1946-47, $82,929.92; unliquidated commitments, 1946-47, $110.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
National health branch-
204.	Proprietary or patent medicines, $21,327.
Donald Methuen Fleming: The same question.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Estimated expenditure for 1946-47, $19,832; expenditure for 1946-47, $15,905.67; unliquidated commitments, 1946M7, $162.15.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
National health branch-*
205.	Quarantine and leprosy, $225,876.
Mr. PEARKES:: A few days ago a return was tabled showing that there were two stations in Canada where lepers are taken care of, one at Tracadie in New Brunswick, and one at Bentinck island in British Columbia. In the former station there are some seven patients kept in a special ward of a hospital at a cost of something over $8,000 for the year. At Bentinck island there are three who have been maintained for an expenditure of roughly $5,000 for the year. Those two figures have' been constant over the past ten years.
I should like to offer the suggestion that it is an unnecessary expenditure to maintain these two stations, and that a saving could be made by their amalgamation. I know something about the situation in British Columbia because the station there is in my constituency. It is located on an island where the unfortunate patients live. For a number of years there have been only two. I believe one was a Chinaman and one was a Jap. The great unhappiness that these individuals experience is the loneliness of that station. If, for instance, the seven were moved from New Brunswick to that island I do not think the cost would go up very much, because there is ample accommodation for them on that island and they are cared for from the quar-

Supply-Health and Weljare

antine station at Williams Head. But I do not mind in the least whether the seven are moved to British Columbia or the three in British Columbia are moved to eastern Canada. It is just whichever would be the most economical and the most suitable so far as the department is concerned, but I suggest that it is uneconomical to maintain two separate stations for so few patients. It is unlikely that there -will be any sudden change, for these numbers have now been constant over a number of years. It is one way in which money can be definitely saved, I suggest to the minister.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I just want to say briefly that the problem struck me exactly as it struck the hon. gentleman. I have had several discussions with my officials about the matter, and while I cannot say that it is finally closed, I must say that my officials do not take the view my hon. friend takes. It is true that at Bentinck island there are three leprosy patients and seven in the eastern part of Canada. Among those seven in the eastern part of Canada some are native to the area. Only one actual institution is maintained at Bentinck island; the others are put in a separate wing of the Hotel Dieu hospital at Tracadie. The arrangement proposed has not been finally completed, and I shall give careful study to the suggestion of the hon. gentleman.


George Randolph Pearkes: Would there be any objection to moving the three from British Columbia to the other station?


Mr. CARDIFF:: How long do these patients live?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Some live as long as thirty years.


Mr. McKAY:: Are these seven lepers Canadian citizens? Were any cases of leprosy reported last year?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Of the seven patients in hospital, four may be considered as under active treatment and showing signs of variable degrees of active leprosy. The other three are considered arrested cases. There are four males and three females. Three are French-Canadians; one is of French-Scotch ancestry; two are of Russian ancestry and one is Canadian-born.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Are these lepers receiving the new treatment?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Every treatment known to medical science.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Including the new treatment that was discovered a couple of months ago?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Every care is taken of them.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I have the expenditure on this item?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. gentleman was persistent at college, and in his public life he is equally persistent, constructively persistent. The estimated expenditure for 1946-47 was $264,307; the expenditure for 1946-47 was $226,847.62; unliquidated commitments for 1946-47, $7,622.84.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Z06. Laboratory of hygiene, $217,059.
Donald Methuen Fleming: What is the expenditure, please?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Estimated expenditure for 1946-47, $211,440; expenditure for 1946-47, S170,078.16; unliquidated commitments, 194647, $7,226.31; total commitments, $177,304.47.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There are two questions I should like to ask the minister. The first has to do with the progress made in the development of the manufacture of penicillin carried on under this item by the department. I am thinking particularly of the old Knox college on Spadina avenue in Toronto which was outfitted during the war as one of the pioneer plants for the manufacture of penicillin. What is the situation there today? Perhaps the minister can give us some indication of the use being made of that plant.
At the same time I should like t*o ask for some information with reference to the item of temporary assistance under the heading "Laboratory of Hygiene" on page 169 of the estimates. There is an increase in this item. Perhaps the minister will give the committee an explanation of the increase and, in particular, why temporary assistance 'bulks so large in the appropriations of this particular branch.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is a new department.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is my very point. It is a question of when the necessary staff is to pass from the status of temporary assistance to that of permanent.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think the general practice in the service is that everybody stays temporary for at least a year. Then, the question of quota system has to be decided. It is a matter pretty much for the civil service commission. I should think that by this time next year I shall be able to report something more stable in that particular. Was the hon. member asking about the Connaught laboratory?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, I am thinking of the work carried on under the direction of the Connaught laboratory in the old Knox college building.

Supply-Health and Welfare


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think I can give some information directly on what is being carried on in our own laboratory. I could give my hon. friend information about the Connaught laboratory throngh information that they themselves give. With regard to penicillin and our own laboratories, the methods of assaying penicillin have been studied carefully. There are now known to be at least four types or fractions of penicillin with varying therapeutic efficiency. I am able to say-and this is by way of tribute to our own laboratory-that a Canadian standard penicillin has been prepared and is distributed to manufacturers for control of their production. A second lower potency standard is distributed to hospitals and clinical laboratories for use in controlling penicillin therapy. The regulations for the control of penicillin have been revised in the light of the most recent advances. Studies have been carried out on the chemical and enzymatic destruction of penicillin in the search for a more satisfactory sterility test to ensure that preparations of penicillin will be free from contaminating organisms. A practical method for large-scale production of the enzyme penicillinase has been found. I may say that this- and I am sure that the medical men in the house will appreciate this-has been a notable contribution on the part of our laboratory.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Why was it necessary to rent this building on Parkdale avenue when there must be war buildings unoccupied?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is a matter for public works. The war buildings were unsuitable for this work, and we have been crowded out in the buildings occupied.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I know the department has been crowded, but $18,000 seems to be a lot of money to spend at a time like this.


Paul Joseph James Martin: They were simply crowded, and this is extremely important work. While the cost may be important, the actual details are, of course, looked after by public works. I am anxious that we be given every opportunity to put our men in places Where they can do an adequate job which vitally affects the welfare of this country, and I am sure the hon. member will agree.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I agree with that, but I just did not think this was the time to build a new building when the veterans cannot get building material.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I would say that every time
is the time in a matter such as this


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
83166- 278 J
National health branch-	'
207.	Immigration medical inspection, $143,182.
William Gourlay Blair: I should like to ask a question about the medical examination and inspection of immigrants. Are there Wassermann tests taken on every immigrant coming to this country before they leave their land, and do they have chest X-rays?


Paul Joseph James Martin: With regard to the first question, the answer is no. With regard to the last question, the Minister of Mines and Resources will, I am sure have a statement to make. We merely service that department on requisition. He will have to declare a new policy, but I think my hon. friend will find the new policy will meet what he conceives to be the correct procedure with regard to the medical examination of new immigrants.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: We were told by the
external affairs department that these immigrants coming in in the mass were being X-rayed.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right. The appropriate answer to that should, I think, come from the appropriate minister. Speaking for myself and my department, I can only say that that is our view, and I think my hon. friend will find that the announcement will show that what he thinks should be done is to be done in the future.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I thought it should have been done five or six years ago. That is what I have been advocating right along. That is why I am anxious to have it done.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What the hon. gentleman has said is also my own judgment.


Mr. ILERRIDGE:: I was going to ask the same question that was asked by the other hon. member. I also am concerned with what sort of examination these immigrants are receiving on coming to this country. We want to be sure we do not permit people to come to this country who have tuberculosis or venereal disease.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What were the expenditures on this item?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Item 207 estimate 1946-47, $124,905; expenditure, 1946-47,	$87,683;
unliquidated commitments, 1946-47, $654.70.


Donald Methuen Fleming: On page 169 of the estimates we again have an item for temporary assistance which is about double what it was last year. Has that anything to do with overseas inspection?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes.
Sup-ply-Health and Welfare


Donald Methuen Fleming: If so, is it adequate to meet the requirements for the present year, if the policy that was enunciated some time ago by the Prime Minister is to be translated into an increased volume of immigration, and if the teams that he spoke of are to be increased in Europe to examine the intending immigrants without undue delays? Is the minister going to ask for a supplementary appropriation later?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Can he give any indication of what it might be?


Paul Joseph James Martin: At the right time, yes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What is the amount?


Paul Joseph James Martin: At the right time I shall give it; I should not give it now.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will it bear any relation to this amount?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Whatever will be done my hon. friend will think it is right, I am sure.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I doubt it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
National health branch-
208.	Child and maternal health, $82,625.
Gordon Knapman Fraser: This item has been reduced this year. I would think that this is an item which would have been increased, since it has to do with child and maternal health.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The main decrease is in the item under educational and informational publicity. There is a decrease of approximately $34,000. The higher item in 1946-47 was due to the production of a sound film on maternal and infant care and film strips for this picture. The $46,000 for this fiscal year is to provide for a reprint of the "Canadian Mother and Child", and new publications on poliomyelitis and posture and care of premature infants, and so on. The decrease is largely a matter of adjustment on account of films.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I would ask for the
expenditures on item 208.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Estimate 1946-47, $120,443; expenditures 1946-47, $S6,437.74; unliquidated commitments 1946^47, $20,010.56.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
National health branch-[DOT]
209.	Public health engineering, $149,507.
Donald Methuen Fleming: Will the minister give the expenditures?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Estimate 1946-47, $173,843; expenditure 1946-47, S124.387.19; unliquidated commitments, 1946-47, $9,497.20.


William Irvine: I do not know whether the question I wish to ask can properly be put under this item, but perhaps the minister will permit me to ask it anyway. What is the health department doing with respect to arthritis?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That should have been asked under a previous item. I take it that the hon. gentleman could not have been in the house when I indicated what we are doing in this regard. This is public health engineering, but I did make a statement as to what we are doing about arthritis and what we propose to do. If the hon. member will look at Hansard of last Tuesday he will see what I said, and if he is not satisfied and will ask the question under some other item I shall try to get the indulgence of the committee to give the information.


Angus MacInnis: The title of this item is quite a mouthful. I am wondering how many members of the committee know what is involved in public health engineering. Would the minister explain it?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The purpose is to carry
out a number of functions; first of all, to provide for active cooperation with the international joint commission in connection with the present investigation of the pollution of international boundary waters by the discharge thereinto of industrial waste and sewage; supervision as regards public health of railways, vessels, aeroplanes and other forms of transportation engaged in interprovincial and international traffic; supervision of the application of regulations, made by the international joint commission, promulgated pursuant to the treaty between the United States and His Majesty relating to boundary waters; supervision of tihe application of regulations pertaining to vessels navigating on the great lakes and inland waters, also on the coasts of Canada and regulations pertaining to common carriers engaged in international and interprovincial traffic; administration of Public Works Health Act regulations; cooperation with provincial authorities in all matters relating to sanitation; cooperation with other departments of the government of Canada regarding water supplies, sewage and wastes disposal, and other matters of sanitation; supervision of the shellfish industry regarding matters of health and export of shellfish from Canada to the United States; and cooperation with the United States public health service on matters of international sanitation.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Health and Welfare
National health branch-
210. Treatment of sick mariners. $399,926.
John Ritchie MacNicol: When the minister replies I should be glad if he would tell us something about the activities of the department in this regard on the east coast, the west coast and on the great lakes, and just what hospitals, if any, sick mariners are sent to. I have no fault to find with the estimate. This is an important branch of the department and a very necessary one, but looking over the list on page 170 of the estimates, I notice one hospital guard. If we have many hospitals to which we send sick mariners there should be more than one guard. Further, I notice an item for certain services. I should like to have an explanation of that. Between the two of them they amount to $355,000. That is necessary money, but I am sure the committee would like to have an explanation of the whole programme of the department in . connection with the treatment of sick mariners.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Does the hon. member want it now or later? It is a long story. I am prepared to give it, but possibly I could take note of the question and give a series of answers to many questions that have been asked.


John Ritchie MacNicol: This is an important item.
It is an item that I am interested in because of my connection with the navy league.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No one is more entitled to information on the item than the hon. gentleman. I will make a statement on it:
This service administers part V of the Canada Shipping Act, sick mariners and marine hospitals, to provide such medical, surgical and other treatment as the case requires to any sick mariner employed on board and belonging to a ship which has paid sick mariners dues during the current calendar year.
Revenue is obtained by a compulsory levy on the registered tonnage of a ship arriving in any port in the provinces of Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Ediward Island, British Columbia and Manitoba and Ontario on Hudson bay or James bay.
Applications for treatment are approved by the local collector of customs, who is also responsible for the collection of dues. Payment is made prior to the first fishing voyage of each season.
Vessels engaged in the coasting trade within the limits of one province are exempt from the payment of dues; also vessels arriving at any port in the province of Quebec from any port in the province of Ontario.
Hospitals are maintained at Sydney and Lunenburg, Nova Scotia, for the use of sick mariners. At other ports, hospital care is provided by contracts with local hospitals. Clinics, under full time medical officers of the division are maintained at Vancouver, B.C., Quebec, P.Q., Sydney, N.S., Halifax, N.S., and Saint John, N.B. At other ports, part time doctors are appointed to act as port physicians for this purpose.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Does the department
maintain hospitals under its own direction?


Paul Joseph James Martin: At Sydney and Lunenburg. At other ports the service is provided for by contract with local hospitals.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Does the department own these hospitals?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, at Sydney and Lunenburg, Nova Scotia.


John Ritchie MacNicol: There is nothing in the estimates here referring to repairs to hospitals or to maintenance.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is under public works.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The minister also said something about the payment of dues. What about sick mariners for whom dues are not paid?


Paul Joseph James Martin: They all pay dues.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I thought the minister said something about ships that have to pay dues. Why would it be necessary1 to use that expression ?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Did I say that?


John Ritchie MacNicol: I thought the minister did.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If I did it must have been a slip of the tongue.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Do all ships have to pay dues?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Which means that all sick mariners are eligible to be taken care of.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right.


Angus MacInnis: In view of the minister's explanation in answer to the question asked by the hon. member for Davenport, I should like to know this. When have all ships begun paying dues and when have all sick mariners begun to be provided for out of these dues? Unless the change has been made quite recently, the minister has been misinformed.
Supply-Health and Welfare


Paul Joseph James Martin: 
Paul Joseph James Martin: I am afraid I cannot give any finality of view in this matter. I know the point which has been raised by the hon. gentleman; he raised it last year. The problem is one that would create a real difficulty. I have been giving the matter consideration and I have been discussing it with the Minister of Transport. My present view is that the matter is one that lies wholly within provincial jurisdiction; and the provinces are [DOT]extremely jealous of the traditional power which, under the constitution, they have exercised over the years. I can only say at the moment that I am aware of the problem. I am not being purely formal in my reply, because I should like to do something about

things which require doing. I am giving the matter consideration, but there is a difficulty involved.


William Henry Golding: Shall the item carry?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No. I asked for the expenditures.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Estimate for 1946-47, $341,823; expenditure for 1946-47, 8358,281.09; unliquidated commitments, 1946-47, $1,069.14.


Donald Methuen Fleming: This branch earns revenue. Can the minister give us the revenue from its operation for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1947?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Revenue, $216,166.39;
expenditure, $321,375.34 for 1945-46.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Are there any special hospitals for the treatment of sick mariners?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I gave that. There are two institutions and, in addition, contracts are made with private hospitals.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
National health branch-
211. Industrial health, $112,439.
John Ritchie MacNicol: Most of the provinces have their own departments on industrial health. Will the minister tell us how his department cooperates with the health departments of the various provinces? They all have their own staffs.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Quite so.


John Ritchie MacNicol: It seems to me that there is tremendous duplication.


Paul Joseph James Martin: There is no duplication whatsoever. We entered into that field on invitation. My hon. friend, who has been a member of this house for some time, will recall the great debate in this house urging participation by the federal government in this particular field. At a dominion council of health meeting, an organization which meets twice a year, and made up of federal department of health officials and health officials of the nine provincial governments, the latter requested that, as a coordinating body in this field, we should set up this particular division. It was done at their request, and there is no duplication of effort. It is a complementary effort to try to deal with what I know my hon. friend will recognize as an important problem.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Educational and informational publicity has been cut $5,000, although the total item is only down $1,000. Transportation and travelling expenses are up $2,000. This whole item on industrial health is practically all publicity, is it not?

Supply-Health and Welfare


Paul Joseph James Martin: Oh, no.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Just what does this department do? I thought it was an educational branch.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The functions of this division are as follows: first, it is responsible for educational, investigational and cooperative work with provincial departments in matters pertaining to the maintenance of health of the working population of Canada. Our power to act is under section 5 of the National Health and Welfare Act, paragraphs (a), (b) and (i).
I said a moment ago, in answer to the hon. member for Davenport, that our intervention in the matter came, pursuant to the section which I have referred, at the instance of the unanimous request of the nine provincial governments.
The division also acts as special consulting agency to the civil service health division in the matter of healthful working conditions within the public service. The industrial health
laboratories-


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That is a separate item.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No. It is also under this. The industrial health laboratories are responsible for providing technical services in relation to investigation, research and cooperation with provincial departments within the terms of reference provided by section 5 (i) of the act.
The laboratories are also responsible for control of industrial health appliances under authority of the Food and Drugs Act.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Can we have the expenditure on this item?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Estimate for 1946-47,
$113,151; expenditure for 1946-47, was $77,569.26; unliquidated commitments for the same period, $9,778.13.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
National health branch-
212. Civil service health, $211,301.
William Gourlay Blair: I notice there is an increase of $31,000. Have arrangements been made for an X-ray survey of all the civil service? Is there a regular X-ray check-up of these employees?


Paul Joseph James Martin: As my hon. friend knows, this division has just been set up, and the assignment given the division is an important one. I can only say that plans are being made, within the availability of existing personnel, to meet that problem. It is the intention to try to standardize physical examinations, both for pre-employment and periodic review purposes. Such physical examinations
will be complete, including wherever possible X-rays of the chest, ocular and dental examinations. On the basis of defects and disabilities found on these examinations, the division will undertake to advise the various departments of government on the suitability or otherwise of proposed employment and will be prepared to advise individual civil servants on the manner in which they can enjoy he best measure of health within the limitations of such defects or disabilities as may be discovered by such examinations. An effort will be made to look after these matters. We cannot look after the treatment of all the people in the civil service; obviously that is the function of the doctors, but there is work to be done prior to employment. That kind of work, together with what work can be done afterward, is being seriously considered now by an eminent man whom I am sure the hon. gentleman knows very well, and who has undertaken this important task.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I do not quite understand this. The minister says it is a new service.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is a new division.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Will the civil service health examinations be for all civil servants, no matter where they are, as long as they are in the service of the government?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is the broad intention.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: That will be carried out through the health branch in each province?


Paul Joseph James Martin: We will utilize our own clinics, D.V.A. facilities and doctors in the various communities, according to circumstances. That is all part of the expanded service.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I ask for the expenditure under this item last year? ?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The estimate for 1946-47 was $180,078. The expenditure was $61,112.38, with unliquidated commitments for 1946-47 of $2,019.13.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Since I was in another committee and unable to be here at the time, I am going to ask the minister if he will be generous enough to go back to item 206 and give a short statement of the work being done in the laboratory of hygiene.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have covered all that.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I understand that no outline of the work was given.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, I covered that very carefully. I have had to refuse two similar requests from this side, and I could not do it
Supply-Health and Welfare

for one and not for another. If, following an examination of Hansard, the hon. member finds that the explanation given is not sufficient for his purpose, toward the end of the estimates I shall be glad to enlarge upon the question.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I wish to make a brief comment in connection with this item. We have just been told that the actual expenditure last year amounted to $63,000, in round figures. The amount appropriated by the house a year ago at the request of the minister was $180,000.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If my hon. friend will permit me I might try to save time by saying that this is a new effort, and when that estimate was conceived the staff had not even, been selected. That is the main reason for the lower expenditure. I only say this because I think I anticipate the tenor of his argument and am trying to economize on time.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I still would like to offer this brief comment. The answer given by the minister is substantially the same as that given by his predecessor in 1946 and 1945. In each case it was a new branch.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It could not have been in 1945, because the branch was only authorized in September of that year. No, pardon me, I am in error.


Donald Methuen Fleming: We had it before us in the session of 1945, and wei made provision for it. The programme outlined then was the same as the programme outlined now; and we were told the same thing, in 1946. If the minister seriously expects that he will have occasion to spend $211,000 wisely on this work, then I think this committee is prepared to hear his case and make the money available if he proves his case. But a great deal more will have to be usefully done than was done last year with an expenditure of $63,000. What is being asked this year is three and a half times what was actually spent last year. Is this programme developing now to the point where an expenditure three and a half times greater than that of the fiscal year recently ended is to be required?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Every endeavour will be made to spend it properly, to realize the objectives and carry out the functions of the division.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
National health branch-
218. Nutrition, $138,448.
Donald Methuen Fleming: What was the expenditure under this item, please?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The estimate for 1946-47 was $162,992. The expenditure for 1946-47 was $132,343, with unliquidated commitments for the same period of $6,087.07.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I just want to make the comment again that it seems to me there are too many reductions of too large an amount in the estimates for educational and informational publicity. I fear there is false economy, and I hope the minister will make sure that we are not losing something, in connection with a matter like nutrition, by cutting down on these expenditures.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I give my full assurance that the reduction does not in any way affect the purposes the hon. member and I have in mind.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Just on that point, I think it would be of interest to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre if at some appropriate time the minister would give us the actual expenditure, during the fiscal year just closed, on educational and informational publicity, as it is now called, or publicity and information as it was called last year.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I will do that.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The figures I gave earlier this evening were the estimated expenditures, not the actual amount spent.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I said I would do that.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Just a moment. I think it may be interesting to see whether the minister is really budgeting for a reduction in expenditure, as compared with the actual expenditure.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister is definitely budgeting for wise expenditure-


Donald Methuen Fleming: I know that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -or for a reduction, whatever you wish me to say.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I think there must have been something wrong with the budgeting last year, if I may say a word in support of what my deskmate, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, has said1.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have just explained that it does not represent any reduction in functions. Eleven thousand dollars of the amount asked for last year was to meet a commitment carried over from the previous year. My hon. friend may be sure I am not going to reduce this division if I can possibly avoid doing so.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Would the minister tell us the actual expenditures on edhcational and informational publicity last year?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes; $278,326.84.

Supply-Health and Welfare


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: That cannot be right, for there is an amount of only $61,627 shown in the estimates.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You want the break-down?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: No. How much of the $61,000 allocated last year was spent?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would you just let that stand so that we can pass on? I will give the information before the estimates are through.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
National health branch-
Combating venereal diseases-
21-i. Administration, $37,875.
Angus MacInnis: I note that the estimate for administration has been reduced by nearly $9,000, and it was not very large in the first place. Is the venereal disease situation so well under control that any lessening of the activity of the department is justified?


Paul Joseph James Martin: As my hon. friend will know, this matter is primarily one which comes under the provincial authorities. Our interest in the matter is under section 5 of the National Health and Welfare Act, referring to supplementary assistance and coordination. The decreases do not represent anything in the way of fundamental functions, but are rather represented by transfer of personnel. For instance, in respect of one position for a medical specialist, advertised during October, 1946, it was found that of many applicants no one was judged to have the required qualifications. The position will be re-advertised with some revision of qualifications in the hope that it may be filled in the forthcoming fiscal year. That accounts, in part, for the item of $8,400.


Angus MacInnis: That means you will not have that specialist this year. I note that the bureau of statistics now reports in respect of these diseases, and I also note in the annual report for the year ended March 31, 1946- and I believe that is the last available-that the figures for 1945 are higher than those for 1944. Has the minister the figures for 1946?


Paul Joseph James Martin: There is some difficulty in giving those figures. My hon. friend is quite right when he refers to the bureau of statistics. But this is the Department of National Health and Welfare, and my officers take the position-and I must say I believe they are correct-that because these reports are not complete it would be giving an erroneous picture for the Department of National Health and Welfare, on what is not a complete report to give figures which might be misleading. That is the position my officials
think w;e should take, and I think perhaps it is the proper one.


Angus MacInnis: The department has at
least gone so far as to give figures. I do not say they are considered as being absolutely accurate. They realize that all these cases are not reported. But how are people to have a knowledge and understanding of the danger of these diseases unless they have statistics which will give them that information? If it is proper to give a figure for 1944-


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is a figure from the
dominion bureau of statistics. To the extent they are helpful, our department uses those figures. However I have indicated that it is a matter of incomplete reporting. That is not the fault of the bureau of statistics; rather, it is the fault of reporting agencies throughout the country. An attempt is being made to try to perfect the system of reporting to a central office, so that we can be in a position to give a much more accurate set of figures.


Angus MacInnis: I did not ask the minister if the figures were those from his own department. I asked if he had similar figures. Has he figures for the year 1946 which will compare with these for 1944 and 1945? The question is a simple one.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Does the hon. member
want the figures from the bureau of statistics?


Angus MacInnis: Yes, if you have them,
for 1946. The bureau of statistics figures are the ones I have before me.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I will give them for 1946,
as they are given by the dominion bureau of statistics; but I want to emphasize clearly that that is the source from which these figures come. The total venereal disease cases in 1946 is placed at 41,556. The reason I hesitate, as my hon. friend will understand, is that I cannot say too strongly that these are not based on a complete report.


Angus MacInnis: But there is no note to
that effect.


Paul Joseph James Martin: But that is the figure by
the bureau of statistics, not of this department.


Angus MacInnis: But I have before me
the annual report of the Department of National Health and Welfare for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1946. It begins with a letter addressed to His Excellency the Governor General, and states:
May it please Your Excellency:
The undersigned has the honour to present to Your Excellency the annual report of the Department of National Health and Welfare, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1946.
Respectfully submitted,
Brooke Claxton,
Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Supply-Health and Welfare

I wonder what the minister has in mind. Has he no confidence in the report of his department?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have. My hon. friend
knows me better than that.


Angus MacInnis: I am afraid I do not.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Well, this particular
minister has taken the position I have stated tonight on the advice of those in the department who, I think, are in a position to advise. And in taking that position, I take it in the belief that it is the proper thing to do. I cannot say more than that. Should I give a report next year, my hon. friend will have to compare it in the light of what he has just read.


Angus MacInnis: Let us go into this
farther. I understand that the Department of National Health and Welfare has had report forms made so that doctors in various provinces can fill in those reports and report those cases.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is to the dominion bureau of statistics.


Angus MacInnis: Will the minister let me say what I have to say?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am just trying to be helpful.


Mr. SMITH (Calgary West):: There is nothing like listening to an expert.


Angus MacInnis: Well, if my hon. friend wanted to get the information perhaps he could be an expert, too. I imagine he is an expert in certain lines.


Arthur Leroy Smith: If you wish to go farther, yes.


Angus MacInnis: At least he leads us to believe that he would want information. I do not want help from anyone who does not know anything about it. I am trying to get information from the minister.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Accept
information from any place you can get it.


Angus MacInnis: Yes, if I consider it correct.
I have here the report of the Department of National Health and Welfare which sent out forms. All the provinces but one filled in those forms, and it is from them the bureau of statistics got their information. Does the minister say that next year, when he makes out his report, he is not going to give the people of Canada any information on the point?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I did not say that.


Angus MacInnis: That is exactly what the minister said.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend is one of the fairest members in the house. I know he would not say that. I am not refusing. But I am not going to give information, the full authenticity and completeness of which I am not satisfied with. I cannot say more than that at this time.
The estimate 1946-47 is $46,510; expenditures, $20,007.07; unliquidated commitments, 1946-47, $102.17.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, June 19, 1947