1948-06-16

['Mr. Speaker, may I rise to a question of privilege? I shall be as brief as possible. I do not think anyone can accuse me of ever taking up the time of the house, or of the committees. uselessly. That may be because I have reached the age where I realize the value of time and the reasons for not wasting it. Therefore I shall not encroach on it now, nor shall I encroach on eternity, as is sometimes done in this house.\nWhat I am going to speak about is some thing that has just come to my knowledge, although it happened several weeks ago. A friend of mine in Athabaska sent me a copy of the Edmonton Bulletin of February 26, 1948, on the front page of which appears in big block letters, "Fear of Reds silences M.P. in sabotage plot." That refers to me. Underneath the headlines the article appears. I have never been afraid of anybody, neither reds, this man, nor the group he represents. This article is an entire fabrication. I have only one word to describe it, and what it did to me. The man who wrote this is a liar. I hate to use that language. I shall not lose my temper, Mr. Speaker, but in the last election in Athabaska a communist candidate ran. He received more votes than the Conservatives did in Athabaska in 1945. While I abhor communism and everything it stands for, I have many good friends among these people in Athabaska, whom I consider to be more reliable and more dependable than the man who wrote that article without any basis of truth in it. Unless it is corrected, the man who wrote the article should be called before the bar of the house. The paper which published the article should retract it with the same prominence as to heading and type that was used when it was published.\nThe man who wrote this article asked me for an interview, which I refused. I told him I had nothing more to say. I asked him to look up Hansard, and if he had anything to say about what I had said he could use\nHansard as the basis for his remarks. In spite of my refusal to grant an interview this article was published. That is my point.']
Mr. J. M. DECHENE (Athabaska):: Mr. Speaker, may I rise to a question of privilege? I shall be as brief as possible. I do not think anyone can accuse me of ever taking up the time of the house, or of the committees. uselessly. That may be because I have reached the age where I realize the value of time and the reasons for not wasting it. Therefore I shall not encroach on it now, nor shall I encroach on eternity, as is sometimes done in this house.
What I am going to speak about is some thing that has just come to my knowledge, although it happened several weeks ago. A friend of mine in Athabaska sent me a copy of the Edmonton Bulletin of February 26, 1948, on the front page of which appears in big block letters, "Fear of Reds silences M.P. in sabotage plot." That refers to me. Underneath the headlines the article appears. I have never been afraid of anybody, neither reds, this man, nor the group he represents. This article is an entire fabrication. I have only one word to describe it, and what it did to me. The man who wrote this is a liar. I hate to use that language. I shall not lose my temper, Mr. Speaker, but in the last election in Athabaska a communist candidate ran. He received more votes than the Conservatives did in Athabaska in 1945. While I abhor communism and everything it stands for, I have many good friends among these people in Athabaska, whom I consider to be more reliable and more dependable than the man who wrote that article without any basis of truth in it. Unless it is corrected, the man who wrote the article should be called before the bar of the house. The paper which published the article should retract it with the same prominence as to heading and type that was used when it was published.
The man who wrote this article asked me for an interview, which I refused. I told him I had nothing more to say. I asked him to look up Hansard, and if he had anything to say about what I had said he could use
Hansard as the basis for his remarks. In spite of my refusal to grant an interview this article was published. That is my point.



[Stage Direction]
Second report of standing committee on external affairs-Mr. Bradette.

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs) moved:
That items 52 to 67, both inclusive, of the estimates for 1948-49, approved and reported on by the standing committee on external affairs, be referred to the committee of supply.
Motion agreed to.

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

Mr. BROWN:: What consideration is being given and action taken in striking a medal or giving other special recognition to members of the armed forces who participated in military engagements at Dieppe and Hong Kong during world war II?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Members of the armed forces wTho served in the Dieppe operation are granted the 1939-45 Star, and those who served at Hong Kong are granted the 1939-45 Star and the Pacific Star. It was not the practice of this or other allied countries in the second world war to issue service medals especially in respect of any particular engagement.
In this connection it may be pointed out that in addition to the award of Campaign Stars, special personal recognition was given to
personnel who served in the Dieppe operation and at Hong Kong as follows:-
Dieppe-
Victoria Cross	 2
Distinguished Service Order .. 19
Military Cross	29
Distinguished Conduct Medal.. 20
Military Medal	65
Mentions-in-Dispatehes	150
Total	285
Question;

Hong Kong-
Victoria Cross	 1
Distinguished Service Order .. 2
Military Cross	 7
Distinguished Conduct Medal.. 2
Military Medal	12
Mentions-in-Dispatches	29
Total	 53
The following awards were granted for outstanding service by Hong Kong prisoners of war while in prisoners of war camps:
Officer of the British Empire ..	1
Member of the British Empire 6 Distinguished Conduct Medal..	2
Military Medal	 1
British Empire Medal	 3
Mentions-in-Dispatches	31
Total	44


MONCTON AIRPORT
Mr. BROOKS:: 1.	Is the work being done in paving the runways at the Moncton airport under contract or on a cost plus basis?
2.	If under contract (a) what firm is doing the work; (b) what is the amount of the contract?
3.	Has a separate contract been given for the purchasing and hauling of the necessary gravel for this work?
4.	If so (a) ivho is the contractor; (b) how-much is being paid per yard for the gravel; (c) what distance is the gravel being hauled and at what price per yard?


Mr. WINTERS:: 1.	Under contract.
2.	(a) The Rayner Construction Co., Lea-side, Ontario; (b) $666,227.75.
3.	No.
4.	Not applicable.


EMPLOYMENT-MARITIME PROVINCES
Mr. STANFIELD:: 1.	Has the Department of Labour offered or assisted in securing employment in other provinces of Canada for persons in (a) Nova Scotia; (b)the maritime provinces during the calendar year 1947 and 1948 to date?
2.	If so, how many persons left (a) Nova Scotia; (b) the maritime provinces to take up positions in other parts of Canada?
3.	What provinces did they move to?
4.	How many persons left (a) Nova Scotia; (b) the maritime provinces to take up residence in the United States?


Mr. COTE (Verdun):: 1.	Yes. The national employment service has a clearance system whereby vacancies that cannot be filled locally are notified to areas where there is a surplus of applicants for employment.

2.	Total for all the maritime provinces, 7,740. Total from Nova Scotia included in above, 5,607.
3.	The figures given are for all transfers. To show specific information as to where transferred would necessitate detailed examination of 7,740 records. Hansard, page 1283, of February 17, 1948, summarizes the movement. Some were transferred within the maritime provinces, most to Ontario but some to provinces of Quebec, Alberta and British Columbia.
4.	No information is available to answer parts (a) or (b) of this question.


HARNESSING OP BAY OP FUNDY TIDES
[Stage Direction]
Mr. BROOKS;
1.	Has the government or any department thereof received any communciation from the United States department of the international boundary commission recommending the joint investigation of the possibility of a Canadian-American endeavour to harness the tides of the bay of Fundy at Passamaquoddy ?
2.	If so, what was the nature of the correspondence and what action, if any, does the federal government intend taking?
Mr. ST. LAURENT:
1.	On May 21 I received from the United States charge d'affaires in Ottawa a communication regarding the Passamaquoddy tidal power project.
2.	In his note, the charge d'affaires inquired whether it would be agreeable to the Canadian government to make a joint reference of this project to the international joint commission for investigation, exploration, survey and report as to its practicability, public convenience and necessity. He added that draft terms of reference would, in due course, be forwarded to the Canadian government for consideration. I replied on May 29, noting the proposal that this matter be studied and that draft terms of reference will be forthcoming and indicated that the proposal for a reference to the international joint commission would receive careful consideration by the appropriate Canadian authorities.

Mr. WHITE (Middlesex East):: 1.	Is D. A. MacDonald employed by the Department of Mines and Resources as a forester?
2.	If so, what is his position?
3.	What is his salary ?
4.	What are his qualifications?
5.	How long has he been with the department?
6.	Does he attend conventions on behalf of the department?
7.	If so, wrhat conventions has he attended since 1945?
8.	Did he return reports to the department from these conventions?

Inquiries of the Ministry
9.	Did he suffer an accident *while returning from Calgary in February, 1948?
10.	If so, what was the cause of his accident and how long was he off duty?


Mr. MacKINNON:: 1.	There is a D. A. MacDonald employed by the Department of Mines and Resources as a forester.
2.	Acting dominion forester.
3.	S6,000 per annum.
4.	Graduation in forestry-B.Sc.F.; wide knowledge of forestry and forest conditions throughout Canada.
5.	Thirty-four years.
6.	Yes.
7.	Annual conventions of Canadian Pulp and Paper Association and Canadian Lumbermen's Association.
8.	Yes.
9.	No.
10.	Answered by No. 9.


CANADAIR
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. W. SKEY (Trinity):: May I address a question to the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply? Has the minister any information about a contract between Canadair and the British air line regarding the purchase of a considerable number of North Star aircraft?


Right Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Reconstruction and Supply):: Negotiations
have been proceeding for a period of some months between Canadair-which as my hon. friend knows, is a private Canadian company -and British Overseas Airways Corporation. I am told that the negotiations are now approaching finality. The Canadian government has been giving Canadair such help as it could. The Canadian government regards it as very important to Canada that we obtain the contract if at all possible; for it means keeping one of our key aircraft plants in active operation. The Canadian plane has a British power plant, which was put in as a measure of co-operation with the British government, and we believe the aircraft is the equal of any aircraft flying today. We are also of the opinion that there are many compelling reasons why the business should come to Canada. However, the contract has not been completed. That is all I can say at the moment.
Mr. S'KEY: It is not true to say that the contract is already lost to a United States company?


TOURIST INDUSTRY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. J. McCANN (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, on Monday last the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. Macdonnell) asked the following question:
Is it a fact that Canadian officials at the border are instructed to question United States tourists returning to their own country, and to ask them how much money they have spent in Canada and what kind of money it has been? If that is the practice, does the minister consider it wise?
Then further:
Will the minister give definite information later as to whether or not it is the practice?
The questions asked by customs officers at the frontier with respect to the amount of money which the United States tourist has left in Canada have no direct connection with customs, but the action is taken by our customs officers at the request of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. Two forms are used to report the replies to statistics, and samples of these forms I will hand to the hon. member. The white form E.49 is used where the tourist has been in Canada less than forty-eight hours and where he has not been given a traveller's vehicle permit. The yellow permit form E.50 carries the request for the information on the reverse side.
The customs officer, on completion of the data, is expected to forward to the bureau of statistics either one form or the other for every United States passenger vehicle leaving Canada. The officers are also cautioned in port instructions that where the operator of the vehicle is reluctant to give the information there shall be no insistence, but in such case the form showing the number of persons in the vehicle and the approximate length of time in Canada must in any event be completed.
The officials of the bureau of statistics place considerable value on these returns, and are of the opinion that if the questions are eliminated they will be at a serious loss in compiling their monthly and annual returns.
The bureau gives me the following information:
"This method of obtaining information on tourist expenditures was inaugurated in 1940. It has worked extremely well. Many thousands of tourists answer the questions. The fact that many thousands do not, indicates the voluntary nature of the inquiry. Fifty per cent answer the question. Without this
Inquiries of the Ministry

information, the bureau of statistics cannot make reliable estimates of tourist expenditures. We would only be guessing.
"The information we obtain is used both by ourselves and by the United States government in connection with balance of payments estimates. We have an arrangement with the department of commerce in the United States which is responsible for balance of payments figures in that country.
"We supply them with information on: (a) the expenditure of Americans entering Canada by vehicle; (b) the expenditure of Canadians entering the United States by all means of travel.
"The United States Department of Commerce supplies us with information on the expenditure of Americans entering Canada by train, boat, aeroplane and: bus. They give out a postcard questionnaire which large numbers of Americans complete and send to the Department of Commerce on their return from Canada to the United States. This inquiry is also on a voluntary basis".
LABOUR CONDITIONS seamen's strike on inland waters
On the orders of the day:


Mr. CLARENCE GILLIS (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. It arises out of a press dispatch this morning suggesting that the dispute between the Canadian seamen's union and the great lakes shipping companies has developed into a condition that appears to be spreading to other industries and leading up to civil war. Has this press dispatch been drawn to the attention of the minister? If so, what steps does his department intend to take to prevent the arming of ships, as indicated by the dispatch? This state of affairs will ultimately lead to what I have suggested, namely, civil -war, if it is allowed to continue.
The minister indicates that the dispatch has not been drawn to his attention. I sent him notice of the question this morning and a copy of the press dispatch.


Right Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Justice):: The hon. gentleman's notice has not been brought to my attention, nor have I seen the press dispatch, but I will consider what he has said. I am sure he is familiar with the division of jurisdiction between the provincial and the dominion authorities in matters of this kind.


SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. PEARIvES (Nanaimo): Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport, notice of which I have sent him? Has 'Canada agreed to the provisions accepted at the international conference on safety of life at sea, recently concluded in England, whereby all passenger ships and all cargo ships of more than 1,600 gross tons should keep a continuous watch, either through a human agency or through a human agency assisted by an automatic listening device? This question is of great interest to radio officers on the British Columbia coast.
Hon. LIONEL CHEVRIER (Minister of Transport):: I am unable to give a specific answer to the question, but I can say that Canada has signed the convention for the safety of life at sea, subject to approval by this parliament. I have not received a detailed report from the head of the delegation, but I am informed that the convention will not become effective until 1951, and in any event it cannot be realized until such time as fifteen countries have submitted acceptance twelve months before the date I have mentioned.


SOCIAL SECURITY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: May I ask a question of the Minister of National Health and Welfare? Press reports this morning indicate that the British Minister of National Insurance has been having discussions with other commonwealth countries in regard to reciprocal social security rights. Have discussions been held with the Department of National Health and Welfare of Canada? If so, what has been the result.


Hon. PAUL MARTIN (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: There have been exploratory discussions from time to time with various representatives in connection with reciprocal social security benefits. I cannot say more than that at the present time.


EMBARGO ON SHIPMENT TO THE UNITED STATES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. DONALD M. FLEMING (Eglinton): Mr. Speaker, on June 14 I directed to the ministry a question which I should like to renew

Inquiries oj the Ministry
now. The Acting Minister of Agriculture was not in the house at the time. The question will be found at page 5154 of Hansard, as follows:
In view of reports appearing in the press, will the Minister of Finance or the acting Minister of Agriculture indicate to the house whether the government has arrived at a policy with respect to the removal of the embargo on cattle shipments to the United States? . . . It concerns the consumers who are paying high prices for beef.
The Minister of Finance said that the question should be directed to the Minister of Agriculture. Accordingly I am directing the question now to the acting Minister of Agriculture, who is in the house. Perhaps he has had a word from the fighting front in Saskatchewan,
Hon. ERNEST BERTRAND (Acting Minister of Agriculture):: The question is one of policy which the government itself has to decide, and the hon. gentleman will be advised in due course.


Mr. FLEMING:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question arising out of the minister's answer? Will the house receive an answer to this question before June 24?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. MACDONNELL (Muskoka-Ontario):: May I ask the Prime Minister a question? Is it possible for him to say now whether during this session parliament will be asked! to approve the general agreement on tariffs and trade?


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I should not like to give a final answer at the moment, but I should think it would be very unlikely that parliament would be asked to do so.



POSTAL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. GEORGE BLACK (Yukon):: I wish to direct a question to the Postmaster General. A few days ago he announced that air mail rates were to be reduced to the ordinary land mail rates-that is, from seven cents an ounce to four cents. I would ask if that applies to mail in Yukon.


Ernest Bertrand: It does when we are sending our mail by air.



QUESTIONS AS TO PRICE FOR PRESENT CROP YEAR

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['That action is a matter of government policy, of which my hon. friend will be informed in due course.']
Mr. J. A. CHARLTON (Brant):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of his promise earlier this week that he would make a statement today as to the price of eastern wheat for the present crop year, is he prepared to make that statement now?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am not prepared to make a statement today. I hope to be able to do so shortly.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Clarence Decatur Howe: I should like to answer a question asked some time ago by the hon. member for Wellington North (Mr. Menary) with regard to certain flax that was sold to the Middlesex Flax Company.
I am informed that the Middlesex Flax Company entered into contracts with certain farmers for the growing of registered and certified flaxseed. The contract price for this flax for seed purposes was different from the commercial price of flax for crushing purposes, which latter has been fixed for the present crop year through the Canadian wheat board. That board's fixed price does not apply to registered and certified seed, which is not marketed through the board.
I am informed also that the quality of some of the seed delivered by growers to the Middlesex Flax Company was below the registered and certified seed standards, and that this flaxseed was delivered by the company in the name of the producers to the wheat board as commercial flax for crushing purposes. The fifty cent bonus has already been paid to these growers.


Mr. LEWIS MENARY (Wellington North):: In view of the answer made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce to my question, may I say that last week these men were not paid for their flax. Apparently they cannot get any satisfaction in writing from the company. They were not paid last week end. I do not know whether they were paid this week.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The question whether or not the men were paid depends on whether they
Inquiries of the Ministry

delivered the flax as seed, in which event they would not be paid and will not be paid; or whether they delivered it as crushing flax, in which event they are entitled to a bonus of fifty cents a bushel, which has been paid, according to my advice from the wheat board.


REFERENCE TO REMARKS IN DEBATE-REPORT IN OTTAWA &quot;JOURNAL,&quot;
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JEAN FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata):: I rise on a matter of personal
explanation with regard to a kind and generous editorial in this morning's Ottawa Journal. It is entitled, "Mr. Jean Francois Pouliot called the wrong number."


Mr. MacNICOL:: He never does that.


Jean-François Pouliot: Calling the wrong number was calling Mr. Hector McKinnon, chairman of the tariff board, a Tory appointee. Then the Journal gives the right number as follows:
It is true that his first real promotion in Ottawa (where he had joined the civil service) came from R. B. Bennett.
This is the right number. I will add, Mr. Speaker, that the Journal says that Mr. McKinnon is an old-time Liberal. In the civil service there should be no Liberals, no Conservatives, no C.C.F., no Social Credit, no Bloc Populaire, but only public civil servants. That is all they are. The old men should be gotten rid of as soon as they are sworn in.


FLOOD CONDITIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. THOMAS REID (Neiv Westminster):: I have two questions to ask in regard to the people in the flooded area of the Fraser valley. One is directed to the Minister of Finance, and is about the price of hay. It has been estimated that some 10,000 tons of hay will be required. Information has just reached me from the Canadian Legion to the effect that speculators are going round the various districts now, offering exorbitant prices for hay, to the detriment later on of the people who have lost their crops. The Canadian Legion would like the minister to give consideration to the placing of a ceiling on hay in that district in order to preserve some semblance of equality and to assist in the rehabilitation later on of the people in the flooded areas.


Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of Finance):: I shall be glad to look into the matter at once. Yesterday I received word from General Hoffmeister that the relief commission had authorized the purchase of some 1,500 tons of hay. But I will look into the matter that the hon. member has referred to and see what action should be taken.


Thomas Reid: My other question is to the Prime Minister. In view of the uncertainty ivhich prevails in the minds of many thousands in the flooded area, will he be good enough at an early day to make a statement as to the plan outlined and agreed upon between the dominion government and the provincial government for effecting rehabilitation of the people in the flooded area?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would say to my hon. friend that I made a statement on that very matter a few days ago. I have since been in communication with the premier of the province, and will have a further statement to make a little later.


INQUIRY AS TO RETENTION OF CEILING PRICE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. E. DROPE (Northumberland, Ont):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Is it the intention of the government to retain the ceiling price on butter? If not, when will it be removed?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That action is a matter of government policy, of which my hon. friend will be informed in due course.



TARIFF BOARD ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee on Bill No. 345, to amend the Tariff Board Act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Golding in the chair.
On section 1-Tenure of office.
Mr.. FLEMING: The proposed amendment to section 3, subsection 3, will have the effect of giving to the governor in council power to appoint members of the tariff board for any term whatsoever-
Douglas Charles Abbott: Not exceeding ten years.

Tariff Board Act


Donald Methuen Fleming: For any term not exceeding ten years. But within that time there is no limit on the term for which the governor in council may appoint members. Is that provision not too broad? As I followed the minister's statement two days ago, it seemed to me that the purpose of this amendment was to give the government power to appoint ad hoc members for a particular purpose.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is under subsection 2.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The matter of the appointment of ad hoc members is dealt with in another section.


Douglas Charles Abbott: In the next subsection of the bill.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think the committee should have from the minister some further justification for the power that is being asked for here, because it is apparent that this could be used for purposes that parliament would not intend. For instance, if it suited the convenience of the government to make changes in the board to bring about a particular result on a pending application, the purpose of parliament would be defeated. The board, of course, must be kept on an impartial basis and free of suspicion of partiality in its decisions.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The purpose of the amendment is not such as my hon. friend suggests, but to give a reasonable degree of flexibility. 1 have one board in mind on which a member has served most efficiently for a term of ten years, but his age may now be such that it would not be appropriate to appoint him for a further term of ten years. Therefore it is felt that power should be taken to appoint for a term of less than ten years. In these term appointments it is always a matter of judgment how long the term should be. Personally I think this provision is desirable, and I cannot see how it could be subjected to any abuse.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The purpose of the original ten-year term, as I understand the legislation of 1932, was to assure the members of the board of that tenure of office so long as they discharged their duties. It relieved the members of the board from any fear of removal if they were giving decisions that might not be acceptable to the government of the day. But if you make inroads upon that ride and make the appointments for a shorter period, it seems to me you may defeat the purpose of the original ten-year term, which in addition to giving the board security of tenure, removed them so far as possible from political pressure. This is not purely an academic question, because I think every member of the house appreciates the necessity of keeping the board
free from political influence. By making it a shorter term you run, the risk of invading that principle where a member of the board may be hopeful of reappointment.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I really do not think it can be subject to abuse. Primarily it was for the purpose of enabling the government to get competent men by giving them reasonable security of tenure.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Does not that same remark apply today?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes, but I still think the power should be there. Let us say a man who is sixty-five years of age is still thoroughly competent to carry on his judicial functions. It might be desirable to reappoint him for a further period, but not for a further ten years. I really do not think there is any possibility of abuse by providing flexibility so that appointments may be made for less than ten years.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The minister has dealt with the case of reappointment of a member of the board whose age is such that he is not likely to continue to serve for a further ten years. Is the minister prepared to confine it to reappointments?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That might be undesirable, because you might want to appoint a man who is in his early sixties but who on account of his age should not be given a full ten-year appointment. I do not suggest that appointments will often be made for less than, ten years, but I do not think you will get first-class men to take these jobs for less than ten years. I think it is a reasonable discretion to give to the executive.


Mr. CHURCH:: Is this board going to be in the future just what you might call a political board with whose decisions the government of the day can interfere? The board was appointed to decide tariff matters, but as a matter of fact it simply forgot its functions from February 1947 right on down through Geneva and then Havana.	An
announcement was made in November of that year by the government of a new economic policy for this country. There were a very large number of applications pending before the board during that time, all of which were held up.
Clause 1 provides for a ten-year appointment. I object to the principle involved in clause 1. I object also to the principle of the government of the day, of its own volition, over the head of parliament when the house is in session, changing the fiscal system of this
Tariff Board Act

country. I have had several complaints from businessmen that they could not get rulings on customs and tariff matters because the board was away in Geneva for eight months in 1947 and then in Havana. The tariff will always be a political question, and no board can change it. If they did, they would be fired or hanged on a sour apple tree. If we are to have a tariff board, let it be a board that will discharge its functions, not one that will be here today and gone tomorrow. What is to become of our trade with the mother country if the board does not discharge its functions?
This board should have looked into the situation in connection with the Canadian international trade fair which has been held in Toronto for the past two weeks. There were many complaints from businessmen in Canada and the mother country which came to light during the fair and should have been looked into by the tariff board. Something should be done to restore the confidence of large and small businessmen in the trade policies of this country.
I object to this clause, Mr. Chairman. I think ten years is too long. Nobody knows what may happen by that time. As Time pointed out, we may be an economic unit of the forty-nine states of the United States. No one can tell what will happen. No wonder there is unemployment and unrest in the country.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2, 3 and 4 agreed to.
On the title.
Mr. HARRIS (Danforth):: Prior to the last war this board did function, and from my observations I would say it did a good job on behalf of Canada. During the war, by order in council, many of the functions of the board were set aside. Now that the war is over we are back to a peacetime economy, and it becomes necessary that we have an organization of this kind in order that proper-representations may be made as to tariffs.
I should hope the board might maintain the record of the late Judge Sedgewick, who was chairman of the board in days gone by. Under his chairmanship I witnessed the common man being heard, with due consideration given to all the people of Canada. One might say that it was their interests versus some of the bigger interests of the country. If the board for which provision is made in the bill functions as it operated in 1935, 1936, 1937 and 1938, prior to the death of the late Judge Sedgewick, I am satisfied it will be a vehicle through

which the people of Canada can be heard. Their representations can be analysed by experts who know what is best for Canada, and under our present economy such an organization is necessary.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of Bill No. 346, to authorize the provision of moneys to meet certain capital expenditures made and capital indebtedness incurred by the Canadian National Railways system during the calendar year 1948, and to authorize the guarantee by His Majesty of certain securities to be issued by the Canadian National Railway Company.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Golding in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-Power to issue securities for capital expenditures.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: I note at the top of page 2 the words, "available from reserves for depreciation and debt discount amortization". Will the minister give a word of explanation? Is that amount taken from reserves accumulated or set up during the current or past year?


Mr. GLEASON BELZILE (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Finance):: This $15,S15,000 is the amount that has been accumulated during 1948 for depreciation purposes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Do I understand it really is an amount based upon the earnings of the present year, so that we are getting it as part of the picture of the current year 1948?


Gleason Belzile: Yes.


Mr. FRASER:: It is cumulative for five months of this year.


Gleason Belzile: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 3 to 8 inclusive agreed to.
On section 9-When revenue of national railway system insufficient to meet operating and income charges.
Douglas Charles Abbott: This and the following section are the ones containing the provision that

Canadian National Railways
if at any time in any year the available revenues of the Canadian National Railways are not sufficient to pay operating and income charges, temporary advances may be made by the Minister of Finance, to be repaid either out of earnings during that year or, if such earnings are not sufficient, by an item to be voted by parliament.
A question was raised as to whether that provision was too general. I do not think it is. Nevertheless I am satisfied to amend the section so as to provide only for the current year.
I would point out, however, in respect to the suggestion that an opportunity should be given to debate the financial position of the Canadian National Railways, that the accounts of the railways and of Trans-Canada Air Lines are brought down in parliament early in the session. They are referred to the appropriate committee. Officials of those two corporations appear and give full explanations. There is no question therefore of parliament's not being fully and currently informed as to the financial position of the railways.
I am asking my colleague to move a section in substitution for the one now appearing in the bill.


Mr. FOURNIER (Hull):: I move:
That section 9 in the bill be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"9. If at any time before the first day of April, nineteen hundred and forty-nine, the available revenues of the National Railway System are not sufficient to pay all the operating and income charges of the system as and when due, the Minister of Finance may, with the approval of the governor in council, upon applications made by the national company and approved by the Minister of Transport, place at the disposal of the national company such amounts as may be necessary to enable the national company to meet all such charges: Provided that all such amounts shall be reimbursed to the Minister of Finance from the annual revenues of the national railway system in so far as such revenues are sufficient and any insufficiency shall be provided for by subsequent deficit appropriation by parliament."


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Is April 1, 1949 the end of the financial year of of the railway company as well as of the government?


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is the financial year of the government, not of the railway company.


Donald Methuen Fleming: They are on the calendar year?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am questioning whether it should be the calendar year of the company or of the government. Would it not be the company?


Douglas Charles Abbott: There is always the matter of tiding over at the end of the year. The purpose of putting in April 1, 1949, is that we have to bring in each year a bill of this kind. In adopting this suggestion we will just carry it forward from fiscal year to fiscal year.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: But I still question that. I can see that there is a hangover, and that from the point of view of actual operation it may be acted upon later. I have not before me the wording of the amendment, but is it not the revenue of the railway system, and will it not be the financial year of that system which is relieved?


Douglas Charles Abbott: This is enabling legislation. As we know, the nationally owned system turns in its surpluses to the consolidated revenue fund. It requires temporary advances from the Minister of Finance to be voted subsequently by parliament. This is purely a matter of mechanics. All I am suggesting here is that, to meet the wishes of hon. members of the committee, we put this on an annual basis. Government accounts operate on an annual basis. We make these advances to the railway company. The railway comes forward at some time during each fiscal year and says: Our financial position is such that we need a temporary advance. The Minister of Finance makes that temporary advance, but he must include an item in the estimates for that amount. The purpose of putting this date in was to assure members of the committee that each year they would have an opportunity of voting the temporary advances made to the Canadian National Railways during the last fiscal year. One could, take it one way or the other, but I think it is satisfactory to take the government's fiscal year; I do not think it makes much difference.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I do not think it does. The minister has made his point, and I shall not press it. But I reiterate that the tidy thing to do would be to make it the fiscal year of the railway company.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That may be.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 10-When revenue of Trans-Canada Air Lines and subsidiaries insufficient to meet operating and income charges.
Douglas Charles Abbott: I will ask my colleague to move another amendment with regard to this section.


Alphonse Fournier: I move:
That section 10 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"10. If at any time before the first day of April, nineteen hundred and forty-nine, the
5292	COMMONS
Diplomatic Service Superannuation Act
available revenues of the Trans-Canada Air Lines and subsidiaries are not sufficient to pay all the operating and income charges thereof as and when due, the Minister of Finance may with the approval of the governor in council, upon applications made by the Trans-Canada Air Lines and approved by the Minister of Transport, place at the disposal of the Trans-Canada Air Lines such amounts as may be necessary to enable the Trans-Canada Air Lines and subsidiaries to meet all such charges: Provided all such amounts shall be reimbursed to the Minister of Finance from the annual revenues of the Trans-Canada Air Lines and subsidiaries in so far as such revenues are sufficient and any insufficiency shall be provided for by subsequent deficit appropriation by parliament."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. E. HARRIS (Parliamentary Assistant to the Secretary of State for External Affairs) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a bill to amend the Diplomatic Service (Special) Superannua-tion_ Act, to provide for the return to a public official or his widow, under certain circumstances, contributions made under such act; to give a right to a public official to elect not to become a contributor under the act and to provide that withdrawal allorvances and gratuities shall be paid out of the consolidated reArenue fund.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Golding in the chair.
Mr. KNOWLES:: Will the parliamentary assistant explain what this means?


Mr. HARRIS (Grey-Bruce):: The special superannuation act which was passed last 3mar had certain defects in the matter of provision for the superannuation of public officials engaged in diplomatic work. The proposed amendments will improve the act. When the bill is brought in I think hon. members of the opposition will see that its provisions are in accordance ivith the usual superannuation practice.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does it involve the expenditure of more money, or the expenditure of less? The terms would seem to indicate the latter, but one cannot be sure.


Thomas Langton Church: There was a lot of discussion on the proposal made last year with respect to the diplomatic superannuation act, and according to the parliamentary secretary no changes have been made since then. It is [Air. Fournier (Hull).]
time we woke up about this particular matter, because this thing is much overdone on the seven seas. Our trade commissioners do wonderful work, but those ambassadors and embassies do little or nothing. We have these embassies all over the seven seas. It is running into a large sum of money now with superannuation; it is a sinkhole for public money. It is all based on the doctrine that we are a first-class nation when we are not. We depend upon Great Britain's supremacy of the seas for our very life.
Now we have the united nations, and a lot of this superannuation is for that. If it was a baseball organization they would call it a "pudding-head" organization, because none of them ever knew enough to touch first base. We will see a sample of this tonight over beside the west block when the hon. member for Fort William is conducting his baseball game. We are not in this united nations organization for fun. It is dividing the whole British empire. The enemy may invade this country, we do not know hoAV soon. They may come sooner than we think.
The people back home in the constituencies are trying to find out what is going on. They are just blindfolded and are allowed to know only as much as some of these columnists let them know-columnists who come in here for a few minutes in the morning and then they all leave and the result is the people do not know what is going on down here; they no longer become enlightened. Yesterday we provided an additional $10 a month allowance for those who fought for us at the hazard of their lives. All they get is that small contribution of $10 a month compared with what we pay for these families of ambassadors.
I am surprised that this country allows an organization such as this to be in existence all over the world. Nobody knows what the expenses are. Nobody knows what these ambassadors are costing this country. We cannot get any information. When a question is put on the order paper it is marked as an order for return and that means that it is dead and buried for the session.
There are a lot of people around here who want to be ambassadors and get the superannuation with it. I have never been asked to be an ambassador, but I think I have done as much to create good will as many other people. Now they are called "Their Excellencies" if you please. Some of them even have uniforms. How can they do that? What is being paid for all this? It must be a fabulous sum.
The people back home are blindfolded, but they reversed the prediction of some columnists in Ontario on June 7 last. Now they have

Diplomatic Service Superannuation Act
another organization-consuls general. The hon. member for Davenport would make a very good consul general. He has been doing this sort of work at his own expense. He has been travelling all over the country in his own car. He gave me a ride last Saturday, and I notice that he needs a new car. With the travelling he is doing for the country something should be done for him.
All this is just a waste of money. We have the ambassadors with their staffs, we have first secretaries, we have second secretaries, we have third secretaries and all that kind of thing. Now they propose to give them and their families all pensions in a special act. This is being done -when people cannot get houses to live in, or even rooms. Here we are pensioning these people and their families. The people back home in the constituencies are getting tired of the two old parties and are voting for something opposite. I know that because I represent these people. Mine is an industrial riding. They had a disaster there last Sunday which shocked me, but nothing was done about it; no columnist in the gallery would say one word about it. Yet these people are suffering.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN:: Order.


Thomas Langton Church: The freight cars might have fallen on top of a streetcar and many people might have been killed.


William Henry Golding: Order.


Thomas Langton Church: I am objecting to the principle of pensions for some and none for others.


William Henry Golding: The hon. member is wandering far afield.


Thomas Langton Church: I understand; but this resolution has to do with the diplomatic service.


William Henry Golding: It has to do with the Diplomatic Service Superannuation Act.


Thomas Langton Church: I am objecting to the duplication of services and the giving of pensions to people who do not need them when others get very little superannuation or none at all from this parliament.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the parliamentary assistant whether he can answer the question I asked a moment ago? If not, perhaps he can get the information for a later stage of this legislation. When he is doing that will he get the answers to a couple of other questions I should like to ask? First of all, have any ambassadors or persons who qualify under this act yet gone on pension 5849-337
under its provisions? If so, how many, and what rate of pension are they getting? How many are now covered by this act, and are hence paying into the fund? For what pension will they qualify7? How many people does this amendment affect? As I recall it, last year when this bill was passed, over the vigorous opposition of a good many of us, the minister said that it would apply to only about a dozen people. As a matter of fact some of us thought that it was to fit one or two particular cases. The hon. member for Lake Centre referred to one such case a day or two ago. Similarly I should like to know whether this is to cover very many people, or only one or two.


Walter Edward Harris: I shall be glad to get the information which has been asked for and give it to the hon. member as soon as we can obtain it.


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: Following what my hon. friend has said, we should get more information from the parliamentary assistant than he has given us up to the present. We are asked to pass a resolution, and we should have some information. I am sure that with his experience he will have no difficulty at all in furnishing the committee with full and comprehensive information. I ask him how many there are who come under this act, and how many in the diplomatic service who do not. How many diplomats of the various grades have been appointed during the past year? What embassies, if any, or ministerships are being opened during the present year?
When this act was passed last year it was said to be most restrictive in its scope, as I remember representations made by the minister at the time. An extension is now being made. Before this resolution passes, the committee should have some idea as to the extent to which this proposal will mean additional expenditures. Why is it being brought in? Who was not covered that we are trying to bring in?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member is not
suspicious, is he?


John George Diefenbaker: No, Mr. Chairman; suspicion is one of the things I know nothing of. When I see a resolution such as this enveloped in mystery and surrounded by such diffidence in reply, I ask myself, what is the purpose of it? Is it as necessary and as devoid of implications as the parliamentary assistant, in his urbanity, would lead us to believe? Perhaps he will be able to explain a few of these things. I am sure he has the information readily at hand, and will let the committee know just what the measure is, the reason for it and the purpose of it.

Board oj Transport Commissioners


James MacKerras Macdonnell: An enigma wrapped in a mystery.


Walter Edward Harris: I am sure that the hon. member for Lake Centre is not of a suspicious mind, nor would he suppose I would ask the house to pass anything which did not conform with the wording of the resolution. The proposal is perfectly plain; it asks that provision be made for certain persons who were not provided for in the act passed last session.
As to the number of ambassadors appointed, the number of ministers appointed and the number taking advantage of last year's act and those not taking advantage of it, I must say that we went into that in some detail in the committee on external affairs. We are prepared to discuss these details when the estimates come before the house. They were presented this morning and will be discussed in due course. I shall be glad to get the complete answers to all the questions asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the hon. member for Lake Centre, and make them available during the course of the day. I suggest it might be desirable to pass the resolution, and I shall provide the information after the bill receives first reading.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Harris (Grey-Bruce) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 349, to amend the Diplomatic Service (Special) Superannuation Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Mr. SPEAKER:: When shall the bill be read a second time?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Next sitting.



TRANSPORT BOARD


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No. 347, to amend the Railway Act, the Exchequer Court Act and the Judges Act, 1946.
Mr. DONALD M. FLEMING (Eglinton): Without traversing the ground covered in the debate on the resolution I wish to record my opposition to this bill on second reading.
The house will observe that in one bill we are asked to amend three public statutes, which indicates the distance the government is asking the house to go to meet the exigencies of one particular case. I urge, Mr. Speaker, that this is not the kind of bill that this house ought to favour. I mention these reasons without discussing them in

further detail because I think they were adequately developed in debate on the resolution stage.
In the first place, it is wrong in principle to revise or amend no fewer than three public statutes to meet the immediate exigencies of one particular case. This case cannot be of a nature that could justify the extensive revision of three public statutes to meet it.
In the second place, the way the government has gone about this whole question shows what has become a characteristic disregard of the rights of parliament. Parliament's prerogatives have been flouted by the government in its assumption that it can proceed and make all arrangements and announce in advance the appointment before parliament even knew the nature of the legislation that it was going to be called upon to pass to make possible what the government had already undertaken to do in advance.
In the third place, the proposed appointment of a judge as chief commissioner while he continues to hold judicial office in a court, is unsound in principle. It is no answer to say, as the Minister of Justice said in the debate on the resolution, that the board of transport commissioners is a court of record; that judges have held that office in the past; that it was within the contemplation of parliament when the Railway Act was first passed that the appointment of chief commissioner should be open to judges as well as to experienced lawyers. That is no answer. It is perfectly open to the government to appoint Mr. Justice Archibald or any other suitable and qualified person, but it is not proper to continue him in a judicial office while he is holding the office of chief commissioner of the board of transport commissioners.
In the fourth place, the idea of narrowing down the field of those from whom the chief commissioner may be selected to members of the panel of judges of the exchequer court is likewise wrong in principle. Why should the appointment to so important an office be narrowed down to selection from among four or five men who, however eminent may be their attainments in law, however well qualified they may be to hold office in the exchequer court, may not be qualified for the high and exacting responsibilities of the office of chief commissioner of the board of transport commissioners? That simply means that when it suits the convenience of the government to find outside the exchequer court panel a suitable chief commissioner,

Board oj Transport Commissioners
they will bring in legislation to enlarge the exchequer court, using that court as a sort of reservoir convenient to them in making their appointment to the office of chief commissioner. This will not increase respect for the courts, and surely one thing that we have learned in these troubled times is the importance of keeping hands off the judiciary.
Further, and this is the fifth reason, this measure will create anomalies and inequalities within the board of transport commissioners itself. It will mean that the chief commissioner stands in a different position from the other members of the transport board. When his term of office is ended, he is nevertheless assured of a life appointment in the court, if he should not be reappointed to the transport board. That is not a sound position. There is no reason why the chief commissioner, in that respect or in other respects except salary, should be in a more favoured position than other members of the board.
In the sixth place I have already indicated my reasons for saying that this measure will create anomalies within the exchequer court itself. A judge of that court will be in the court but not really of it, because under a section of this bill he is expressly prohibited from exercising jurisdiction of the exchequer court. Is not that an amazing situation? The government will appoint an honourable gentleman to the exchequer court of Canada, but not for the purpose of permitting him to exercise any of the jurisdiction of the exchequer court; for as a matter of fact he is told that though he is appointed to the court he shall not be permitted to exercise the jurisdiction of a judge of the exchequer court.
James Lorimer Ilsley: That is incorrect.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I speak always subject to correction, but I point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that under section 1 of the bill, in 2 (b) it is provided that the judge of the exchequer court who holds the office of chief commissioner is disqualified-


James Horace King: Order. The hon. member is not supposed to discuss any of the sections of the bill.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am referring to this particular section only because the Minister of Justice has challenged my statement. I am saying to him that as I read the section of the bill, which was the basis for my statement, the appointee has no jurisdiction in the exchequer court so long as he holds the office of chief commissioner. He cannot exercise the jurisdiction of a judge of the exchequer court.
5849-337J


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is incorrect, but we will deal with it on the bill.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Very well. We were told yesterday by the Minister of Justice that it was the intention that the chief commissioner should give his full time to his responsibilities and duties as such. Even if the bill did not prohibit him from exercising any of the jurisdiction of a judge of the exchequer court, the fact remains that the responsibilities and duties of chief commissioner of the board of transport commissioners are so exacting, and will continue to be so heavy in the coming years, that he will not have any opportunity whatsoever for exercising any of the jursdiction of a judge of the exchequer court. And parliament is now being asked to legislate this amazing anomaly to meet the exigencies of a particular case.
The whole situation is perfectly apparent now. The government, in order to induce the proposed appointee to accept this appointment, has had to guarantee to him the security of tenure that attaches to the life appointment of a judge of the superior court of Nova Scotia, and with it an increase in the salary attached to the office of chief commissioner.
As I said yesterday, no word of mine can be taken as any reflection whatsoever on the suitability of Mr. Justice Archibald for the appointment. But, Mr. Speaker, I say to you that the method which the government is asking this house to follow in order to secure the appointment of Mr. Justice Archibald is completely unsound in principle. The government is asking this house to violate principle after principle in order to meet the exigencies of its wishes in this particular case. This is not the method that parliament should be prepared to countenance in securing the appointment of an honourable gentleman to the office of chief commissioner of the board of transport commissioners, regardless of his suitability for the position.
Mr. JOHN T. HACKETT (Stanstead): Yesterday, when commenting on my remarks on the resolution, the Minister of Justice, with that genius for accuracy which is his, made some use of the exact or dictionary meaning of the word "political". I recall that when the late Lord Tweedsmuir came to Canada and was asked by reporters who met him at the dockside what he did in private life, he said he was a publisher and politician. This occasioned surprise, which was hardly mild, among Canadians; because rightly or wrongly we have developed on this continent a subsidiary or secondary meaning for the word "political".
I agree that the definition which the minister gave is etymologically accurate, but I think

Board oj Transport Commissioners
he will agree with me that everywhere, possibly with the exception of Nova Scotia, it has a secondary meaning which is not always savoury or not always free from a certain suggestion of cynicism. I used the word in its popular sense and in the way in which most people understand its use in this country. Here I reiterate what I said yesterday. I have nothing but admiration for the hon. gentleman rvhose name has been mentioned for this position, and I suggest that his qualifications as a lawyer and as a man of learning and experience should of themselves be sufficient to qualify him for the high office to which it is the government's intention to call him. But what I object to is his continuation as a judge in his new office. As I have said so frequently in the house, it is unfortunate that the great reputation of the judiciary for fairness and for freedom from partisan influences should be brought into an arena where partisan influences must and do play their part. It may be necessary that we have tribunals whose function is to solve difficulties in which these influences play their part. But I assert, with all the power I possess, with all the faith I have in the judiciary, and with all the desire I have for the maintenance of its integrity, that the judiciary as such should not be subject to these influences.
As a result of these practices, it is now commonly said in some areas: Oh, I do not want to go before that judge; he is a company man; or I do not want to go before that judge; he is a labour man. These assertions result from the use of the judiciary for the solution of extm-judicial perplexities and difficulties which are highly tinged with politics in the ordinary acceptation of the word, and with expediency, something that is entirely apart from the higher plane on which justice reigns or should reign supreme. I can tell the right hon. gentleman that if he were to canvass the judiciary and take a poll of the right-thinking judges-and thank God they are still in the vast majority-he would find that they all deplore the use and exploitation of them and their high office, their integrity and their great reputation, for the solution of political and partisan embarrassments.
It is not necessary to the efficiency of his work that the gentleman whose name has been mentioned here should take to his new office the title and reputation, of the function which he is abandoning. I make bold to state to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is a wrongful use of the judiciary which is held in high repute to enlist its services to make acceptable solutions and decisions which have nothing to do with the ordinary administration of justice.
At a time when people are so uneasy, when

they are not giving the adherence they used to give to the maintenance of the great institutions upon which our whole system of government and civilization rests, it is unfortunate that any of these institutions should be necessarily weakened by exposing a member of any one of them, no matter how distinguished he may be, to popular criticism because momentarily he may be called into a field where considerations other than learning in the law and integrity in the sense of honestly applying that law must prevail. The result must necessarily be a loss of prestige by and damage to the institution. If there were any other reason than the attempt to clothe with judicial authority decisions which of their essence must depend upon accommodation and fleeting and partisan advantage, I would not be so pronounced in an attitude which I hope is expressed in temperate language, although I am greatly disturbed at the necessary result which must follow from a continuation of this practice.
I ask the right hon. gentleman, in the light of events of the last few years-I do not wish to wound or to injure the reputation of any judge in particular; the incidents are uppermost in the minds of all hon. members, and in none more so than in that of the minister- if he does not think that the conduct of the govern,ment taking distinguished members of the judiciary off the bench from time to time and making them the arbiters in matters which are not judicial, which do not depend upon the interpretation of the law, and which do not depend entirely upon justice, has resulted in a loss of status and dignity on the part of the bench and the magistracy?
I cannot believe that there is any lawyer, I cannot believe that there is any judge, who, making a canvass of the events of the last few years, can escape the conclusion that this practice of conscripting the judiciary to settle quasi-political feuds has tended to weaken the respect and the confidence of the Canadian people in the great institution of the law, and in particular in that most important branch of it, the judiciary. For that reason I am opposed to this bill and opposed to all practices which bring the judiciary into the adjustment and settlement of questions which are beyond their scope and which expose the members of the bench to the type of criticism, harmful, unfair, and sometimes cruel, which has been levelled at members of the judiciary who have responded to the invitation of the government to perform extra-judicial duties.


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I suppose this is a debate that a person without legal training should keep clear of, but I hope the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett) will not misunderstand me

Board oj Transport Commissioners
when I say that I am getting a little bit tired *of this glorification 'of the virtues of judges.


Mr. SINCLAIR:: And lawyers, too


Angus MacInnis: And lawyers, too. Of course all judges have been lawyers, and more than that, they have been taken out of the hurly-burly of our economic, political and social life to the bench; and the assumption that the moment they are put on the bench they can divest themselves of all the preconceived notions and prejudices which they have accumulated in fifty or sixty years of life is absurd.	.
Again, there is this question of the dispensing of justice. I may be wrong, but my understanding is that the judges do not dispense justice. They interpret the law, which may be just or unjust, depending upon how it is drafted. When a judge's decision is reversed on appeal, it seems to me that it is reversed not because he erred in the matter of justice but because he erred in a matter of law. Whether his decision was just or unjust does not enter into the situation at all. The question is whether he interpreted the law according to precedent.
This is a complex bill, and if I had not such profound faith in the integrity of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Ilsley) and a knowledge of the close study which he gives to matters of this kind, I might be inclined to be more critical of it. In any case I do not know sufficient about its underlying principles to criticize; but I cannot see that there is or could be anything wrong in appointing a judge to any position where there is no interference with his freedom to deal with the questions that come before him, except the restrictions imposed by his own conscience. Surely that is sufficient protection for the judge, whether he is on the bench or on the board of transport commissioners or any other board or commission. I think it is highly desirable that the judges should be kept in as close contact as possible with the economic, social and political conditions that prevail in this country, so that they will be in a position to understand what motivates and compels people to act in the way they do. To take them out of the conditions in which they have lived all their lives and assume that when appointed as judges they can in their virgin purity dispense abstract justice is of course just nonsense.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a comment on the speech last made. I do not think any of us pretend that judges are a superior order of people. In fact, I myself undertook to say yesterday that we must not regard judges as a superior order distinct from ordinary creatures of common clay, and no one is attempting to do that. The judges in the
course of their duties come in contact with life at every turn, and there is no danger of their being removed into rarefied upper air.
On the point made by the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett), I wish to say this. It is very easy to make a speech such as that just made by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis), and made in perfect good faith; but it is much more difficult, and this is a thing for which we have to look to the minister, to appreciate the real depth of the principle which has been underlined by the hon. member for Stanstead. On that I say no more except to recall to the house what is so true, that it is of course advantageous to the judges themselves that the impression should not get abroad that such and such a judge is a company man and such and such a judge is a labour man. It is for the very purpose of trying to prevent that sort of thing that the hon. member for Stanstead spoke as he did, and I am afraid that in what we are doing now, while it may be helpful and convenient for the moment, we are disregarding that basic principle.
My purpose in rising is to say this. I have followed what the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) has said about this complicated incursion into three statutes, which looks like using a steam hammer to crack a nut, although it may be a difficult nut to crack. I would like to support what the hon. member for Eglinton said about the undesirability, and I would add the utter needlessness, of tying ourselves in this way; because it is extremely likely that later the government will come back to parliament and say: We do not want to appoint one of the exchequer court judges, and we want to change the legislation.
There is another point, and here I come back to the remark I made yesterday, that the minister was not nearly as convincing as he usually is in some of the things he then said. I cannot agree with him when he says that this appointment would not be considered desirable by an exchequer court judge. I think it would, first of all because it is highly remunerative. But that is not the chief reason. It is a position of great influence in the community, and the man making these decisions might easily become one of the most important citizens of our country. I see no reason why the position should not be desirable. Therefore it seems to me we shall notice in this legislation a distracting element-and I put it no stronger than that-in connection with the exchequer court judges.
I shall not press that. I really think the point made by the hon. member for Eglinton is the stronger aspect of the subject. The minister confines himself in this way, with the

Board of Transport Commissioners
very greatest likelihood that later on he, or some minister of justice who will follow him, will have to come back and say that he does not find his man there, and that therefore he has to go outside. In my mind is the feeling that this could be dealt with easily in a simple, direct and straightforward manner, instead of having all this deviousness and complexity.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Mr. Speaker, I shall say a few words with respect to some of the speeches that have been made. I do not share the uneasiness of the practical members of the legal profession wdio have spoken about the precedent which is being created or the principle which is being applied in this instance. I am more concerned about the free use of judges in a different class of activity. That has given me some concern.
There has been an extensive use of judges for extra-judicial duties as chairman of conciliation boards. Perhaps there would be hundreds of cases in which they have been appointed to those positions. I suppose it is that practice to which hon. members were referring when they intimated that some persons would tag judges as being pro-capital or pro-labour.
I have discussed this aspect of the matter with the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) on several occasions. Of course his approach is not that of a lawyer, nor is it that of a politician, even in the secondary sense. I would say his approach is that of a person who wants to get decisions which will command confidence. He has said to me, "Whom can we get? Perhaps we can get lawyers, but they are very expensive. It is almost impossible to get a chairman who will command the confidence a judge would command." He went on to ask me this question, "Would you suggest university professors? Sometimes university professors are suitable for this purpose." But he added, "I do not regard them as nearly as suitable as judges." When I asked him whether he noticed any resentment about decisions which would cause the judiciary to be brought into disrepute, he said, "It is most gratifying, indeed surprising, to see the degree of acceptation given to decisions of these boards if they are headed b.V judges." Then he went on to say, "The ordinary people in the country have faith in the judiciary, and they are maintaining that faith."
The hon. member for Stanstead seems to think there has been some lessening of that faith-


Mr. HACKETT:: I do.


James Lorimer Ilsley: -in the last few years-


John Thomas Hackett: I do.
(Mr. Macdonnell (Muskoka-Ontario).]


James Lorimer Ilsley: -as a result of appointment of judges to discharge difficult tasks. The hon. member may be right; I am not in a position to refute what he says. There was a recent instance in which a certain newspaper was almost abusive toward Sir Lyman Duff, who has now retired from the bench. But I cannot think that Sir Lyman Duff has suffered by it at all; he has not suffered in the public esteem from anything he has done as head of a commission. He has accepted the chairmanship of commissions which had to make difficult findings of fact. It is generally considered that for a great many years he has been the outstanding jurist of Canada. Perhaps when I say that, some would feel I am going too far; but certainly he has been the great ornament of the judiciary in Canada, and of our legal profession. It may be helpful to a situation, it may be helpful even tp a government or to a party to have a matter settled in such a way that it will stay settled, through the appointment of such a man to a royal commission. But I cannot think that the judiciary has suffered in the popular esteem.
I believe there is something to be said, however, for being most careful about the appointment of judges to conciliation boards in too large numbers. The practice might get out of hand and eventually have bad results. The matter is earnestly discussed from time to time by members of the government-certainly by myself and the Minister of Labour-and I hope it will not be allowed to get out of hand.
But these considerations do not apply to the present position. To a unique extent the chief commissioner of the board of transport commissioners is connected with the building up of a most important branch of our jurisprudence, the part of it which deals with rate making, with reasonableness, with unjust discrimination, and many allied subjects. It is a position which calls for the exercise of the highest judicial qualifications, and it is worthy of the dignity of a judge. In what he has to do there is nothing inconsistent with judicial duties. He is the chairman, the chief justice in effect, of a court of record dealing with a very important part of our jurisprudence. For that reason I do not feel anxious at all about the principle of this legislation.
As hon. members have said, it may happen at some time that there will be no one on the exchequer court who is deemed to have the necessary qualifications. Then, just as hon. members have indicated, some government may come back here and say: Give us a wider choice. I had drafted the bill first so as not to limit the choice to judges of the exchequer

Board of Transport Commissioners
court, and so as merely to empower a judge of the exchequer court of Canada to sit in that position and to remain a judge. I felt, however, that parliament would wish to keep a stricter control on the size of the exchequer court than it would have under that type of legislation; therefore I had the provision changed so that the choice would be limited, as it now stands, to members of the exchequer court.
Thus far we have been talking about only one branch of the matter. After all, we owe a duty to the people of Canada, and it is not a small duty, or an unimportant one. We owe to them the duty of providing for them, so far as is possible, good decisions and good judgments. While the board of transport commissioners did not have very much to do during the war, when rates were frozen and there was not much activity in that direction, in the years to come they will have more problems to solve, problems of interest to all the people of Canada. We had to get a good man. We think we have got a good man. Certainly we have a man with experience in national problems, a man whose judicial experience is highly regarded. No one has offered any criticism from a personal point of view against this man. We had to get that kind of man. We thought it was unreasonable to take away his judgeship, and we thought there was nothing disadvantageous about it, and that no sacrifice of principle was involved. Indeed we thought that the principle of having a judge was good, of having at the head of this great court-because that is what it is

a man who would still be Mr. Justice Archibald.


John Thomas Hackett: What would be the
objection to appointing to the position the gentleman whose name has been mentioned without continuing him in the mantle of a judge?


James Lorimer Ilsley: We are not in committee,
but I would point out a very practical reason. If special superannuation or pension privileges or special provisions with regard to tenure are applied to this board, the precedent might prove to be very serious when applied to the public service. During the past few years the whole struggle has been to standardize pension provisions, to standardize pay and to keep remuneration of one kind or another and the conditions of holding office and so on from getting too much out of line. That is a practical problem which confronts the government. It was suggested yesterday that we should put the pay away up, or should provide special provisions in the superannuation act for the chairman of the board of
transport commissionners and no one else. Immediately that would raise the question: What do you do with the other members of the board? What do you do with the chairman of other boards? You would be reversing the movement toward standardization, which is a most beneficial thing. That is the practical disadvantage. This is a simple way to do it, and, as I say, I do not see anything wrong where you are bringing a judge to a judicial position.


John Thomas Hackett: Means have been found in other cases of preserving the rights of a judge to pension and other benefits when he has been delegated to other fields of activity.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes. I do not like to
introduce legislation of that kind if I can help it, and I do not think it is necessary in this case.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Golding in the chair.
On section 1-Chief commissioner.
Stanley Howard Knowles: In reply to a question by the hon. member for Stanstead the Minister of Justice indicated that he did not like introducing legislation to provide a special pension in a case like this. What bothers some of us about this legislation is that the minister frankly admitted yesterday that this was special legislation, designed as an arrangement to make it possible to get a judge to fill this position. We in this group have pointed out that we do not object, in fact that we approve the use of a judge for this kind of job, but it does have the earmarks of being a rather large order to enable the government to make one specific appointment. I wonder if it would not have been just as good or perhaps better if the minister had brought in a bill providing that notwithstanding the provisions of the Railway Act, the Exchequer Court Act and so on, this particular person should be appointed as chairman of the board of transport commissioners for a period of ten years. Under those conditions he might have continued in the position of judge and would be entitled to the superannuation benefits which he had already earned. I do not know Mr. Justice Archibald's age, but I imagine-


James Lorimer Ilsley: Fifty-seven years.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -ten years will bring him to the retirement bracket. It would have been possible to deal with this case without any high salary problem or without the problem of a special amendment to the superannuation act.

Board of Transport Commissioners
The minister admitted in the course of this discussion that when Mr. Justice Archibald's ten years are over, the government in power may not be able to fill the position by using the provisions of this act, that some change may have to be made. Did the minister give consideration to that way of tackling the problem?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes. Consideration was
given to all ways of tackling the problem. There was a bill passed covering the case of Mr. Justice Fullerton by which he preserved his pension rights. However, that bill did not preserve his tenure. I gave consideration to introducing an amendment to provide for an appointment for life or during good behaviour until seventy-five years or something of that sort. That would have met the situation fairly well.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Was that to be for general application or just for this appointment?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Just for the chief commissioner.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just for Mr. Justice Archibald?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes. There are objections to having anything else but a ten year appointment to a position like this. The person has to be extremely active, and perhaps it would be more desirable to let him go at the end of ten years than it would be in the case, of an ordinary judge.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There is just one matter I should like to mention in connection with clause 1. The minister and I had a difference in the discussion on second reading with respect to the effect of section 1, particularly the new section 2b. I wish to put myself on record in that regard.
The first reference is to the jurisdiction of a judge of the exchequer court under the Railway Act, and the second reference is to the jurisdiction of a judge of the exchequer court under section 27 of the Exchequer Court Act. He is not to be disqualified from exercising any jurisdiction conferred by the Exchequer Court Act on an exchequer court judge outside of section 27 of that act.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is right.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at three o'clock.


William Henry Golding: When the committee rose for lunch we were dealing with 
clause 1 of Bill No. 347, to amend the Railway Act, the Exchequer Court Act and the Judges Act, 1946.


Mr. McMASTER:: I wish to point out that this section deals with two acts. While the first section, which is numbered as clause 1, deals with an amendment to subsection 2 of section 10 of the Railway Act, which has to do with the question of the appointment of a commissioner, the other two clauses have nothing whatever to do with the Railway Act. They amend the Exchequer Court Act. I suggest that they should be separated. One clause should be an amendment to subsection 2 of section 10 of the Railway Act, and the other clauses should be an amendment to section 6 of the Exchequer Court Act. If anyone wants to know what are the duties of this particular judge, I do not think he would ever find them out by looking at the Railway Act. He would look at the Exchequer Court Act to see what limitations were placed upon the powers of the four judges, one of whose powers is limited by the fact that he can hear only certain cases in the exchequer court. He can carry on in other cases, apparently, save as his duties are restricted. That is why I think the amendment should be made to the Exchequer Court Act.
On several occasions I had to look up certain matters when we were dealing with certain types of legislation, and from the index to the statutes I had a great deal of difficulty in finding what I wanted.
May I point out that some of the duties of the transport board are set forth in the Railway Act. Another act, passed in 1938, chapter 53, also deals with their powers. I must confess that during the recess I had a great deal of difficulty digging out their powers from the two acts. It may be that when the new revision of the statutes takes place the necessary changes will be made; but I suggest that in this, as in all other legislation, an effort should be made to enable a person to find the powers of this board when he looks for them.
Subsection 2a says that section 7 of the Exchequer Court Act shall not apply. That refers to the residence of the judge. Perhaps the minister will have something to say about section 6 of the Exchequer Court Act. That is one reason why all the powers of the exchequer court judges should be in one place. Section 6 of the Exchequer Court Act says:
A judge of the court shall not hold any other office of emolument, either under the government of Canada or under the government of any province of Canada.
That would seem to be in conflict with this proposed legislation which introduces an amendment to the Railway Act. Is it expected

Revised Statutes oj Canada
that the chief commissioner will carry on in the same way as the chief commissioner has done in the past? I feel that this legislation envisages his having some time to devote to exchequer court business. There are six members of the transport board. As the minister points out, their duties have not been so great in the recent past. Is it the intention to rearrange the duties of the chief commissioner? Will he deal only with certain important kinds of work of the board, or is that something which will be left to the board itself? Because some extra time will be at the disposal of the chief commissioner I do not imagine that he will spend all his time at this work. Does the same thing apply to the other members of the board? If so, the time may be fast approaching when there should be a certain overhauling of the transport board so that the time of the members will be fully occupied.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is expected that the chief commissioner will devote his full time to the work of the transport board. I think I am right when I say that there is no provision that he will do so, but in any event I feel sure that he will devote his full time to the work of the board.
The points raised by my hon. friend are to some extent answered by the section. My hon. friend cited section 6 of the Exchequer Court Act, which provides that members of the exchequer court can do nothing else. Subsection 2 contains these words: "Notwithstanding anything in this or any other act." These words make it unnecessary to refer to section 6 by number. The bill is not a bill to amend the Railway Act only, but to amend three acts, and it naturally has to go in one act; it could not very well go in the whole three.


William Alexander McMaster: In fact, this bill does amend the Exchequer Court Act in regard to the number of judges and their remuneration?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


William Alexander McMaster: Clauses 3 and 4 deal with the Exchequer Court Act. The last two subsections of section one should also be amendments to the Exchequer Court Act and not to the Railway Act.


James Lorimer Ilsley: This is a bill to amend three acts. As the hon. member has pointed out, it is a little awkward to have amendments to the Exchequer Court Act in the Railway Act, but I cannot think of any reasonable alternative.


William Alexander McMaster: Except to amend the Exchequer Court Act and not the Railway Act so far as these two subclauses are concerned.


James Lorimer Ilsley: My hon. friend suggests that subsection 2a should be an amendment to the Exchequer Court Act; but the latter part of the subsection is appropriate as an amendment to the Railway Act. The words "The chief commissioner is not a civil servant for the purposes of that act" would be more appropriate in the Railway Act than in the Exchequer Court Act. It might be that that could be separated from the other, but I doubt whether there would be any great inconvenience here. It will be pretty generally known that there is a special act relating to this position.


William Alexander McMaster: Surely it will be incorporated some time in the Exchequer Court Act when the revision is made.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It may be in the revision.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 to 4 inclusive agreed to.
Title agreed to.
William Henry Golding: Shall I report the bill?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: On division.
Bill reported, read the third time, on division, and passed.



REVISED STATUTES


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No. 348 respecting the revised statutes of Canada.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Golding in the chair.
On section 1-Statute revision commission established.
Donald Methuen Fleming: I wish to ask the minister a question relating to both sections 1 and 2. The minister intimated yesterday that this bill would be in the same form as the 1924 bill preceding the last revision of statutes. That bill became chapter 65 of the statutes of 14-15 George V. That revision of that time was initiated by an order in council passed in 1923, and that may explain the fact that the first two sections of the bill before us have no counterpart in the statute of 1924. As we have not the terms of the order in council before us, will the minister tell us precisely how they compare with sections 1 and 2 of the present bill?
Revised Statutes oj Canada


James Lorimer Ilsley: The order in council of 1923 named the commissioners and stated that the naming of a secretary for the commission would be considered later. It specified the remuneration, and-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Did it specify the personnel?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, by name. It is not very long, but there is a good deal of preamble. The order in council names the members of the commission; intimates that the naming of the secretary will be considered later; provides that the commissioners, other than ex officio members, shall receive adequate remuneration for their services, the minister recommending the following rates of compensation: president, $4,000 per annum, vice-president, $3,000, and each of the other commissioners $2,500. The special payments begin to be earned on and from the date of the first meeting of the commission. I cannot say whether those were the amounts paid or not. The order in council does not say that they have to be; it simply states that that is what the minister recommends.
The order in council says that it will be necessary to provide that the appropriation may be paid and expended notwithstanding the provisions of the Civil Service Act, which prohibits extra payments to members of the civil service. The minister recommends that the vote to be taken at the next session of parliament be expressed in a manner to authorize payments to members of the civil service upon special approval of the Minister of Justice. The order in council seems to be somewhat conversational in form. .


Donald Methuen Fleming: The provisions of the order in council of 1923, to which the minister has referred, seem to be the counterpart of section 1 of the present bill.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: They are, however, not a counterpart of section 2, at least so far as the minister has read them. Section 2 is an important provision, and I am wondering what counterpart it had in the order in council of 1923, because section 2 has no counterpart in the act of 1924.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The order in council of 1923 seemed to be passed mainly for the purpose of authorizing the expenditure of money and making some financial arrangements. A statute had to be passed the following year, and that was done.


Donald Methuen Fleming: But the statute that was passed does not contain any counterpart of the provisions of section 2 indicating the duties of the commission.


James Lorimer Ilsley: No, but the preamble to the statute of 1924 states: "Whereas it has been found expedient to revise, classify and consolidate the public general statutes of Canada passed since the date of the revised statutes of Canada 1906", and so on. While those words have no exact counterpart here, the words of section 2 embody much the same language. This commission shall examine the revised statutes of Canada, 1927, and the public general statutes of Canada enacted since the coming into force of the revised statutes of Canada, 1927, and in accordance with the provisions of this act shall revise, classify and consolidate the said statutes.
The only counterpart is the recital in the act of 1924 that that was being done, that the revised statutes of 1906 were being revised, classified and consolidated. The other provisions with regard to remuneration and employment of members of the public service are new in a way. Subsection 3 is much the same in effect as the provisions I read with regard to remuneration.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The minister appreciates that there may be concern as to the significance of some of these words which appear in section 2, and particularly the concluding words of subsection 1, "shall revise, classify and consolidate the said statutes".
My concern is the extent to which parliament is going to assume its responsibility for any changes that may be made in the statutes. This section will give rise in the minds of some to this question: How far does a commission go, when it is instructed as section 2 of the bill instructs this commission, to revise, classify and consolidate the statutes?
On the question of the meaning of "revision", some discussion took place in the debate on the resolution.


James Lorimer Ilsley: If my hon. friend will permit me to interrupt, it may save a little time. In what he is about to say, let him give full consideration to the words "in accordance with the provisions of this act". As I read section 2, no independent jurisdiction or authority is conferred by this section. The revision, classification and consolidation must be in accordance with this act;>
therefore one must look to the rest of the act for the duties of the commissioners.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The views I was about to express I thought could better be expressed on this section, but I will leave them until we come to section 5.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I would hope, Mr. Chairman, that you might permit some general discussion on this first section, at least until we

Revised Statutes oj Canada
get this point cleared up, because I am under the same apprehension as the hon. member for Egl inton. There are clauses in the bill which say that the commissioners shall do a certain job, admittedly in accordance with the provisions of the act. Then there are later clauses which say that once the job of revising and consolidating has been done, the clerk of parliaments and certain other people are to attest the roll, and then, lo and behold! by a proclamation of the governor in council it comes into effect.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does that mean that once this job has been done by the commission, parliament will not have the opportunity of approving the revised job?


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is correct.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is that a new departure?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No, it is not a new departure. The only new departure in this bill is the revised wording of section 5. It is open to discussion whether those changes should be made.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On previous occasions- for example, in 1927-when the statutes were revised, the commission did the job, but parliament did not have the opportunity to approve it?


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My non-legal mind does not think that is a good way to do it.


William Henry Golding: Shall the clause carry?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No.


John George Diefenbaker: There are certain sections which indicate that wide power is being given here. I looked up the word "revise" in the dictionary on the table of the house. Amongst the definitions of "revise" is to look over, re-examine or reconsider and amend faults in various things, including amending faults in the law. Why are there so many words here'-revise, classify and consolidate? The meaning of "revise" must be gained from reading the subsequent paragraphs. Under section 5 "revise" would mean, among other things-


William Henry Golding: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: There is only one way in which I can define what "revise" means, and that is by reference to subsequent sections where the powers are given to the commission. It is for this reason that I refer to them, sir. It is merely for the
purpose of indicating how wide the power may be that is now to be conferred by parliament on that commission.
If I may proceed, Mr. Chairman, I would point out that under section 5 the powers that are given-and these are powers as to alterations which must come within the purview of the word "revision" are as follows:
5. (1) The commission in consolidating the said statutes . . . may make such alterations in the language of the statutes as are necessary in order to secure uniformity of style and expression-
That is, in fact a revision-the type of revision that consists in consolidation- together with the removal of language that is unnecessary or that contains grammatical errors and the like. The section continues:
[DOT]-may rectify apparent errors-
So far so good.
-and reconcile conflicting provisions or enactments-
That goes a long way. To "reconcile conflicting enactments or provisions" indicates the granting of a power to decide what in the minds of the commission should be done in order to bring into realignment in accordance with the wishes of the commission two apparently dissimilar sections. The section continues:
-and in cases of doubt or ambiguity the commission may make such amendments as are necessary to resolve such doubt or ambiguity-
I shall stop there for moment. What is that but the power to legislate? What is that but giving power to a commission to say that parliament did not know what it was doing, that parliament did not properly legislate but has left an ambiguity with the result that a change must be made? I feel that is too wide a power to grant to a commission which will finally determine the question without regard to parliament. If this commission were merely to recommend, I could understand such a power. But for this commission to be given by parliament carte blanche to determine finally what parliament meant, goes farther than the question of revision should go. Indeed, parliament in fact delegates to a commission power to do something which the commission says parliament in its wisdom did not properly do. That, sir, is going too far. Actually it means that parliament delegates to a commission of seven the right to decide what parliament should have said and in fact did not say. For the next sentence says-and I again refer to section 5(1)-as follows:
-the commission may make such amendments as are necessary to resolve such doubt or am-
Revised Statutes of Canada

biguity in accordance with what the commission considers to have been the intention of parliament.
That is a wide power. It is actually placing in the hands of a commission, over which parliament will have no control, the power to do that which judges frequently must do, namely, determine the intention of parliament. And in determining that question, judges must depend entirely upon the words used by parliament. In this section, and the subsequent sections defining the meaning of the word "revise", we are actually placing a commission in a higher position than that in which the judiciary of this country today is placed. The judges, when they are determining the intention of parliament, are restricted by the words used. This commission is to have no such restriction at all. I feel that any changes that are made should not become law without parliament actually having the right to decide whether or not those changes should in fact be made.
I would also refer to section 9 (1)


William Henry Golding: Order. What is before the committee at the present time is clause 1.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. But we are trying to find out what clause 1 means, and we can do that only by reference to other clauses.


William Henry Golding: I think the committee would make better progress if we dealt with the clauses as we come to them. If we pass clause 1-


John George Diefenbaker: I thought we were on clause 2.


William Henry Golding: No. Clause 1 is now before the committee.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have another question or two on clause 1.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Mr. Chairman-


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I make this observation? The minister turned aside my remarks on this subject of the meaning of "revision".


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: My remarks were intended to tie in with the effect of section 5. If the minister proposes to take this subject up now, there are some things that I had better say before he begins. It will save time.


William Henry Golding: I think we should deal with clause 1.


James Lorimer Ilsley: May I say a few words, with the unanimous consent of the committee. I think we shall be arguing all afternoon and longer unless I do what my much wiser predecessors did, and that is, use precisely the language used in 1924. I am prepared to do that. I find in Doctor Ollivier's article these words:
On second reading Mr. Lapointe, then Minister of Justice, stated that the bill was an exact reproduction of the bills that had preceded other revisions of the statutes of Canada.
When we come to section 5 I will move that subsection 1 be struck out and that we use the words used in 1924. It will be open to many objections which the hon. member for Lake Centre has expressed; nevertheless it has not seemed to do much harm.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What is proposed to be paid to the five members of the commission, and what are to be the terms of their employment? Will they work full time or part time? When is it expected that the work will begin, and what will be the method of operation?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I expect that they will not devote their full time to this work, and that they will be paid on a per diem basis, but what that basis will be I cannot say now. Before, they were paid on a per annum basis.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will the remuneration be on a uniform basis for all the members?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I cannot say.
Mr. MdMASTER: The revision of the Ontario statutes has taken place every ten years-except that 1937 was the last one-and one of the outstanding judges of the high court of Ontario is usually appointed as chairman of the board. Is it a fair question to ask the minister whether one of the judges of the High Court of Ontario, or of some other province, or of the Supreme Court of Canada, may be appointed? Speed is necessary, because we have not had a revision of the statutes for a long time, and a few dollars spent in obtaining the services of an outstanding jurist would be money well spent.


James Lorimer Ilsley: A prominent judge was appointed to be chairman of the revising body in 1906. That, was not done in 1924, but consideration will be given to the suggestion. I rather got the impression from the discussion yesterday that some members felt this was a job for clerks, a sort of scissors-and-paste job. I do not agree. To put the present statutes in proper shape and bring them together requires a good deal of ability.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.

Revised Statutes of Canada
On section 3-Certified roll to be deposited with clerk of the parliaments.
Thomas Langton Church: Is it proposed to substitute this commission for the high court of parliament? When the Ontario statutes were revised years ago, the work was done by a board, which at one time was under the chairmanship of Chief Justice W. R. Meredith. It was largely a committee of officials, presided over by a judge, and afterwards it was passed on by the legislature. Parliament ought not to delegate its powers and functions to any crown officer-because that is what they all will be, crown officers. Are we to accept their revisions without reading them? Is parliament to abdicate its functions? I am surprised to find a bill like this before parliament, and I protest against it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I wish to say a word or two in relation to parliament's functions in regard to the revision. A comparison of the present bill with chapter 65 of the statutes of 1924 shows that, apart from sections 1 and 2 which we have dealt with and which did not have a counterpart in the act of 1924, the remaining sections of the bill have been taken verbatim from the 1924 act, with the exception of section 5, and the minister has indicated that when we reach that section he proposes to restore the original section. It may be then that we shall be in the position of being asked to legislate in precisely the same terms, with the exception of sections 1 and 2. as those contained in the legislation of 1924. Nevertheless, I think there is still enough breadth in the duties attached to the work of revision as indicated in sections 2 and 5. even after the new section 5 which the minister is to propose, to make it not only desirable but necessary that any changes going beyond what the minister referred to as a seissors-and-paste job should be reviewed by parliament. I do not think parliament will be slow or unwieldy in dealing with matters of this kind. Parliament could move very quickly to appoint a special committee for the purpose of reviewing the statutes as revised by the commissioners, and this committee could come to the house from time to time with the recommendations of the commissioners. But I cannot reconcile my duty as a member of parliament with simply accepting provisions of this kind, in which parliament is saying in effect: We are giving certain instructions to the commission; we fully expect that the commissioners will adhere strictly to their instructions, but whether they do or do not, whether they confine themselves to the terms of those
instructions or whether they stray afield, their work is not to come back to parliament. All they will be required to do is to deposit the roll with the clerk of parliaments. Then, under section 7, on the filing of the roll, power is reserved to bring those statutes into full force and effect.
I do not expect in advance that the commissioners will exceed the terms of the commission. But I do not believe parliament will be doing its duty if it agrees now to accept in advance whatever work the commissioners may do, and whatever may appear on the roll which they will deposit with parliament perhaps three, four or five years hence, when their work is completed. I do not think that is the way in which parliament ought to address itself to its responsibilities. At this stage we have to insist that there be some limitations in the terms of the bill, so that in respect of anything other than what the minister has described as the scissors-and-paste job of consolidation, parliament will accept responsibility and will have an opportunity of reviewing the work of the commissioners.
I do not conceive that that will mean delay, or that parliament will make any unwieldy or cumbersome interference with the work of revision. As I have said, parliament can set up a committee which will make its recommendations to the house. It seems to me parliament must accept its responsibilities and its task in connection with this work of revision.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Mr. Chairman, if I had any faith in the possibility of the committee, of which my hon. friend speaks, considering over again all the statutes of Canada, I would perhaps accept his suggestion. But I know perfectly well that the committee would not do that. The thing to do is to do what has been done repeatedly in the past. Instead of relieving these people from responsibility we should place the responsibility upon them, so that they may do a workmanlike job. They have always done it in the past, and they will do it in the future. If we argued a week on each statute, as we do often on bills, it can be seen what would happen. My hon. friend talks about parliament reconsidering four hundred pieces of legislation such as the Canada Shipping Act-


Donald Methuen Fleming: The changes in them.


James Lorimer Ilsley: -the Income War Tax Act, and many other acts, to see whether the commissioners have done their job properly. If that is done it would delay the revision of the statutes for years. I know enough about attendance at committees and the possibility
Revised Statutes of Canada

of getting members out of the house into committees, to say that if my hon. friend's suggestion were followed, the work would fall back on departmental officials, and those officials would be given the assurance that if there were no change in the law the statute would be accepted by the house. That is what would happen if my hon. friend's suggestions were accepted.
I would rather drop the revision of the statutes than embark upon something which will take five or ten years to accomplish, just because theoretically the house feels that it is unsafe to leave the work to a responsible commission, if the job is to be done faithfully and well.
I do not know why we should institute that new system at this time. It makes a good talking point, of course. But I ask hon. members to have some regard for the practical elements in the situation.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I hope I am as practical a man as the minister. Having in mind the practical side of the matter. I am asking why this cannot be done. The last time this work took three and a half years. It is a greater work now than it was then?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Perhaps this time it will take more than three or four years. Why cannot the commissioners, as they complete their work of revision and consolidation of the statutes, pass it forward to parliament, session by session, within that period of time? Parliament could then review completely, through committees set up for the purpose, any changes that were proposed.
I do not for one moment suggest that parliament would carry out a revision, section by section, of 400 odd statutes which would come before us in four or five volumes. But surely parliament is going to accept its responsibility in connection with changes. The commission is not only authorized but is directed to make changes in certain ways. Who is to say in advance whether the commission will adhere to or confine themselves within the narrow interpretation of the instructions respecting changes? It is in the matter of changes made that I think parliament at this stage, in 1948, must take its stand. No matter what the commissioners may bring in, or put in the roll, when it comes here it becomes the law, without the slightest revision by parliament.
I have not so completely lost faith in parliament and the ability of parliament to do its legislative task with efficiency and expedition that I am prepared to accept the principle that parliament should not have any part in

the work of revision, or that parliament will be clogging its work if it insists upon review-ng the changes. Parliament has a task to do, and, regardless of what was done in the past, we have a situation to face today in 1948. Parliament has no business to turn its back on its duty.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What about the criminal code?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The criminal code will have to be dealt with by some body other than this. Important changes should be made in it. Initially, revision of the criminal code is a departmental responsibility. Just as the revision and consolidation of the Income War Tax Act is the initial responsibility of the Department of Finance and the Department of National Revenue, in the same way, the revision and consolidation of the criminal code is the responsibility of the Department of Justice. For the purpose, the Department of Justice will have to secure the necessary appropriation and employ the best possible help to give advice. Then it will have to take the responsibility for changes in that law, just as it has in the past. The department will have to make recommendations to council, and council will make recommendations to the house. That is the only way in which we can deal with the criminal code. It is a different operation entirely from a consolidation of the statutes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will a revised code appear as such in the revised statutes?


James Lorimer Ilsley: If it is done in time. The statutes revised in the interim between now and the time the commissioners make their report, or when their roll is deposited, can be embodied in the new revised statutes. If the criminal code consolidation and revision is completed in time, it will appear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And approved by parliament?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, and approved by parliament; that is right. That is a matter of parliamentary responsibility, of course.


Thomas Langton Church: Under the British constitution the courts are subservient to the legislatures, and those courts include not only the judges but all1 the crown officers. In the present procedure the government is simply wiping out the power of the legislature, and it is giving to judicial bodies, including crown officers, the power to pass those statutes over the head of parliament. And note that every bill tve pass gives crown officers the right to make rules and regulations thereunder which have the force of statute law. If that is law

Revised Statutes oj Canada
reform in this country, well then, I will say to the government that it is violating one of the most important principles in our constitution, namely that the courts are subservient to the legislatures.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Let me call the hon, member's attention to the fact that this course was followed' in the two last revisions of 1906 and 1927. There may have been revisions before that, but the course of procedure being followed here was followed in the last two revisions.^


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4-Schedule of repealed, superseded, inconsistent or spent enactments.
John George Diefenbaker: I should like to bring up a matter which has not been dealt with previously-the volume of orders in council that are not found in these statutes, but which amend, suspend or abrogate, in whole or in part, statutes passed by parliament. I first brought up this matter in 1942 by way of a question, when I asked for a list of statutes which had been amended, suspended or abrogated. The attitude taken' was that that was a question which just would not be answered because it had not occurred. Finally I placed a question on the order paper, it was passed as an order for return, and a list of statutes which had been suspended or amended or abrogated was brought down.
There are quite a few statutes in that position today. One statute was suspended in its operation even without an order in council. That was the one passed two years ago under which the railway companies were required, by a certain date, to abdicate any function in the matter of air transport. That date has long since passed, and the statute was not in fact suspended by an order in council or otherwise. A direction was simply made by the minister of reconstruction.
Section 4 of the bill reads:
There shall be appended to the said roll a schedule A similar in form to schedule A appended to the Revised Statutes of Canada of 1927; and the commission may include in the said schedule all acts and parts of acts which, though not expressly repealed, are superseded by the acts so consolidated, or are inconsistent therewith, and all acts and parts of acts which were for a temporary purpose, the force of which is spent.
As long as statutes are being suspended or abrogated in whole or in part by order in council-this is an occurrence not unusual under the Customs Tariff Act.-I think something should be done to provide a list of statutes or sections of statutes that are in a state of suspension or whose provisions are not
in effect. Today it is impossible for any person in the practice of law to know what the law is on any subject unless he has before him the various orders in council which have been passed and are still in effect.
I pass this on to the minister by way of suggestion. The passing of orders in council at an accelerated rate in the last ten years requires that something be done in order for the convenience of those charged with interpreting the law on behalf of clients and so that the judiciary may have before them at any one time the situation with respect to every statute. Would the minister be prepared to amend section 4 or add another section so that that certainty would be assured which is necessary if counsel are to advise? There should be a list of orders in council which detract or subtract from the effects of statutes in the appendix.


James Lorimer Ilsley: A great deal of consideration would have to be given to that suggestion. I am under the impression that the repealing or amending of sections of acts by order in council was done under the War Measures Act, or the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act, or the Continuation of Transitional Measures Act. That act expires on March 31 next, at which time these orders in council will lapse and lose their force. Unless there were some statutory amendment or repeal of the various sections, those sections would be there as the law.


John George Diefenbaker: Will the minister give consideration to it?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I suggest that the minister give consideration also to the question of revising, not only the orders in council but the regulations? Several years ago a useful act, the Regulations Act, was brought into effect in Ontario, under which all regulations issued by the provincial government were reviewed, brought up to date, classified and reissued. It had the effect of eliminating a lot of dead wood and making the present regulations known. There is a much larger body of federal orders in council. Such a measure applying both to orders in council and to regulations would be a most useful measure to put into effect here. I cannot speak too highly of the results obtained in Ontario from that statute. Under it the registrar of regulations is a continuing officer charged with the work of revision. New regulations must be submitted to him, and they are filed in public through him. I urge the minister to give consideration to that. Perhaps it is not as important as the revised statutes; nevertheless it is of great importance.
53U8
Revised Statutes of Canada


James Lorimer Ilsley: I agree that it is important. I am told that the work is under way at the present time. For instance, all the regulations of the Department of Agriculture are being gone over carefully in the Department of Justice, and that work must be going on in other departments as well. I think it is under the direction of the privy council office.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 5-Powers of commission as to alterations.
James Lorimer Ilsley: The word "commissioners" was used in the 1924 act, while the word "commission" is used here. With the amendment proposed, section five will read as follows:
The commission in consolidating the said statutes, and in incorporating therewith the acts or parts of acts passed subsequent thereto and selected for inclusion therein as above provided, may make such alterations in their language as are requisite in order to preserve a uniform mode of expression, and may make such minor amendments as are necessary to bring out more clearly what they deem to be the intention of parliament or to reconcile seemingly inconsistent enactments or to correct clerical or typographical errors.


William Alexander McMaster: Before the motion is put, I would suggest to the minister that he include the words which are in the Ontario act as to the consolidation of statutes, and which follow almost exactly what he has read, with a few minor changes. They have added this sentence: "And may include in such consolidation and revision such private acts". They relate to professions and callings. I would suggest that such private acts as are of general application throughout the province should be included. There are a great many private acts which affect a large number of people. As it is now, you require a whole library of the statutes of Canada in order to find them, because some of them go back a few years. Without this revision, you would have to obtain the statutes of thirty or forty years ago. There are some important acts which are called private acts and which affect a large percentage of the people of Canada. It would be a great convenience to solicitors and to the public if they were included.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Is the hon. gentleman sure that private acts of Ontario are the same as private acts in Canada?


William Alexander McMaster: No, they are not the same. If they were the same they would not have been passed by Ontario. Some of them affect professions, but that does not alter the fact that in Canada we have many private acts which may be affected. If the commissioners find that there are no such acts, and

I am sure they will not, they will not include them, but there are many such acts.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I know they deal with different subject matters; but what I meant was, is not the definition of private acts in the province of Ontario different from the definition here? Are not acts which have any public importance or significance here classified as public acts? Is that not a matter which was carefully attended to before the bills were introduced.


William Alexander McMaster: If that is so, then perhaps the amendment is meaningless. If not, it is important.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is an interesting suggestion, but it has never been done before. I do not know what we would be getting ourselves into if we started it. It would involve an examination of that preliminary question. It may very well be that, in Ontario, acts which are called private acts affect general interests, but here these acts are not called private acts. At the moment I cannot think of any private act which we pass here which affects general interest. Certainly divorce bills do not, except in an indirect kind of way.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Bell Telephone bill.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Would the Bell Telephone bill be one?


William Alexander McMaster: No, I would not think so. I think that is entirely a private act. Perhaps I can give the minister one. I refer to the act affecting the United Church of Canada. I think of that only because I am a member of the United Church. But it is something of that kind that I have in mind. The selection would be left to the committee. We are not telling them what they shall do. We are making the suggestion. When they go through the acts they will have a more intimate knowledge of what has been enacted in the past than I have, perhaps, who have taken this matter up only in the last few minutes.


James Lorimer Ilsley: There certainly would be a big difference of opinion among the commissioners, between the commissioners and the government, and between the government and parliament, as to what was of general interest and what was not. There is no doubt about that. There is nothing definite about the task that is being given to the commissioners. Perhaps that would not make very much difference. They could take some of the ones that they thought ought to be put together, and publish them. If they leave more important ones nobody suffers, I suppose. I am afraid that somebody has to go

Revised Statutes oj Canada
through all the acts, anyway. We have never done this before. I think it would be too big a job. It is important that we get ahead with it.


William Alexander McMaster: An index was issued a few years ago of all the acts ever passed by the Dominion of Canada. You can find out where the act is. All it means is finding the particular year of the statutes to look it up.


William Henry Golding: Shall the amendment carry?


John George Diefenbaker: I think it is a very good gesture on the part of the minister to return to the old section.


James Lorimer Ilsley: My hon. friend wanted to make it broader yesterday.


John George Diefenbaker: I wanted to make it broader only in so far as the recommendation to parliament is concerned. I wanted this body to be set up to make recommendations to the Department of Justice and to parliament, but not to detract from parliament and the right of parliament to determine whether or not this recommendation should, in fact, be carried into effect. Under section 5 as it was originally drawn, and which has now been withdrawn, provision was made for the making of such amendments as are necessary. In the section as it formerly was, such a wide power was not given. The only power conferred upon the commission was power to make minor amendments necessary to remove inconsistencies.


James Lorimer Ilsley: There was not any general power to make such amendments as are necessary.


John George Diefenbaker: I have the section here.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Wait a moment.


John George Diefenbaker: The section reads as follows:
The commission in consolidating the said statutes and in incorporating therewith the acts or parts of acts passed subsequent thereto and selected for inclusion therein as provided in this act, may make such alterations in the language of the statutes as are necessary in order to secure uniformity of style and expression, may rectify apparent errors and reconcile conflicting provisions or enactments and in cases of doubt or ambiguity the commission may make such amendments as are necessary to resolve such doubt or ambiguity in accordance with what the commission considers to have been the intention of parliament.
Apparently the old section did not cover the situation, and this new section 5 was introduced by the minister. I say that under the old section only minor amendments could be
made by the commission. The minister, having accepted the suggestion that was made regarding the all too great comprehensiveness of the new section, has met the criticism that was offered.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Sections 6 to 9 inclusive agreed to.
On section 10-Revised statutes not to be deemed new laws.
John George Diefenbaker: I have looked over sections 8 and 9 and there is no alteration. Is there any particular difference between these sections and their corresponding sections in the old act?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No.


John George Diefenbaker: That is what I thought.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 11 to 16 inclusive agreed to.
On the title.
James Lorimer Ilsley: I wish to say one word. Somebody asked me about the remuneration of the commissioners. I said it was expected that they would be paid on a per diem basis. I want to make it clear that we are free to make a better arrangement if we can. If we can pay them on another basis we are free to do so. I want to make that clear, so that it will not be said we told parliament it would be on a per diem basis and it turned out later it was on another basis.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Piecework.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, or per annum as it was before.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Golding in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
National health branch-
248. National health branch administration, $122,823.
Joseph Henry Harris: When may we expect a review of the legislation announced by the Prime Minister in his speech on May 14?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That comes under the supplementary estimates.
Supply-Health and Welfare


Joseph Henry Harris: And when may
we expect those?


Paul Joseph James Martin: All the departments come in together and the Minister of Finance hopes they will be brought down some time next week. May I, Mr. Chairman, compliment the hon. gentleman on the splendid graduation exercises at the hospital in Toronto with which he has been associated for so many years and for which he has done such admirable work.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
National health branch-
2/(7. Food and drugs, $540,953.
Donald Methuen Fleming: Can the minister give us the expenditures?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Expenditures, $387,736.86; unliquidated commitments, $16,098.37; total commitments, $403,835.23-a remarkably good estimate.


Donald Methuen Fleming: For a change. In connection with this item and the next two, would the minister make a statement with reference to the consolidation of these divisions in his department? A statement was made to the house on March 10, indicating that the food and drugs division, the proprietary or patent medicine division and the advertising and labels division of the department had been combined and organized as a directorate for certain reasons set out in Hansard of that date. I had assumed, in the light of that statement, that these items would be consolidated in the estimates. Exactly what has been done in the consolidation of these branches, and why have we separate items, after we had been given to understand that there had been a combination?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The advertising and labels division has been consolidated with the food and drugs division. The reason the other has not been is that it administers another act.


Donald Methuen Fleming: But the minister's parliamentary assistant, in Hansard of March 10, is reported as follows:
The food and drugs division, the proprietary or patent medicine division and the advertising and labels division of the department have been combined and organized as a directorate for the following reasons.
And the reasons are set out.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right, but we must have a separate vote for proprietary or patent medicines, because that division administers a separate act. That is in accordance with treasury practice. It is, however, part of the same division.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Are any economies being effected as a result of the combination?


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is too early to say yet, but we have had a more efficient administration.


Joseph Henry Harris: I do not wish to delay the estimates; but I suggest that in the rush of business hon. members seem to overlook the fact that for the first time, in my experience at any rate, extending over a quarter of a century, the minister has the great good fortune to have a fair assistant on the floor. I am sure she will help him to a great extent in his estimates.
I wish to impress upon the minister the urgency of a matter which he knows is on my mind, and that is the addition of 150 beds in the hospital in Toronto. Even though we must wait for the supplementaries before we can discuss this question fully, I suggest that those who are engaged in estimating those supplementary items should have the benefit of discussion in this chamber on the general estimates of the department. I think I am in order in that regard.


William Henry Golding: When the first item was called, the hon. member for Eglinton asked the Chair to rule whether members would be allowed to discuss the scheme that was announced by the Prime Minister. A ruling was given, to which hon. members have adhered pretty well, that there should be no discussion of that question until the introduction of the supplementary estimates. The matter does not come under this vote.


Joseph Henry Harris: Then I will observe the ruling. I would ask the minister whether all the matters that have come to the attention of the national health branch in connection with this item will be given thorough consideration when the supplementaries are being prepared. I think that question is in order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I say at once, for the information of my hon. friend, that the $30,000,000 announced by the Prime Minister will be included in the supplementary estimates.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
National health branch-
253.	Child and maternal health, $?1,5®5.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the minister explain the reduction in this item and make a statement as to what is being done under the head of child and maternal health?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The reduction is due almost entirely to a diminution in the expenditures

Supply-Health and Welfare
for the informational work of the division. It does not represent any material curtailment in the activities of the department. It is a matter of the amount of printing required. One year we are up and the next year down. This is nearly all due to the publication of Doctor Couture's book, "The Canadian Mother and Child," The printing last year was heavy, and that will carry us on, I hope, until the end of this year. Next year it may be up again. There is no curtailment in our activities. When the supplementary estimates are before the committee my hon. friend will see that there is considerable increase or acceleration in this division.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In other words, there has been no curtailment at the informational end, because of any criticism that has been made on that score.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is quite true. On the contrary, there has been acceleration.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Good.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not think the minister has given the expenditures on these last several items. The last one I have is item 247.


Paul Joseph James Martin: On item 248: expenditures, $19,807.96; unliquidated commitments, $51.24; total commitments, $19,859.20.
On	item	249:	expenditures,	$117,805.02;
unliquidated commitments, $237.77; total commitments, $118,042.79.
On	item	250:	expenditures,	$233,545.66;
unliquidated commitments, $4,244.06; total commitments, $237,789.72.
On	item	251:	expenditures,	$205,335.28;
unliquidated commitments, $10,848.35; total commitments, $216,183.63. That is another example of good estimating.
On	item	252:	expenditures,	$441,527.52;
unliquidated commitments, $4,316.69; total commitments, $445,844.21.
On item 253:	expenditures,	$93,686.92;
unliquidated commitments, $1,781.78; total commitments, $95,468.70. That is another example of fairly good estimating.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There is an odd case of that. Will the minister say a word about he expansion of the services in connection with immigration?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is largely owing to the policy of accelerated immigration of the Department of Mines and Resources.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I realize that. Will the minister indicate the method by which it is working out, and how it is being handled?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not quite understand my hon. friend's question. We service the
department from a medical standpoint, carrying out the examination of immigrants and so on. It is being done on the basis that I outlined in the house some time ago. I think my hon. friend will find that statement in Hansard of June of last session, just before our estimates were dealt with.
This service supplies medical advice to the immigration branch of the Department of Mines and Resources, with regard to medical inspection of prospective immigrants, both abroad and at Canadian ports of entry. The medical examination is designed to assist the administrative immigration officers in prohibiting the entry of persons who are physically or mentally unfit, who might be a danger to the public health, or who probably would be unable to support themselves and would become a charge on the public. This is in accordance with the medical clauses of the Immigration Act and the regulations made pursuant thereto. This service also provides medical treatment for those individuals in immigration detention, under the authority of the Immigration Act and the regulations made pursuant thereto. It maintains and equips hospital accommodation for these purposes. It convenes medical boards of reference when needed. It pays costs of sending medical officers and their families overseas to conduct medical examinations in the countries of origin, wherever full-time officers or agencies are established. It pays the actual living expenses of those medical officers.
I may say that the present system of examination is much more complete than it ever was. X-rays are now required in the case of all immigrants. That is an improvement over the previous medical system and arises out of the experience the department has had during the past two years.


Donald Methuen Fleming: My question was designed to bring out the way in which the expansion of the service is working out, because the minister is budgeting for a substantial increase here. In the light of the minister's concluding remarks, may we take it that there will not be any repetition of the sort of thing that happened with regard to the immigration of the Polish soldiers a couple of years ago, where they were admitted, apparently without adequate medical examination, and then, not long after .they were here, it was found that among them were a number of cases of tuberculosis as well as venereal disease.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend has the assurance that is being done now. Our experience is that the existence of X-ray examination is proving desirable and effective.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Supply-Health and Welfare
[Stage Direction]
National health branch-
254.	Public health engineering, $161,292.
Donald Methuen Fleming: Will the minister give the expenditures on this item?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Expenditures, $142,088.87; unliquidated commitments, $2,289.82; total commitments, $144,378.69.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
National health branch-
255.	Treatment of sick mariners, $437,981.
Donald Methuen Fleming: Will the minister give the expenditures?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Expenditures, $421,007.74; unliquidated commitments, $268.16; total commitments $421,275.90.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will the minister indicate whether there has been any increase in the fees collected?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What was the amount for the last fiscal year?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Total dues paid for the calendar year 1946, $200,229.42.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
National health branch-
256.	Industrial health, $99,364.
Donald Methuen Fleming: Will the minister give the expenditures?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Expenditures, $82,576;
unliquidated commitments, $9,789.31; total commitments, $92,365.31.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
National health branch-
257.	Civil service health, $212,639.
Mr. McLURE:: In the details of the services at page 196 of the estimates, I notice that about 66 per cent of this whole vote is for temporary assistance. It is quite a large amount, almost $135,000, and the total vote is $212,000. May we have an explanation of that?


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is a new division, and as quickly as we can get the temporaries made permanent, that will be done.


William Henry Golding: Shall the item carry?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No. May we have the expenditures?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Expenditures, $151,343.48; unliquidated commitments, $6,779.02; total commitments, $158,122.50.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

National health branch-
258.	Nutrition, $150,816.
John Alpheus Charlton: Many people today
realize that nutrition is extremely important. Can the minister give the committee some idea how this branch of his department is working and what it is doing to help nutrition across Canada?


Paul Joseph James Martin: This division, under the supervision of one of the outstanding nutritionists in the country, carries on much of its work through surveys which it makes at the request of provincial and other bodies, usually on recommendations made by the dominion council of health. I may say that the work of this division this past year has perhaps been more significant than in any other period. One important function is to carry on research on the state of nutrition of Canadians. It is a specialized service available to provincial health officers and others who find the nutritional information useful to them. Surveys have been made of the health of the populace in order that we may have more effective control and a more effective policy in improving and maintaining the health of Canadians. Surveys of this kind have been made in the maritime provinces, Quebec, Ontario and the prairie provinces, and requests are always on the desk of the nutritional director asking for further surveys. The work is both active and consultative. It is one of those branches of the service which I think is making a valuable contribution to our national life.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: Is this done in connection with the national research council?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The work is done by
departmental officers, but there is a close consultation with the national research council.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: It is actually all done under the national research council?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No; it is done by this department. The expenses were $28,942.65; and the total commitments aggregate S31.000 odd.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Last year the item was $138,448, and this year the minister is asking for $150,000. He has stated that- the commitments aggregate $31,000. Surely there must be something astray somewhere, when the minister is asking for five times the amount expended last year.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What item is my hon. friend referring to?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Item 258.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We are on nutrition. The expenses are $118,577.34.

Supply-Health and Welfare


Donald Methuen Fleming: What was the $31,000?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I should have said that the unliquidated commitments were $10,963.67, and the total, $129,541.01.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
National health branch-
Combating venereal diseases-*
259.	Administration, $37,363.
260.	Assistance to provinces for control of venereal diseases under regulations approved by the governor in council, $175,000.
Donald Methuen Fleming: I think, Mr. Chairman, we had better take these two items together. Will the minister indicate the proposed disbursement of this $175,000? Is it to be on the same basis as in the previous year?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes. On item 259 the expenditures are:	$28,942.65; unliquidated
commitments, $2,429.17; total commitments, $31,371.82.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What are the figures for item 261?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Expenditures, $49,440.92.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will the minister make a statement on the whole subject of venereal disease and on what progress, if any, has been made within the limits of the department's jurisdiction in dealing with it? The department is assisting the provinces not only with certain grants under item 260 but also in connection with the distribution of drugs under item 261. What headway is being made in combating this scourge? There was a dominion-provincial conference of the officers of this department with those of provincial health departments, and I think useful results flowed from that conference. A program was also undertaken in connection with this disease in Alberta. Would the minister give us a statement as to the work that has been carried on during the past year?


Paul Joseph James Martin: As my hon. friend will realize, the new national health program involves a substantial increase in the activities of this division through the financial arrangements that are to be made and those already in effect now with the provinces. During the past year there has been a continued administration and distribution of the federal cash grant, materials and anti-venereal disease drugs to the provinces, according to the regulations set forth in order in council P.C. 1690. We have had the addition of a medical consultant, Doctor A. G. Laroche, to the staff of the federal division of venereal disease control. There has been the further development and distribution of venereal disease educational
material and other educational activities. For instance, there has been the continuation of projects involving the review of venereal disease documents of all service personnel and the provision of information upon request to provincial venereal disease control divisions. Arrangements have been undertaken for production of an additional supply of antiarsenical compound "BAL" for therapeutic and research purposes. We are engaged in preparing for the convening of the third federal-provincial conference of venereal disease control directors and participation in eastern and western regional conferences. There has been a continued compilation and expansion of quarterly statistical reports on venereal disease in Canada. Amendments have been enacted to sections of the criminal code dealing with prostitution. There has been increasing activity with respect to closer liaison with foreign countries and world health organizations. That, of course, is one of the important objectives in the control of venereal disease throughout the world.
The encouraging trend in the over-all venereal disease picture noted throughout the previous year has continued into the first quarter of 1948, as can. be demonstrated by a review of the number of reported cases of syphilis and gonorrhoea. There were 736 less cases of venereal disease, all types, reported by physicians and to provincial health departments during this period, representing an improvement of about nine per cent. Distributed between syphilis and gonorrhoea cases in numbers of 164 and 528 respectively permit me to say that these represent a six per cent improvement in syphilis	infections and
10 per cent in gonorrhoea cases. Early syphilis cases reported decreased by 213, or 24 per cent, while "syphilis others" increased by sixty-seven cases, or about four per cent.
It is both interesting and reassuring to note the precipitous fall in the reported cases of other types of venereal disease, namely forty-four cases, which, even though relatively insignificant in comparison with syphilis and gonorrhoea, represent an 80 per cent improvement.
I think my hon. friend will agree with me that, in spite of the serious proportions that still exist, much has been done in this field.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I should like to refer to the publication "Canada's Health and Welfare". Would it come under this item?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No; we passed that in the departmental administration item.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I notice that only 83,000 copies are issued. To whom do they
Supply-Health and Welfare

go? I was wondering if the publication gives value for the money spent. What are the results obtained? I should not like to see it go out of existence, but I wish to know something about it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
National health branch-
261.	Distribution of drugs under regulations approved by the governor in council, $50,000.
Donald Methuen Fleming: What is the amount?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Expenditures were S49.440.92; no unliquidated commitments; total commitments, $49,440.92.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Did the minister say that the information for which I asked came under some other item?


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend was not speaking on the right item. By the Chairman's nod I knew I would be precluded from answering.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Publications for educational purposes would come under this item.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I recall now that the hon. member was not in the house the other evening, and he told me later that he would like to ask a question in this connection. Perhaps, without creating a precedent, I might have the indulgence of the committee to answer. The publication to which the hon. member refers is one which I am sure all hon. members will agree is really effective. It is circulated monthly to the extent of over 80,000 copies. Those copies go to provincial governments, provincial health authorities and local health authorities, and are distributed widely throughout the country. It is based upon a recommendation made to us by the dominion council of health at its bi-annual meeting held in Ottawa. I have every reason to believe that it is a satisfactory publication. For instance, the articles on cancer, let alone the articles in recent issues on mental health, are being re-copied by journals and are being given radio coverage. These have received wide commendation. It serves as source material in an important educational way for people throughout the country.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
National health branch-
262.	Health insurance studies, $23,302.
Stanley Howard Knowles: In connection with this item, I would be interested in having the minister's answer to the same type of question the hon. member for Eglinton has been asking. The minister will know my reason. Last year

it turned out that not all the moneys appropriated for health insurance studies were spent. How much of the money appropriated for the past year has been spent, and why is there a reduction this year as against last year? What progress has been made in health insurance studies during the past year?


Paul Joseph James Martin: From what my hon. friend said the other night, I fully expected him to ask this perfectly proper question. Because of the importance of the matter, perhaps I should deal with it in a somewhat more extended fashion than I otherwise would.
First of all, the expenditures are $6,652.61, and the unliquidated commitments are $28.27, or a total commitment of $6,680.88. May I say at the outset what I said last year, that this particular division of the department is so important that I as minister was not going to recommend the appointment of anyone who, in my judgment, had neither the competence nor the conviction in terms of belief in the general proposals of some form of system of health insurance.
I am sure the hon. member and the committee generally will agree with this. Certainly all one has to do is to speak to any minister who has had anything to do with the administration of this department to find out that the personnel in the country available for this work is extremely limited.
I am hoping to be able to announce shortly the name of an individual in this country whose eminence in the field of national health administration is unquestioned. It is hoped that that person will be able to take over the administration of this division of the department. I am sure that if satisfactory arrangements can be made in connection with getting this individual it will win not only the commendation of the house, but of the country.
The cut in the expenditures as indicated in the estimates is not at all indicative of the work that has gone on in this branch. I have arranged, during the past year, to have attached to this particular division Doctor B. D. B. Layton, who has been engaged in other pursuits in the department, and who had special qualifications for this work of health insurance studies. He has been engaged throughout the whole of the past year in this particular field. His salary is being voted in another division. So that, while the salary of the director under this particular branch has not been actually expended, the important thing is to make sure that the work is being done.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What is that other
division?

Supply-Health and Welfare


Paul Joseph James Martin: The venereal disease control Jivision.
I do not like to mention names, but I mention these names because they will be known to those who are familiar with this subject as being among those who have special competence in this field. Mr. J. W. Willard of our research division, formerly executive secretary of the Canadian medical procurement and assignment board and one of those who directed the national health survey in 1943, has been in charge of the health planning program carried on by our research division in collaboration with others in the division who are engaged in health insurance studies.
Both of these men have devoted their entire time during the past year to the work of this division. They have had the full-time assistance of Doctor J. H. Horowicz, Miss M. Van Dozen, Mr. C. D. Allen, Mr. J. A. Macdonald and Miss B. J. Stewart, together with supporting clerical and stenographic staff.
With respect to specific grants under the program to be covered by the supplementary estimates and as announced by the Prime Minister some time ago, in addition to these individuals we have had certain senior members of the department devoting a considerable portion of their time to this work during the past year. It will be realized, of course, that it is difficult to assess exactly the actual proportion of time which these officers have devoted to this work.
The director of the mental health division, Doctor C. G. Stogdill, because of the pre-eminent importance of his work in this field, has been an indispensable person for this work. Likewise, Doctor H. A. Ansley, the assistant director of health services, and Doctor Couture of the child and maternal health division, as well as Doctor Davidson, deputy minister of welfare, and Doctor Cameron, deputy minister of national health, have made invaluable contributions.
In addition, I have enjoyed the most extensive collaborative services of Doctor H. M. Cassidy of the University of Toronto. He spent all last summer and part of the fall on this work and continues to act in a consultative capacity.
I have calculated by mental arithmetic that, during the past year, the value of the time that all these individuals have devoted to this particular division would have exceeded $100,000. While I cannot say what the supplementary estimates will reveal in this connection, my hon. friend will see there submissions for the administration of our new health program which I know will please him and satisfy most hon. members.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think the minister will recognize the spirit and the truth of what I say when I suggest that he might well withdraw the objections he made the other night when I mentioned this on the first item, because it has given him an opportunity to get ready the statement he has just made.


Paul Joseph James Martin: This statement was made last fall. I always anticipate my hon. friend.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the minister suggest that there has been nothing done since last fall and that this statement which was prepared then is still an up-to-date report?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have just indicated what has been done, which is considerable.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Although the minister has done some mental arithmetic to suggest that more than 8100,000 has been spent on this work, I do not think it can be taken that the people the minister talks about as being in other divisions spent their full time in two or three different capacities. The minister speaks of the great importance of this work and the considerable time or full time spent upon it by these various people, and yet they all have other jobs to do as well. As I listened to the minister's statement, I am afraid that it did not impress me as much as the words in it might be calculated to do.
The minister spoke of, and we agree with him, the desirability .of delaying any appointments in this branch until it is possible to get someone who would go into it with conviction. He says he wants somebody who really believes in a program of health insurance. Some of us are wondering whether or not the government has any conviction on this matter and really means to go ahead with it. There is not a great deal of difference between what the minister said today and what he said a year ago in reply to my deskmate, the hon. member for Mackenzie. As I listened to the names of the persons which he read they seemed to be in the main the same persons. I have not the figures before me that he gave us last year, but the minister has now told us that for the year 1947-48 there was appropriated $27,863, of which only $6,680.88 has been spent. I am afraid we shall have to judge the seriousness with which this problem has been pursued, by those figures.
I hope that the minister will not start this fall to prepare a similar statement with which to answer the same kind of question next year, but that rather in the meantime this important question will be pressed with real conviction. It is not good enough to be talking about what we are going to do in the future about the health of the Canadian people; it is
Supply-Health and Welfare

not good enough to be thinking about some glorious day in the distant future when people will no longer have to mortgage their whole lives in order to pay hospital, doctor and other bills; it is time for action now. I hope that the word "conviction" which the minister used is something that will be demonstrated by the pursuit of this important matter.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I cannot urge my hon. friend to accept what I have said if he does not want to, but I simply say there has never been as much activity in this division as there has been during the past year. The immensity of the program which we shall discuss next week clearly indicates the importance of that. If my hon. friend does not accept my word, I ask him to accept the word of Doctor Mott, who will confirm everything that I have said. I have enjoyed the collaboration and profited from the great experience of that gentleman. My hon. friend says nothing has been done and he refuses to accept the word of the minister. I can only assure him again that my own interest in this matter, apart altogether from the commitments of the government, must be regarded as indicating the tremendous amount of activity that is going on.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On the minister's own statement, the department spent only $6,680 last year.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What I said was that we had utilized the services of men like Doctor Cassidy, and that is not calculated in that expenditure. Nor has my hon. friend calculated the time spent by qualified individuals in the department who have been working almost incessantly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: They are good people.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am glad that my hon. friend says they are good people. Apart from the individual whose name I hope to be able to announce shortly, I doubt if there is any group in the country more technically qualified in this field than these gentlemen and these women.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I should like to make some observations, but in view of the minis-ster's statement and the stress that he has placed upon the announcements to be made next week on the supplementary estimates, I am prepared to defer judgment on the work that has been done in this branch during the past year until we have the facts before us.
I simply say in passing that while the minister has been at pains to indicate the amount of work that has been done, and the fact that the actual amount of expense does not represent

the entire amount of work that has been devoted to this subject, nevertheless the committee will want some further proof of progress toward health insurance than he has yet given. As I say, I am not offering judgment at the moment. I am suspending whatever I have to say on this subject until we have a full statement next week, but we shall be looking for a statement next week of some definite headway toward health insurance. That is one of the most conspicuous features of the statement made by the Prime Minister in this house on May 14.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Let us wait until we come to that, shall we?


Donald Methuen Fleming: At the moment I am speaking of something that was not in the statement. While the Prime Minister dealt with a number of matters in relation to health services, there was not anything said there, there was not a promise held out of something definite in the way of progress toward health insurance-


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend has not read the Prime Minister's statement too carefully.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I not only heard it, but read' it. The Prime Minister dealt with a number of subjects in relation to health services. What I am saying to the minister is that the house will be looking now more than ever, in the light of the statement he has just made, for some earth-shaking statement next week from the minister as to some progress being made in this country toward health insurance. If we do not get that statement, there will probably be further debate on this subject.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have known my hon. friend too long not to appreciate the extent of his warnings. They frighten me not too much. I simply tell him that the nature of the announcement made by the Prime Minister and the details of the program are of such fundamental significance in this country-


William Henry Golding: Order. We shall deal with the item before us.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am dealing with health insurance studies.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Dealing with that which was not dealt with in the Prime Minister's statement.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The details of the program are of such fundamental significance to this country that the appraisal put on them by my hon. friend falls far short of their real worth and content.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The minister has undertaken to make a comment on the things that were in the Prime Minister's statement. I made

Supply-Health and Welfare
a comment on something that is not in the Prime Minister's statement. If the minister wants to make an ex parte statement of that kind in praise of the Prime Minister's proposals I am just going to tell him that the statement fell far short of the country's expectations; and if that statement is not supplemented next week by announcements which will meet the expectations of this house and of the country, then there will be another debate on the subject.


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Chairman-


William Henry Golding: We are on item 262, health insurance studies.


Clarence Gillis: That is right. I have just a few words to say on it. We have to do more than study the problem. We shall have to do something about it. I listened with interest to the minister's statement. I do not suppose there is anyone in the house more anxious to do something about the problem than the minister; but I realize also that the minister is faced with considerable difficulty in inaugurating the kind of insurance plan that should be inaugurated. Unless we change our basic thinking in the field of medicine, no minister or no government will be able to solve the problem. All we are doing about these basic problems is carrying on a lot of studies. The people of Canada are awakening to the fact that something more than a compilation of statistics on the problem is necessary in order to give us any kind of reasonable assurance that we shall provide the health services necessary for the people of Canada.
I listened' to the hon. member for Lanark last evening. He dealt with the subject of arthritis. A lot of studies have been made, and the problem is thoroughly set out. We realize that we do not know much about the disability, but we are still probing around, trying to find some solution. The same situation applies to practically every disability or disease to which the human being is heir.
As outlined by the Minister of National Health and Welfare, the Prime Minister has made a gesture. He has told the provinces that he is willing to grant them certain sums of money for the purpose of carrying on research in certain fields, and for the purpose of providing more adequate hospital facilities and so on. But that is not a solution. I do not want the minister or hon. members to think I am speaking just as a socialist and1 expressing my own opinion. I am going to read an editorial which applies to one section of the country. It comes from a sensible and intelligent paper, namely, The Maritime Co-Operator. The point I want to bring home to the minister is the shortage of doctors and nurses in this country.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The whole program deals with that very thing. I do not think my hon. friend would be doing justice either to himself or to the committee by going into details now.


Clarence Gillis: I am not going into details.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member is talking about the shortage of doctors and hospitals. That is all covered by the program, the supplementary estimates for which will be introduced next week. I think my hon. friend will find that a convenient place to discuss it. In fact,
I suggest with great respect, that if a point of order were taken, that is the only item on which he could properly discuss these matters.


Clarence Gillis: I am not going into details.
I am going to be brief and abrupt. What I want to prove is this. As I said in the first place, unless we change our basic thinking in the field of medicine, all this talk about studying and providing a health program for the people of this country is only so much talk.
The minister says we are going to overcome these things, but we do not overcome it overnight. You do not train nurses and doctors and put them in the field overnight. Even after that is done, if we still continue, as we have done, to concentrate the doctors in the large urban centres, we shall have the great majority of our population in the rural centres without any medical services, even under the program that the minister outlined.
I do not want to go into details. The figures are known. So far as the government is concerned, I do not think there is any mystery about it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is why we announced the program, and the proper place to discuss it is when we reach the estimates dealing with it.


Clarence Gillis: In the next fifteen years you are going to train enough doctors and nurses under the kind of program that the minister has in mind; but in the meantime, what will happen to the people of this country? I do not need to give the figures. I have the figures from the statistical departments of government. They have been put on the record. My point is this. So long as you keep the dollar sign on medicine; so long as the medical profession adopt the attitude that they will live where they like; that they will work how they like and will charge what they like; so long as they take the position that medicine is not a service to humanity but rather something to sell, no government will be in a position to give the people complete service in that field.
531S
Supply-Health and Welfare

Today the doctors are concentrated in Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver; and Nova Scotia and the maritimes generally-


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not like to raise a point of order when the hon. gentleman is the victim; but if he is allowed to carry on I should be given the chance to-reply. The matter that he is now discussing to which we in this department attach the greatest importance, is one feature of the new program. When the supplementary estimates are under discussion this particular problem can be fully discussed; but I suggest that it cannot be discused on this item.


Clarence Gillis: I am not going to argue about the matter at all. I would not have risen in my place had it not been for the cross fire between the minister and the hon. member for Eglinton. I had no intention of speaking on this subject at all, but I do not want to remain in my place and let anyone in this house kid me or kid the people outside that we can do this kind of thing by some more studies. I am not going to argue any further with the minister. I would suggest that if he did not make so many speeches himself others would not make many from this side.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right.. I never agreed more fully with anything.


Mr. HANSELL:: I notice that under this item extensive studies are being made of health insurance, and I would suggest to the minister another form of insurance which I think should be established. I am thinking of insurance against improper diagnosis, where mistakes are made, by the medical profession. This matter came to my attention through a case with which I am familiar and which I regard as most serious. I do not suppose the suggestion I am about to make will be acceptable to the medical profession, for whom I have the highest regard. I say we have the highest regard for them because, if it were not for our medical practitioners, it would go hard with us. If we have a stomach ache the first thing we do is to call in a doctor and we have to trust him to prescribe for us.
I make no complaints, because I recognize that mistakes are sometimes made. Not even medical practitioners are perfect. We know, however, that when such mistakes are made the one who suffers is the patient and he has no redress. The medical man may say: Yes, he can sue through the courts. I think, however, it will be generally agreed that the patient has not one chance in a thousand of getting any redress by that procedure.

I suggest to the minister that something be done to set up an insurance scheme of this kind for the protection, not only of the patient but of the medical men themselves. The case in which I am particularly interested is this. A man took treatment for a certain malady which he thought was rheumatism, and the treatment given him consisted of radium, by which evidently he was burned. He is quite confident that in the process of the treatment a mistake was made. He sought legal advice, and the lawyer said to him, "I think we have a clear case. There is no question according to the story you have told me that a mistake was made; but I would not advise you to sue, because I do not believe you have one chance in a thousand of succeeding. You would have to call other medical practitioners to give advice". The lawyer then outlined the procedure that would have to be followed.
That man has been on his back for nearly a year. I visited him lately and he asked me whether something could not be done. It is costing him neatly $1,000 a month. While I was visiting him, the nurse dressed his wounds. ,In his back there is a hole six inches in diameter and one can see his bare spine. The medical men are doing all they can for him; and I thought, by the look of the wound, it was being gradually cleaned and eventually the doctors might be able to operate and bring the flesh over. Specialists were called in from the Department of Veterans Affairs, men who had been practising for many years in the treatment of wounded veterans. I believe they are doing a good job in the effort to make this man well, but unfortunately he is suffering. Some mistake was made, and he is left a sufferer who is heavily in debt.
These cases may not be numerous, but something should be done for the protection of both patients and practitioners. Perhaps the medical men will oppose a suggestion of this kind. I am not proposing that the patient pay the insurance. I am suggesting that the medical profession should have some type of insurance to protect them in such cases where patients must seek redress for mistakes that have been made.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. gentleman was good enough a few days ago to discuss this matter in detail with me. As I told him then, and I repeat it now, it will be carefully studied.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Supply-Health and Welfare
National health, branch-[DOT]
263.	Dental health, $42,551.
Donald Methuen Fleming: What are the expenditures?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Expenditures, $32,617.03; unliquidated commitments, $6,579.12; total commitments, $39,196.15.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I wish to bring to the minister's attention something a little more pleasant than he has been hearing for some time. I refer to the high honour that has come to the dental profession of Canada through the award made to Doctor Harold Keith Box, D.D.S., Ph.D., of Toronto, as a result of his years of investigation into periodontology. Recently Doctor Box was awarded the Jarvie medal, being the second Canadian to have won it since it was first presented in 1905. It is undoubtedly a high honour that has come to this Canadian, who has devoted a lifetime to the study of the subject, and who is recognized as an outstanding authority in Canada on periodontology. I should like to read something in this connection:
This coveted fellowship gold medal is awarded annually by the dental society of the state of New York. It was presented to Doctor Box at its eightieth annual meeting at Syracuse, N.Y., on May 10.
That is this year. I might say that Doctor Box was born in the riding of the hon. member for Lanark, I believe in the fine thriving town of Carleton Place. This is a great credit to the county of Lanark. To continue:
This is the second time that a Canadian dentist has been so honoured since the inception of the award in 1905.
Then the article goes on to say what the award is for:
The award is made to the individual who has contributed outstandingly to original research or whose high attainment and professional career have been of such a character as to have materially advanced the science and art of dentistry.
And Doctor Box has done that. I have been in his office at various times, and there have met patients from the various European nations, from most of the states of the American union and from all over the world. To continue:
Doctor Box is at present research professor of periodontology in the faculty of dentistry, University of Toronto.
Along with being a professor in that university, he conducts his own research office. To continue:
The work and progress of the department of periodontology in the faculty of dentistry, To-
5849-338J
ronto, has achieved wide recognition under the leadership of Doctor Box. In a recent graduate course conducted during the week of May 3 dentists were registered from the states of Texas, Ohio, Indiana, Nebraska, Louisiana as well as several Canadian provinces.
A great honour is done to the University of Toronto when these students come from practically all over the United States. Just a word or two more. To continue:
Recent visitors to the department include Dean Alphonso Leng of the University of Santiago, Chile; Doctor Emil Schulz of Prague, Czechoslovakia; Professor J. J. Holst, professor of dentistry, Copenhagen, Denmark; Doctor J. Axel Hojer, surgeon-general, government of Sweden; Doctor Valy Menkin, associate professor of experimental pathology, Temple University, Philadelphia; Doctor Frank Beube, acting head of the department of periodontology, Columbia University.
I may say that I myself met one or two of these people during my visits to Doctor Box's office. My last word is this:
In receiving this award he not only brings honour to himself and the faculty of dentistry, University of Toronto, but also to Canadian dentistry.
I should like to say it is an award for outstanding persistence and diligent study in the field of peridontology. This award has brought great honour to Canada and to Lanark county where Doctor Box was born.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
National health branch-
264.	Hospital designs, $24,664.
Jean-François Pouliot: I suggest that all the temporary buildings should be used as hospitals. Here in Ottawa we have a number of temporary buildings that were constructed during the war. They cover an immense area. We hear complaints from all over the country that there are not enough hospitals and that there is too much bureaucracy. Why do we not fire the bureaucracy and use these buildings for the sick, the poor and for institutions for the old? Ottawa would be an ideal city for the convalescence of those who need some special care. I suggest this in passing for the attention of both the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Minister of Public Works, so that those buildings may serve a definite purpose for once, at least.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have noted what has been said by the hon. member, and I will pass it on to the Minister of Public Works.


Jean-François Pouliot: Thank you.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May we have the expenditures?
Supply-Health and Welfare


Paul Joseph James Martin: Expenditures, $18,722.51; unliquidated commitments, $15.20; total commitments $18,737.71.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
National health branch-
265.	Mental health, $79,847.
Mr. McKAY:: Will the minister make a statement with regard to the new health program, on what is to be done about mental institutions?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That will be done when the supplementary estimates come in next week, in accordance with the Chairman's ruling.
Mr. MaeINNIS: Can the minister tell us when the public health estimates will be brought down? Will it be the evening before we prorogue, or will it be several evenings before that? That is important, because there is no use in putting us off, unless the minister is quite sure that he will give us plenty of time to discuss this matter.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I can only say that I do not make the rules of this committee. The other night I tried to discuss the program and, as hon. members will recall, the Chairman, called me to order. The Minister of Finance has control of the supplementary estimates. I spoke to him about the matter this morning, and he assured me that he was hoping that by the middle of the week or thereabouts he would be able to get the supplementary estimates down, so that we could have full discussion on this item.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May we have the
expenditures on this item?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Expenditures, $47,730.82; unliquidated commitments, $1,582.34; total commitments, $49,313.16.
Mr. MaeINNIS: In reply to the minister, who has said he does not control the rules of procedure and he cannot say when his estimates will come down, may I say he has a wonderful lullaby for the committee in his statement that we shall discuss all these things when the estimates are brought down. I am just telling him that we may or we may not. It depends on what time they are brought down.


Paul Joseph James Martin: As soon as possible. I cannot say when.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is it a lullaby or a swan song?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Before we leave that point, this matter was discussed on June 11 when the first ruling was made; and the sug-

gestion from the minister was concurred in on the understanding that the supplementary estimates on this matter, which are so important, would be brought down in time for ample discussion.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That will be done.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
National health branch-
266.	Blindness control, $44,510.
Donald Methuen Fleming: Expenditures?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Expenditures, $18,338.51; unliquidated commitments, $20,120.91; total commitments, $38,459.42.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Will the minister give some indication as to what this control means? I have no idea about it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The main purposes of this division are to arrange medical examinations for those applying for pension for the civilian blind, pursuant to the Old Age Pensions Act and the amendments thereto of last year, when the age was reduced to twenty-one; and, on the evidence submitted, to decide the eligibility for pension. We also seek to arrange medical re-examinations and make all necessary inquiries regarding the pathological condition causing or leading to blindness.


Mr. BRYCE:: I have some blind people in my constituency, and I am quite sure that all hon. members in the committee will agree with me when I say we cannot do enough for those people. I wonder if the minister received a copy of this pamphlet from the Canadian council of the blind?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes.


William Scottie Bryce: Does the minister care to comment on the sixth point?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That should be dealt with under the old age pensions item under which that particular matter comes. That is with regard to changes in the Old Age Pensions Act.


William Scottie Bryce: The sixth point is for the prevention of blindness. If we could prevent blindness or provide people with proper care in their infancy, many dollars would be saved later on.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I quite agree. I announced the other night the new program established under this department for the prevention and cure of blindness in those drawing a pension. Thus far we have been able to enter into an arrangement with New Brunswick and with Nova Scotia. I am hopeful that this will be

Supply-Health and Welfare
followed up by agreements with the other provinces to meet the very important problem of blindness.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What is the reason for delay in getting the other provinces in the plan?


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is up to them.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Has the offer been made to all the provinces?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, to all of them.


Stanley Howard Knowles: How long since?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Over a year ago.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
National health branch-
267.	Epidemiology, $22,704.
Mr. MARTIN; The expenditures last year were $5,020.82; unliquidated commitments, $51.52, and total commitments, $5,072.34.
Item agreed to.
National health branch-
2G8. Grants to institutions assisting sailors, in the amounts detailed in the estimates, $2,400.
Paul Joseph James Martin: The expenditures were
$2,400 last year.


Mr. ARCHIBALD:: The minister stated
that his department had a new look. I should like to see a new look with respect to the Canada Shipping Act, so far as that part of it is concerned over which the minister has jurisdiction. The one outstandingly foolish thing in that act is that if a seaman gets sick in a foreign port he gets free treatment there-


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is covered by item 255, which we have passed.


Harry Grenfell Archibald: Item 268 covers grants to institutions.


Paul Joseph James Martin: These are grants to specific institutions. Surely Mr. Chairman, my duty is to point out the item we are discussing; otherwise there can be no order. The matter to which my hon. friend is referring is covered by an item that has already been passed. I do not want to stop him. I only point out that that is the fact.


Harry Grenfell Archibald: Sometimes we cannot hear the items called. I have not been in the habit of holding up estimates, and perhaps I might be allowed to say what I have to say on this item.


William Henry Golding: The hon.
gentleman does not take up much time, and perhaps the committee will permit him to continue.


Harry Grenfell Archibald: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The one thing that is absolutely foolish in that part of the Canada Shipping Act which is administered by the minister is that if a seaman becomes sick in a foreign port he can get treatment there, but when he is shipped home in another boat he cannot get treatment because he did not come back in the same hull. Suppose the boat on which he became sick was sunk. How could he ever get back in that boat? The Minister of Transport has taken out several of the kinks in that part of the act which comes under his jurisdiction, and I would ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare to do the same with that part of the act which comes under his jurisdiction.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
National health branch-
269. Medical services-Indians and Eskimos, $7,187,530.
William Scottie Bryce: I have a great many Indians in my constituency, but not many Eskimos. I have taken up the matter of Norway House with the minister repeatedly, and he has given me a lot of information. I asked him about it last year, and I think he will be able to do a good job there this year. Would he tell us what his department is doing in that north country?


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend, who has been a member of the Indian affairs committee, has been interested in this problem of the health of Indians, as have so many other members who have an Indian population in their ridings. As he knows, we have embarked upon a considerable hospital construction program for the Indians, particularly in western Canada, and I am hoping that very shortly we shall be able to direct our attention to a greater extent than hitherto to hospital construction in the east. We regard the institution at Norway House as not being fully satisfactory; and, just as soon as prior needs can be disposed of, our intention is to improve the situation at Norway House to which my hon. friend directed my attention last year in the house and several times afterwards.


Angus MacInnis: Has the minister any information to indicate that the health of the Indians is improving or otherwise? I made a study a few years ago of the incidence of tuberculosis among the Indians, and I was promised at that time that better medical facilities would be provided for the Indians. What improvements have taken place in that regard, if any?
Supply-Health and Welfare


Paul Joseph James Martin: This is an important matter and it is one to which I have given a good deal of personal attention. I spent all last fall seeing for myself just what the situation was in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, the northern part of Ontario, some sections of Quebec along the St. Lawrence, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. I covered as many of the areas coming under this department as I could, and I am happy to be able to say there has been a reduction this year in the mortality rate among the Indians to the extent of seventeen per cent. I think that is almost a phenomenal result.


Angus MacInnis: Over how long a period?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Over the past year. It is due to many factors. It is due in part to improved nutritional knowledge and the dissemination of that knowledge among the Indian and Eskimo population. It is in large part due to the aggressive work that is being carried on in trying to bring the doctor and the nurse and the hospital into the more remote parts of our country.
Hon. gentlemen who live in Alberta, for instance, will bear testimony to the great value of the tuberculosis hospital, the Charles Cam-sell hospital, of 350 beds. It is one of the outstanding institutions of its kind devoted exclusively to the treatment of tuberculosis among the Indians. We have also had a hospital constructed at Coqualeetza, and a new hospital at Nanaimo, of 250 beds, as the hon. member for Nanaimo will likely confirm. I think he has visited the hospital. We have also another hospital at New Westminster; a new hospital at Brandon, another at The Pas, and we have a projected new hospital in one of the most densely populated Indian districts in Canada, the James bay district, where the tuberculosis rate is the highest.
The budget for health of Indians this year amounts to $7,500,000, as compared with 85,000,000 last year, and less than $700,000 in 1928. That gives one an idea of the accelerated program that is under way. Money is no measurement of these things, but it is an indication. That we have a real problem is emphasized by the fact that one per cent of the population of this country is responsible for twelve per cent of the tuberculosis in Canada among our native population. That is a challenge, and it is one which I am proud to say we are meeting on an accelerated plane.
There is a great deal yet to be done. I can say only this, that we have had the collaboration of many agencies. For instance, we are now in process of completing X-ray surveys of the Indian population in many parts of our country. I might mention the successful X-ray

survey made recently by our own director of Indian health services along with Doctor Tisdall of the Toronto sick children's hospital and others associated with them. That was a survey made in connection with anthropologists who are still in the area living among the Indians. This survey is giving to medical doctors and those who have to deal with the medical health of the Indian population a greater degree of knowledge and an ability to deal with the problem which has never existed before.
I should like to thank the medical profession throughout the country, and particularly some of the medical colleges, for what they have done and the assistance they have rendered the department in this important work. I should not like to single out any individuals, but I would take occasion to thank Doctor Trappier of Montreal, and his colleagues, for the highly important work they have done with regard to B.C.G., and the effect it has had on all our institutions, particularly the one under Doctor Simes at Fort Qu'Appelle in the Qu'Appelle valley.


Angus MacInnis: I wish, first, to thank the minister for the full answer he has given to my question. Is there any change in the number of cases of tuberculosis among the Indians which are being reported? By treatment we can extend the life of tubercular patients, perhaps effect quite a number of cures. But the real control of tuberculosis lies in a better living standard and a better standard of hygiene in the homes. What is being done in that regard? Is the number of cases going up or coming down? I could understand that, because of the detection service in the department, the number might go up.


Paul Joseph James Martin: As I said a moment ago, we have pursued a new policy of case finding through extensive X-ray surveys. The result of that improved method of detection has been a knowledge of a greater number of cases.
With regard to the social aspects of the problem, my reply would be that this matter is under the Department of Mines and Resources. However, what the hon. member says is quite true. Much of the condition we have been discussing is due to social conditions which are related to better nutrition and like factors. Until the problem is tackled in that basic way, it will always be a problem.


Mr. WARREN:: I was somewhat disappointed when, in the minister's report regarding tuberculosis among the Indians, he failed to give credit where credit belongs. Travelling from one reserve to another, evidently he did not visit the reserve at Golden Lake in the constituency of Renfrew North.

Supply-Health and Welfare
I hope the minister knows that what has been happening in the last few years on that reserve has had much to do with the reduction of tuberculosis among Indians all across Canada. I told the story in the house either last session or the session before; perhaps it was three years ago. A marvellous transformation has taken place at Golden Lake. Formerly it was considered one of the most unsatisfactory reserves in Canada. It is not a large one. Back about 1938 someone had the idea-
I had something to do with it myself-of making a definite change in the handling of that reserve. I remember suggesting that, by the purchase of a tractor so that the land could be torn up, thereby permitting the people to work, much could be done to permit the Indians to support themselves. Instead of a tractor being purchased, a good team of horses was bought. Fortunately a teamster who was proud of his horses and was anxious to keep them well groomed and harnessed was retained. Adequate machinery was purchased, and the Indians began working together. They dug a pit in which to keep their vegetables, and then began to grow vegetables.
The point I intended to develop was that it was in this reserve that the raising of goats was initiated. This was not done because of any shortage of milk. I doubt if many of these people drank goat's milk, because they had easy access to pasteurized milk at Egan-ville dairy. However, they raised these goats for shipment to other reserves. An Indian chief went to the Golden Lake camp from one of the Nova Scotia reserves, and took quite a number of the goats back with him. They are shipped throughout Canada, and even to the nomadic tribes in which Indian children never see milk from the time they are weaned.
These people when they are starting out in the spring in their canoes or boats, take their goat along. The goat's legs are tied and she goes along in the canoe. Thus they always have a supply of milk.
Then, let me point out that they have not had a new case of tuberculosis on Golden Lake reserve since they started keeping goats. In addition to raising their own vegetables, they raise pigs. Each Indian family is supplied with one or two pigs, as required. They also export chickens. They bring in the baby chicks in the spring of the year. When they are old enough to stand the trip they are shipped to far away reserves. Wonderful progress has been made in co-operative effort in that little community. In days gone by you would never see anything but a few green poles for fuel in front of their homes, but now they go out together on the reserve to cut their wood, which is sawn co-operatively. Now you see
in front of the Indian homes piles of dry wood to which they have access during the year.
They are constantly improving their homes and building more modern homes. A lot of credit is due to the efforts of the officials of the department and some fine people on the reserve. A celebration is to be held soon, and I should like to have the minister come and take a look around Golden Lake reserve. I am sure that many members who have been spending time in the Indian affairs committee could usefully spend some time in going to see what has been accomplished at Golden Lake.
Then a word in connection with these goats. As is known, these animals are hard to fence in, but this is being done. I understand that goat's milk plays a great part in the control of tuberculosis among Indians and, I presume, among white people as well.


Paul Joseph James Martin: There was expended under this item $5,176,387.17; the unliquidated commitments amount to $21,909.12, and the total commitments to $5,198,296.29. I know the Golden Lake reserve quite well, having spent most of my boyhood within a few miles of it. I have visited it twice since I was appointed minister. In speaking about what has been done on the reserve, the hon. member, perhaps because of his modesty, has not mentioned the contribution he has made to this great work and his representations to the department on behalf of these people.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: Is the hospital at North Battleford operating, and what staff is there?


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is partly staffed and is receiving patients. This will be done to a greater extent just as soon as the necessary equipment is made available.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: During the last two months Doctor J. A. Campbell, a prominent veterinary surgeon in Toronto, the curator of the zoo, has been up in the James bay area. He suggests that goats could be raised in that part of the country, because they could live off the land.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Experiments are being
carried on by the department.


Mr. CASE:: I am sorry I was not present when the minister made his statement, but we were busy in the Indian affairs committee dealing with the report for this session. We have evidence of the importance of the medical services that are being provided for Indians and we have had an opportunity to learn something of the progress that has been made. Doctor Moore and Doctor Tisdall gave a fine
Supply-Health and Welfare

lecture with lantern slides, showing the inroads of disease among Indians, especially those in remote regions.
I am wondering whether provision is being made under this item for the capital cost of the new hospitals that are being provided. I should like to know also the general attitude of the department with respect to 'the Eskimos. It is my considered opinion that it will be more difficult to bring them within the status of Indians than it will be to determine the future of the Indians. It is a question whether they are closely related to the Indians.
There is another matter which I presume comes under this department. As is well known, Indian affairs are still under the Department of Mines and Resources, but the medical services are now provided by the Department of National Health and Welfare. I am wondering if the department has considered the granting of old age pensions to Indians. This will be a recommendation of the committee. I realize that this might not be on the same set-up as would apply to other citizens, because there is a provincial contribution along with the federal contribution; but from my own observations I know this would be greatly appreciated by the other Indians, the disabled Indians and the blind Indians. They need something to improve their security.
It has been my privilege 'to visit many Indian reserves. While some progress has been made, there is still room for improvement, because many of them are in a deplorable state. Credit should be given to the department for the health and. welfare work they have carried on. They have provided considerable medical facilities and care for the Indians; and I hope that this, along with the additional educational facilities that have been provided, will greatly improve their status.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
National health branch-[DOT]
269. Medical services-Indians and Eskimos $7,187,530.


William Henry Golding: We are still on item 269.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: In this item is there any capital cost toward the construction of new hospitals? What is the department's attitude toward providing the Indians with, the old age pension?


Paul Joseph James Martin: In the main item there is approximately $1,500,000 for new construction. 
With regard to the other matter, when we reach the appropriate item in the estimates we shall discuss it.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Is any provision made for the Indians off the reserve? Some of the half-breeds have no other means of looking after themselves.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Like any other person, they are citizens of the municipality.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: They do not come within the municipality, owing to the fact that the government has allowed them to live on government land. They do not pay any taxes. The government looks after them in no way, except that they live on this land and the municipality in which they live is charged with their medical and hospital care and has been so charged for some years. It is not fair to the municipality.


Paul Joseph James Martin: With regard to medical care, they are treated in the same way as other Indians are treated. I thought the hon. member was talking about welfare generally.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Are they treated as other Indians are treated?


Paul Joseph James Martin: In regard to medical care, yes, if they have Indian status.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: What about the half-breeds?


Paul Joseph James Martin: We do the same thing for them.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Would you look after them?


Paul Joseph James Martin: We do, if they qualify under the act.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
National health branch-
270. Grants to hospitals which care for Indians and Eskimos, $55,000.
Mr. PEARKES:: I notice there is a reduction of $164,320 in this item. I presume that this reduction is due largely to the fact that new Indian hospitals have been established, as the minister intimated before the dinner recess, at such places as Nanaimo in my constituency. But there are also a large number of Indians who are not able to take advantage of these Indian hospitals which have been established in various localities. These other Indians have to go to the hospitals which are nearest to their reserves. It is known that the costs of running small hospitals have increased greatly in the last year or two. In fact, certain hospitals in my constituency, the King's Daughters' hospital at Duncan, and the Che-mainus general hospital, have found that they

Supply-Health and Welfare
are quite incapable of taking in the Indian patients at the rates at which they admitted them prior to this year. Would it be possible for grants to be made to these smaller hospitals which must admit the Indian patients, and which cannot afford to admit them under the contract prices which were arranged previously -between the Department of Indian Affairs, now the Indian health branch of the Department of National Health and Welfare? I should like to read an extract from a letter which I received recently from the administrator of the King's Daughters' hospital at Duncan which, I think, shows the difficulties under which these small hospitals are working. I shall read only the -pertinent paragraphs. I shall keep my remarks as brief as possible:
Our last year's financial statement showed a loss on operations of $1,429.74, and that in spite of the fact that we had received over $6,0-00 in donations from the public. The board of directors therefore decided that, if Indian patients want the services of the hospital, those services must be paid for at the regular hospital rates. You can understand then that if the Department of National Health and Welfare, Indian health services, will only pay a portion of the cost of hospitalization we must collect the difference from the Indian patients themselves. The hospital authorities have no wish or desire to bar the Indians from the hospital and its services, but the refusal of the Department of National Health and Welfare, Indian health services, to meet the increased cost of hospitalization has compelled them to adopt some measures to avoid loss on the hospitalization of Indian patients.
In consequence the board of directors have advised the Department of National Health and Welfare, Indian health services that, unless they agree to pay the increased costs as from March 1 last, as advised by us in a previous letter, we shall have no recourse but to refuse the admittance of Indian patients to the hospital, except in those cases where the Indian patient himself or herself deposits sufficient moneys with the hospital on entry for treatment to meet any additional cost over the $5.
That is the contract price. Another part of the letter goes on to say that the hospital authorities will, of course, admit Indian patients in case of emergency. I have another letter which points out:
Also we receive provincial and municipal grants in addition to this rate but for Indian patients neither of these grants are received.
In view of the fact that there is an item in the estimates which includes grants to hospitals which serve Indian patients, will the minister inform me what hospital receives these grants, and whether the Indians who are patients at the hospitals to which I have referred, namely, the King's Daughters' hospital at Duncan, and the Chemainus general hospital, receive grants? What steps
are being taken to ensure that the hospital fees which are necessary for these hospitals to ask, because of the increased cost of hospitalization, are being paid? Is it the policy of the department to allow Indians to go to the hospitals when these Indians themselves will be expected to pay a portion of their hospitalization?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The reason for the reduction in this item is that we gave a grant of $200,000 to the Fort William sanitorium on condition that they build a wing for the exclusive use of Indian patients. That $200,000 grant has been paid to them, and this accounts in part for the reduction. We do not make a practice of giving grants to the institutions. We have to consider our budgetary situation and our arrangement with other hospitals, apart from those which are departmentally owned and operated, such as the ones at Nanaimo and at Coqualeetza. We have a per diem rate arrangement with all other hospitals. I can appreciate the situation my hon. friend has outlined. It was, however, our belief, after careful consideration, that the fairest all-round method is the per diem rate arrangement, whereby a hospital taking care of an individual Indian is paid by the department for his hospitalization. That is the arrangement all through the country, not only in the particular case to which my hon. friend has referred, but throughout the dominion, apart from our own institutions.


George Randolph Pearkes: When the arrangement is not satisfactory to the hospital concerned, what happens?


Paul Joseph James Martin: It becomes a matter for mutual agreement; and, where there is dissatisfaction, our officers sit down and try to work out, in the light of costs in the area, as fair a proposal as possible.


George Randolph Pearkes: Is that taking place now in the case of these two hospitals to which reference has been made? These matters have been referred to the department.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Actually at the present time we are in negotiation with those institutions.


George Randolph Pearkes: You are in negotiation with those two hospitals?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes.


George Randolph Pearkes: Is it likely that the
Nanaimo hospital will be enlarged sufficiently, either in staff or in equipment, to take care of all Indians on Vancouver island?
Supply-Health and Welfare


Paul Joseph James Martin: I will not say all Indians on Vancouver island but, we hope, a considerable number of them. That hospital has recently been opened and we are increasing the bed capacity. It will serve a considerable area.
Mr. PEARIvES: Right across from Chem-ainus on Kuper island, there is a big Indian school, and any patients from that school will naturally go into Chemainus hospital. I hope the officers of the department will try to get a settlement with the authorities of these two hospitals at the earliest possible date so that the matter can be adjusted. Can I get an assurance on that score?


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend has that assurance. Nanaimo hospital will take care of all but emergency cases.


Angus MacInnis: I have a great deal of sympathy with the point raised by the hon. member for Nanaimo, because I carried on an agitation for several years to get the Indian affairs branch to pay the same per diem rates for the hospitalization of Indians as the hospitals charge other patients. After considerable correspondence and agitation and many interviews, the last word I had a couple of years ago was that the department had come up to the prevailing rate for patients in British Columbia. The question, which I imagine has not been looked into, is what is now causing the trouble. When did the Indian branch last increase the per diem allowance rates? Rates have been going up; costs have been mounting steadily, and unless the Indian branch keeps pace with these costs, the hospitals cannot take care of the patients. I should like to know from the minister when the last increase in per diem rates was made, and what the rates were then, and what they are now.


Paul Joseph James Martin: There is no uniform rate. We are continually making adjustments and agreements with various hospitals throughout the country. Only two months ago I made an adjustment with St. Paul's in Vancouver; today I signed one in respect of northern Manitoba. We are doing that continually. The rates are not uniform; they depend upon cost factors. It does not cost the same to maintain hospitals in all parts of the country. There is at Fort Qu'Appelle a departmental hospital where, because of favourable local circumstances, permitting such things as growing their own vegetables, the cost is considerably reduced. It would not be reasonable to have a uniform rate throughout the country, for the reason that costs are different.


Angus MacInnis: I appreciate that, but a hospital which the government itself might be running would not be in the same position in the matter of rates. You take care of costs, regardless of what they are. But when hospitals are run by private organizations and municipalities they must charge rates on an economic basis which would pay for the services provided. My understanding was, as far as most hospitals in British Columbia were concerned, at least the hospitals in the outlying parts, apart from hospitals in the larger cities, that the rate was fairly uniform. I forget what it was, but I believe it was around $3.50 a day.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The rates are much higher today.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Can the minister give the expenditures?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Expenditures, $200,000;
unliquidated commitments, none; total commitments, $200,000.
Mr. TOWNLEY-SMITH: What is the reason for the drastic cut this year in grants to hospitals?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I gave that.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
National health branch-
27 1. Civil aviation medicine, $21,704.
Donald Methuen Fleming: What are the figures?
Mr. MAiRTIN: Expenditure, $763.46; no unliquidated commitments; total commitments, $763.46.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will the minister make a statement as to what is being done by the department in the matter of civil aviation medicine, in view of the fact that he has just announced that only $763 was expended on [DOT]this item?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The director was appointed only a short time ago, about four months ago, I believe. This is a new operating division.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What are the plans for the coming year?
Mr. MARTIN. We are setting up physical standards for civil flying personnel; organizing and training a medical service to examine prospective pilots. We are seeking to set up machinery to assess medical examination reports and to advise on the suitability of applicants for employment, from the mental and physical point of view. We seek to advise on all problems in connection with health aspects of air travel, and supervise industrial medical services at airports. This division was

Supply-Health and Welfare
created at the instance of those who are operating our air services, so that we may study and) advise, from the medical point of view, regarding the safety of air travel, and also to apply any benefits derived from experiments that are carried on, so far as they may affect civilian passengers. The director was appointed two months ago; I was in error when I said four months. He is in charge of this program.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That sounds like a large program when it is only at its outset, if the director was appointed only recently. Can the minister give in greater detail the work to be carried on through this branch?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The work will be carried on in close collaboration with the Department of Transport. This estimate is considered by the officers in charge to be a fair amount to set aside for the initial period. We shall have to wait until the end of this year to see the results of the operations of the new division.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will the minister give the total of the health items corresponding to last year's estimate of $8,000,000 odd?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Expenditure, $8,287,030.76; unliquidated commitments, $160,885.09; total commitments, $8,447,915.85.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Welfare branch
[Stage Direction]
272. Welfare branch administration, $37,098.
Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I wish to mention something that I brought to the attention of the minister, the department and the committee last year. There is a class of people who are sick, crippled or incapacitated in some way. With all the money that is being spent on national health and welfare, this class is entirely neglected. In my own constituency I have a number of cases about which I have written to the department from time to time but never could get anywhere with regard to my representations, because they would always refer me back to the welfare branch in the province, who in turn would not take care of these patients either. It is cases of that class that I wish to mention.
One case is that of a young man who is now thirty-five years of age, and who was crippled as a result of an accident when he was a child. He has been a burden, not only to himself but also to his parents who were not in a position to give him all the care and attention he should have had. After he lost his parents, who had taken care of him until that time, he became a burden on one of his brothers. This brother had a large family of his own, was engaged in fishing, and did 5849-339i
not have too much of this world's goods with which to take care of his crippled brother. When this young man was about thirty years of age the doctors decided that they might be able to do something for him by amputating one of his limbs. This they did, and he is now more of a cripple than ever. If it were not for the goodness of his own brother he would be thrown out of the world entirely alone. There should be something in national health and welfare to take care of cases of this kind. There are many of them across Canada.
Another case that I wish to bring to the attention of the committee and the minister is that of a lady about fifty years of age who, in an accident a few years ago, lost an arm and was hurt otherwise. She is nearly crippled and is incapable of doing any work. She is the wife of a labourer, and these people find it most difficult to get along.
In mentioning these two cases, I am mentioning only two out of the many there are throughout Canada. Why cannot something be done through the welfare branch by way of the allowances that are made, to take care of such cases? As a result of writing to the department, as I said in the beginning, all I receive is the answer that it does not come under their jurisdiction and that there is no vote for it. It stops at that. I thought that possibly, by my now bringing the matter before the minister, something could be done. Besides the items that are mentioned we find there is an extra vote, or one might call it a blank cheque, of over $1,000,000. Surely somewhere in that estimate there might be a chance for these unfortunate people. I should like the minister to take this into consideration and see what can be done in such cases.


William Henry Golding: Shall the
item carry?


Jean-François Pouliot: No.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I should like to have an answer from the minister.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I had intended saying
something on this matter, because of the remarks made the other night by the hon. member for Temiscouata. I thought possibly others were proposing to say something on the subject. That is why I did not rise at once.
May I say, in the first place, I am sure that, when we listened to the hon. member for Temiscouata the other night, we were all impressed by the important contribution he made to this subject at the time. This is not the first time he has raised the matter in the house. He has obviously, because of
Supply-Health and Welfare

the survey which he has conducted in his own county, given this matter a great deal of attention. I am sure that I speak for all hon, members when I say we are grateful to the hon. member for the point of view expressed and for the way in which he expressed his views the other night. He expressed himself somewhat along the same lines as the hon. member for Queens tonight. To both these hon. members and others I wish to say that I greatly appreciate what they have had to say.
This matter is one that is receiving my personal attention. The committee may recall a conference that was held between officials of the department and representatives of an association in Canada that has been promoting the interests involved in this particular project. I feel that what the hon. member for Temis-couata said the other night is, in principle, incontestable. When we consider that we are giving assistance by way of social legislation to so many groups in this country, it is impossible for anyone to argue against this matter in principle; because all of us know of many cases of individuals who, because of disability, are unable to seek employment, and who, in the absence of private means, are unable to have a proper maintenance. That, in principle is an incontestable situation. I certainly believe that, in the development of programs, that kind of group will have to receive consideration.
Let me say this. The matter of looking after those who require assistance at the hands of the state is not one for the federal government only. In this country we are spending close to 8800 million a year on social welfare. Of that total, the federal government is spending 80 per cent. Those are the important figures. I do not want to put this question on the basis of cost, and I am not putting it on that basis. But I believe that, in trying to approach this problem in an orderly way, we must bear in mind the responsibility of properly constituted authority in this country, namely, the responsibility of the municipality, of the province and of the federal government.
Having said that much, I believe I should also say this. It should not be overlooked that a great number of those who are in the disability class-not by any means all but a great proportion of them-received assistance through family allowances, veterans legislation and unemployment insurance. I do not say all the groups receive that assistance, but there is a great body that does. I am satisfied that the proper basis ultimately on which to arrange this sort of thing is through a system of dis-

ability insurance. I recognize that there will be a great body who could not benefit by that kind of scheme, because they have not the wherewithal to make contributions to what I think will ultimately come about, a contributory scheme covering disability and invalidity. For those who could not share in such a scheme there will have to be assistance given by the state, whether it be in the right of the municipality or in the right of the province or in the right of the dominion.
All I can say at the moment is that I am seized of the importance of this problem. We are paying this year, the dominion and the provinces together, by way of old age pensions, $100 million. That is a tremendous increase in the outlay by federal and provincial authorities, and of that amount the federal government pays close to 75 per cent. We have lowered the age for the blind to receive assistance from forty to twenty-one. That covers a considerable group of those who are handicapped, although there is still a great body left out, including the kind of cases referred to by the hon. gentleman who has just spoken and the cases referred to by the hon. member for Temiscouata. I repeat that all I can say tonight is that I recognize the importance of this problem, and I should like to think that, before I leave this parliament, I shall be able to say to the house that, in conjunction with other governmental authorities in this country, we have made, in terms of actual program, further progress with regard to this great class of our population. I assure the committee of my very deep interest in this matter.


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Chairman, my remarks really apply to the next item, but I have to leave shortly for a meeting of the banking and commerce committee, and perhaps I might be allowed on this item to raise two questions in connection with the family allowance which I have been discussing with the department for some considerable time. First, however, as to the matter raised by the hon. member for Temiscouata and discussed by the minister, some pension scheme for incapacitated people is something which, as the minister suggested, will have to be worked out in conjunction with the provincial authorities. There is no doubt about the need. I should like to leave this thought with the minister, that the most pathetic person in any group in need of social security is the woman of fifty to sixty-five years of age.


Angus MacInnis: Even up to seventy.


Clarence Gillis: Yes, but I am going to stop at fifty to sixty-five. There are thousands of women in that age group in this country who

Supply-Health and Welfare
have contributed families to the nation, who in turn went to war to save the institutions of this country. These women now find themselves with their families gone and themselves unable to work and with nowhere to turn for a livelihood. In each province there is a mothers' allowance act, but it is really a misnomer. It is not a mothers' allowance, because the children are the qualifying factor. Could not the minister, when he is working out with the provincial governments his comprehensive health program, suggest that they include women in that category under their mothers' allowance acts? In my own part of the country and elsewhere in Canada I run into hundreds of women who are in those circumstances, and they are the most pathetic group in society. They have nowhere to turn. Their families are gone; they have no income, and all they can do is wait for the old age pension. The minister would be doing a real service in provoking thought by the provincial governments on that subject.
What I rose to say was this. There are two sore spots in connection with the family allowance. First, there is the fact that children who remain in institutions in Canada cannot receive the family allowance. I have discussed this matter in the house and have had considerable correspondence about it with the previous minister, and it has been taken care of to some extent by the inclusion of children who were boarded out from such institutions. The allowance can be got through the children's aid society under those circumstances. But there is another considerable group who do not get the allowance. I know the minister is sympathetic. Would he not consider including children who remain in institutions for certain reasons? When we framed the act we understood that it was for the benefit of all children born in Canada, but here is one category that is not included.
Secondly, could the family allowance not be continued beyond the statutory age for children who are continuing their education? This should be given serious consideration. Many widows find themselves with a son or daughter on their hands who wants to continue his or her education and learn a profession, but the allowance is cut off at the age of sixteen. The department might very well continue the allowance for two or three years under those circumstances.
I conclude by saying this. I have had a great deal to do with the family allowance branch in Nova Scotia, and I think we who do a lot of criticizing should hand out a bouquet where it is deserved. I want to tell the minister that he has, administering his district branch in Nova Scotia, a wonderful personnel. They have done an excellent job
right from scratch, and the branch there, with the exception of the one or two points I have mentioned, over which the local personnel have no control, is running like a well-oiled machine. I know the minister will do what he can to iron out the few kinks that still remain in the act.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The expenses under this item are $33,199.45; unliquidated commitments, $643.14; total commitments, $33,842.59.


Angus MacInnis: I wish to say a few words on the question of social security. I have listened closely to what the minister had to say and, while what he said is undoubtedly true, I do not believe that it should be a bar to our working toward a social security program. I have, during the last few days when the minister's estimates were under discussion, heard several members bring to his attention some particular case of helplessness for which they wanted something done. These cases could be multiplied a hundredfold, and that would not include them all. So what is required in Canada is an over-all social security program which will provide for every person who is prevented from making a living for himself for reasons beyond his control. There is no way in which we can provide for people in a piecemeal way.
Then we come to the question of how this is to be paid for. It can be paid for by the contributions of people either by way of taxes or in other ways. When I hear people who are continually complaining about high taxes and who urge for more and better social services, and more of almost everything else, it leads me to believe that there is something wrong. There seems to be some lack of sincerity or lack of understanding.
Those of us who have most of the good things of life will have to share them with those who have not. There is no other way in which these people can be cared for. There is no magic wand we can wave and bring goods and services to people, without taking those goods and services from the people who created them. Under our present economic set-up, that is done by way of taxes. As the federal government is in the position where it has power to collect the largest amount of taxation, undoubtedly it will have to take the greatest responsibility for providing those services.
Today municipalities are overburdened. They cannot meet all the requirements made upon them. Most of the provinces are not in a much better position. Consequently the government that has the power to raise money must take the responsibility for providing those services, along with the responsibility of
Supply-Health and Welfare

making the necessary arrangements with other governments to meet their constitutional requirements.


Mr. QUELCH:: I should like to say something about the statement made by the minister. I think all hon. members appreciate the minister's remark regarding the responsibility of the provinces and municipalities as well as that of the federal government. On the other hand, I am sure we all realize that in the past the federal government has apparently taken the attitude that it alone has the responsibility of taking care of the needs of people in foreign nations. That is to say, we have made large contributions to foreign nations. We have not said we could do it only on the understanding that contributions would be made by the provinces and the municipalities.
We as a federal body have assumed full responsibility for making those contributions, without tying the provinces and municipalities in as well. Therefore it seems to many people in this country that our own people should be considered just as favourably as people in foreign nations. Surely there can be no group in Canada who have a greater right to expect priority against the production of the country than those who are incapacitated and unable to take care of themselves. I cannot follow the minister's statement that this can be done only if the cost is borne by the provinces and the municipalities. As I have said, we have not hesitated to make these expenditures in connection with foreign nations. If we can help to restore better conditions in foreign countries, then surely we can afford to look after our own people without haggling over the responsibility of this or that province.
The minister has emphasized the fact that the federal government is already paying out large sums of money. I do not think that is an important point. The question is how far short that falls of meeting the requirements of those in Canada who are disabled. If we pay out a billion dollars, then how much more do we have to pay out in order to see that all those people who are physically incapacitated are cared for?
The other day I attended a dinner in which a gentleman named Doctor Graham, I believe, spoke about arthritis. I was struck by one statement he made. He said that certain people still come to him and ask him to diagnose their conditions and to prescribe what should be done. Then- he said, "Of what use would it be for me to prescribe that a person should rest, when that individual may be a mother with five children, and when
['Mr. Maelnnis,]
I know that as soon as she leaves me she will go home and look after those children? Is there any use in my prescribing rest when I know she cannot rest?"
This is not a question of the number of doctors or nurses we have or the hospital accommodation available. The need here is for some assistance to be given to people of that kind, so that they can take a rest or take the required treatment. That is something we must take into consideration.
I realize that this is not the opportune time to advocate the paying out of large sums of money for any body of people, because we are now in an inflationary period. And to the extent that inflation exists, I would not for one moment criticize the government for continuing to maintain fairly heavy taxation on the people in the high-income brackets. But that condition will not always obtain. Certainly it was not the case in the thirties, when production was at less than 50 per cent of capacity. It would not have beeen necessary at that time to maintain heavy taxation in order to make more wealth available to those people who were physically incapacitated.
The reason the federal government can assume this responsibility so much more easily than the provinces and the municipalities is that the federal government has access to moneys to which neither -the provinces nor the municipalities have access. The federal authorities have different means of raising money. Therefore I was glad to hear the minister say this is a problem which he realizes the federal government will have to consider, and to which no doubt it is giving consideration. I hope that by next year the minister will be able to bring down a comprehensive program to take care of, not just some of the people who are incapacitated, such as the blind, but all people in Canada who are physically disabled and cannot take care of themselves.


Jean-François Pouliot: Before this item carries, I should like to express my appreciation to the minister for what he has said. When does he expect to be able to give a favourable answer? The people who suffer the disabilities described, and the incurables, are suffering now. They suffer more because they are poor. Is it not possible to do something for them? When the question of sending millions of dollars to Europe for the assistance of European children was placed before parliament, that money was sent quickly. It did not take long to do it, and it was a fine gesture. But if we cannot provide for our own people who are in an unfortunate condition, then surely there was some exaggeration in those expenditures.

Supply-Health and Welfare
I know the big heart of the minister, and I know he was sincere when he spoke as he did with reference to speeches made by some hon. members. When does the minister expect to give a favourable reply to the request now made from all sections of the house?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member will appreciate that this matter does not repose in the minister alone. I can only say that at a recent meeting of the welfare authorities of a good number of the provinces this matter was discussed. It will be discussed again within the course of the next few weeks. I am resorting to every legitimate practice within my knowledge to try to bring this kind of matter to a head. Beyond that, there is nothing more I can say at ithe moment.


Jean-François Pouliot: If I understood what the minister said on other occasions there is no province that has refused to answer his call for a meeting of the deputy ministers with the dominion authorities?


Paul Joseph James Martin: In the field of health that is definitely the case.


Jean-François Pouliot: In the field of health there is co-operation between Ottawa and all the provinces. Doctor Jean Gregoire, deputy minister of health of the province of Quebec, is a distinguished doctor, as is the assistant deputy minister, Doctor J. C. Beaudet. The minister has said that within six weeks there will be a meeting of the welfare people, and that is good news. The minister will hear about it from unsuspected quarters. He will be told the appreciation of many people who regret the present circumstances and who rely on him to improve the situation.
I could say much more. I have a list of the incurables in my county, and I suggest to my fellow colleagues that they get the same information from the health authorities in their constituencies during the coming recess. They will find that there are perhaps 100, 200 or 250 incurables in their constituencies, people who do not benefit from the present social legislation.
I thank the minister for the attention he is giving to this important problem. I am sure that his name will be greater among the poor and among his fellow citizens if he completes that part of the security program so that the neediest cases will be provided for.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: Mr. Chairman, we
have listened to a great deal of criticism which may be quite proper, but I think the minister has done exceedingly well for his first appearance. He has shown an appreciation of the problem and a determination to attack it, which is altogether commendable.
I should like to draw to his attention one important fact which may not be welcome, but which is something his government and his party must face. He must gauge the amount of assistance he can give to the people of Canada by the amount of goods and services which the people of Canada can produce and not by the amount of money he can collect from the people in taxes. If he will do that there will be no question of the ability of the government and of the Canadian people to provide adequately for every Canadian from coast to coast.


Jean-François Pouliot: I have another matter to bring up in connection with the activities of the welfare branch. This branch gives out-information, and in some cases it should be given information. We hear a lot about beautifying Ottawa. Ottawa is like a woman with make-up on only half her face, beautiful on one side and ugly on the other. You have only to go to the eastern and western parts of the city and to some quarters in the immediate vicinity to find slums. Every time we come here we hear about the beautification of Ottawa.
Some years ago I had something to do with the old Department of National Health and Welfare. At the request of the judges of the supreme court I drew to the attention of the then minister the condition of the old supreme court building. An investigation was held and it was condemned as being unhealthy for the judges. One judge became very ill because of the drafts and overheating, and another judge died. He told me before he died that he was dying because of the nonsalubrious condition of the building. I am not exaggerating. My reward for denouncing the condition of that building was to receive from the minister an official copy of the investigation. That was my reward for telling the truth. My reward in this case will be the removal of these slums as the next step in beautifying the capital city of Ottawa.
I have another ease I want to cite to show the connection that exists between the department of health and some of the other departments. I should like to give the particulars of this very sad case which requires immediate welfare treatment. I will not give any names, because these people live in my constituency. This man is a good labourer. He worked for two weeks at night and then he worked during the day at a certain manufacturing plant. He worked eleven hours
Supply-Health and Welfare

during the day and thirteen hours at night.
When he was working at night he put in eighty hours a week.
In 1947 he bought a house which is now occupied by three persons, the father, the mother and a boy, twenty-five years of age. This man, whose case I am bringing up, has ten children, ranging in ages from eighteen to two years. They occupy a tourist cabin which measures eighteen feet by fourteen feet. They had to put three children in the orphanage. There are six who sleep in a room eight feet wide. The father, mother and baby are in one bed, while three of the daughters are in another. In the other small room are two boys sleeping in one bed, with a third one sleeping on two trunks.
The kitchen is ten by twelve feet. There is table, stove, washing machine, sewing machine, radio and three rocking chairs. Around the family table are eight chairs which cannot be moved. The toilet is close to the kitchen cupboard and the partition does not go to the ceiling. There is no door on it. There are only 320 cubic feet of air for nine persons, and the mother has been in the hospital for several months for a TIB. prevention cure.


Ralph Melville Warren: Did my hon. friend hear my story about the $475 house? I have a better one than that.


Jean-François Pouliot: I think the hon. member for Renfrew North should have more sympathy for those who suffer and stop his silly jokes when we speak of suffering people. His story is old. It has appeared in the press. He is stonehearted if he makes jokes when I mention a case like that. He should be ashamed of himself and hide behind the curtains or under his desk. I want none of his silly jokes when I am speaking about the sufferings of my fellow citizens. He should sit down, because I am sick of interruptions like that by a man who should be ashamed of himself by interrupting a member who is fighting for the welfare of his fellow citizens. I will not stand for it. He should be ashamed of himself.


Ralph Melville Warren: On a point of privilege-


Jean-François Pouliot: The word "privilege"; privilege is not to be interrupted with silly questions like that.


William Henry Golding: Order.


Jean-François Pouliot: I shall say more to the hon. gentleman if he does not shut up. I will be wicked.


Ralph Melville Warren: On a point of privilege- [Mr. Pouliot.j


Jean-François Pouliot: I will tell him-


William Henry Golding: Order.


Ralph Melville Warren: On a point of privilege, this is my story. I did not have an opportunity to tell it.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am not to be interrupted by that nonsense.


Ralph Melville Warren: It was no joke. It was absolutely true. I have even a better one than that if my hon. friend would care to listen.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am not to be interrupted by silly things-


William Henry Golding: Order.


Jean-François Pouliot: I will be wicked and may say something which the hon. member may regret and for which he will be defeated in his constituency, and it will not take long.


William Henry Golding: Order. If the hon. member has a point of privilege he should state it.


Ralph Melville Warren: My question of privilege is-


Jean-François Pouliot: I rise to a question of privilege, not to be disturbed by a fool like that when I speak of my problems in the house.


William Henry Golding: Order. The hon. member will have to withdraw that word.


Ralph Melville Warren: I hope so.


William Henry Golding: It is unparliamentary. He should not use that word.


Jean-François Pouliot: I withdraw it; I used it as a euphemism.


Ralph Melville Warren: Some day-


William Henry Golding: Order.


Ralph Melville Warren: My story still stands.


William Henry Golding: I would ask the hon. members to deal with the item under discussion, if they can. Let us get on with the work of the committee.


Jean-François Pouliot: Now, sir, this is a pitiable situation. The family is an honest family. The father earns his living working in the mill. They cannot even live with their children. They went before the judge, but the judge said he could not do anything. He appealed to the Minister of Finance. He said he could not do anything. I now appeal to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I mention that case to him.
I could mention many others. I have large files here, but I am not going to take up the

Supply-Health and Welfare
time of the committee with them. I mention one case; I have others. I will tell the minister that I do not see why the regulations are so rigid. There are some cases which are worse than others. I remember that some time before in Montreal there was an administrator who was a sensible man. When there was something that was out of the ordinary he gave the privilege to the interested parties to return to the civil law. They were not bound any longer by these tight regulations, the cause of disease, the cause of the disruption of families. We have welfare. What finer word is there in social legislation than welfare? In French it is bien-etre, being well, welfare. These people have a right to expect something. It does not interest only the Minister of Health; it interests also the Minister of Justice because, when there is an injustice such as that, when a man who has bought a house honestly, has paid for it and cannot get the delivery of the house his children have to suffer. In the summer it is not too bad; but how do you think a family of nine can live in the wintertime in a house which has only 320 cubic feet of air? In our climate it is impossible. I will ask the minister-


Ralph Melville Warren: Build a house.


Jean-François Pouliot: I ask the minister to use his influence with the Minister of Finance and with his colleagues in the government, so that the regulations concerning rent are not applied so strictly and so formally, and when exceptions are necessary they should be allowed. I can speak also to the Minister of Justice about the matter, because it is cases like these out of which communism grows. I do not see how we can speak of social security, of beautifying the capital city of Ottawa, when we have slums in Ottawa, when we start with slums, and when, on account of regulations that come from Ottawa-the blame cannot be put on the provinces; the regulations have been made by the wartime prices and trade board-these people cannot take possession of their own house.


William Henry Golding: Order.


Ralph Melville Warren: Let them get out of the city.


Jean-François Pouliot: Well, sir, I may say what I want to say. If I am provoked too much I will say it. I remember that one day there was a man who was a candidate in the county of Ontario and he was defeated-


William Henry Golding: Order.


Jean-François Pouliot: -because of a story I told.


William Henry Golding: Order.


Jean-François Pouliot: His name was Kaiser.


William Henry Golding: It is entirely out of order for an hon. member to use threats in the house.


Jean-François Pouliot: It is not a threat, sir; it is a warning.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Welfare branch-Family allowances-
273. Administration, $1,747,543.
Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the minister two questions with respect to family allowances? One of them is the question I asked the other night when we were on the general item. Has consideration been given to amending the act so as to make it possible for children to qualify for the allowance in less than the three years required at present? When I drew this matter to the attention of the minister the other night I stated that at that time I could not recall whether this point had been discussed when the act was passed in 1944. Since then, I have looked up the debate on the point, and I found that there was a fair amount of discussion on it. The Prime Minister stated that in his view it was a good idea to start off with that provision in it and to see how the matter worked.
We have now had a few years of administration of the act. I think the position taken the other night by the hon. member for Dauphin is valid, namely, that with children coming to Canada, children of immigrants from the United Kingdom and from other parts of the world, it seems unfair that they should have the disability of not getting the allowance as other children do in this country. After all, the purpose of the allowance is to make it possible for all children to have the best possible chance.
My second question relates to the amount of the allowance. In view of the increased cost of living-and the minister in his capacity as chairman of the prices committee knows all about it-has consideration been given to increasing the scale of the allowance? As the minister knows, the increased cost of living, particularly the increased cost of food, hits hardest at families in the lower income brackets, and families with a larger number of children. It does seem to me that this would be one way to help the people that need it. Can the minister answer my two questions?


Paul Joseph James Martin: A number of questions on this matter of family allowances were put the other night, and I promised to deal with them all in one reply, including the two questions mentioned by the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat. On the first of July the family allowances program will be three years
Supply-Health and Welfare

. old. I believe the program has fully justified the hopes of those who shared the responsibility of placing it upon the statute books of our country. I think it is recognized universally as being the most comprehensive and generous family allowances act to be found anywhere. The benefits paid under the act are, by and large, more generous than those of any other system in existence at present. That the program has gained increased favour with the Canadian people is indicated, I think, by the Gallup polls which have been taken this year and in the two previous years of the act's existence. This shows a steady increase over the last three years in the numbers of our fellow countrymen who, as a result of their experiences with the family allowances program, have expressed themselves as being in favour of this key item in our social security program. The percentage of those favouring the program has now risen to 75 per cent of the total population. The percentage of those expressing themselves as opposed to family allowances has constantly dwindled and now is shown to be somewhere in the neighbourhood of a little less than eight per cent of our total population. Rarely does any public opinion poll show such an overwhelming majority of sentiment in favour, and such a relatively small percentage opposed to any given measure or proposal.
Since I put on Hansard the table asked for by the hon. member for Eglinton the other night, I have noticed that considerable attention has been paid in the press and elsewhere to these tables showing the increase in the total expenditures under family allowances during the years they have been in operation.
These tables showed that for the nine months of the fiscal year 1945-46 the total expenditures on family allowances amounted to 8172,632,146, or an average of a little over $19,000,000 a month. For the full fiscal year 1946-47, the expenditures totalled $245,140,000, or an average of a little less than $20,500,000 a month. The expenditures for the fiscal year just ended amount to $263,000,000, or an average of a little less than $22,500,000 a month; and the estimates for the current year -I ask the committee to bear these figures in mind-indicate that we shall require something in the neighbourhood of $267,000,000, or almost $22,500,000 a month.


Mr. SMITH (Calgary West):: How do you account for that?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I shall deal with that in a minute.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Is it
breeding?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That would be one of the reasons. I shall come to the reasons in a moment. I call the attention of the committee to the fact that, since the act came into force, there has been distributed a total of $725,000,000 to approximately 3,750,000 children, representing over 1,650,000 families in our country.
The reasons for this progressive increase in expenditures are not difficult to understand. The experience of most countries has been that in the immediate post-war years there has been a very sharp increase in the birth rate. This is due, of course, to the fact that the post-war year's have seen a marked rise in the rate of marriages and in the rate of new family formations, as hundreds of thousands of men have returned from military service overseas to civilian life.
It should be noted incidentally that this increase in the marriage rate, and consequent increase in the birth rate, has no direct connection with family allowances as such. This can be shown by comparing the Canadian birth rate in the immediate post-war years with the United States birth rate. Despite the fact that family allowances are not provided in the social security program of the United States, the birth rate in that country during the post-war years has risen even more sharply than in Canada.
In our country, however, there has been during the last few years a most remarkable increase in the number of births. From 1937, the year in which the number of births sank to its lowest point of 220,000, there had been a slow increase until the year 1945 when births totalled some 288,000. The average increase for this eight-year period was something in the nature of 8,000 additional births a year. From 1945 to 1946 the total births jumped from 288,000 to 330,000, and from 1946 to 1947 they rose still further to a total of some 358,000 for the last calendar year.
In other words, total births have increased no less than 70,000, from 228,000 to 358,000 in the last two years. This increase is more than the total increase which took place in the preceding eight years. It is this unusually large post-war increase in the total number of births occurring annually in our country which has accounted in large part for the increase in the total annual expenditures for this program.
As will be noted from the estimates for the current fiscal year, it is not expected that the increase from 1947-48 to 1948-49 will be as great as it has been for the previous period. The total anticipated increase for the current fiscal year will be in the neighbourhood of $4,000,000. The figures appearing

Supply-Health and Welfare
currently from month to month show that the post-war situation regarding marriages and births is beginning to normalize itself, and it is expected that, as a result of this, the annual expenditure on family allowances will tend to increase less sharply in the course of the next few years and will ultimately flatten out at a level not markedly higher than the level which will prevail for the current fiscal year.
At the present time the provisions of the Family Allowances Act cover nearly all the children of Canada, It is probably safe to say that not more than 50,000 children in all Canada fail to benefit at the present time from the provisions of this legislation. One of the most significant groups in this 50,000 consists of children who are debarred from receiving immediately the benefits of the family allowance by the fact that they have come recently to Canada iwith their parents and have not yet established three years residence in this country as required by the legislation.
We have been giving serious consideration to this aspect of the problem, particularly in connection with our immigration policy. A substantial number of representations have been received from several organizations interested in the welfare of immigrants; and the department is at the present time engaged in the study of how best, adequately and fairly, in the light of all considerations, to meet this problem.


Mr. FERGUSON:: May I interrupt the minister for a moment? I feel confident that if the question were put to a vote in the House of Commons the proposal would receive unanimous support, that all new children brought to this country under our immigration schemes should receive the same treatment as is given to every Canadian-born child in the way of benefits from family allowance, and that not more than a period of six months should elapse, and possibly not three months. This is a most serious matter. I have been receiving letters from people who have recently arrived in the country. We told them of the great benefits they would derive here; and we find that mothers of little children, under the present law, cannot receive the benefits that Canadian-born children receive, until a period of three years has elapsed. This is something that should be taken up at once. I do not think a period of more than six months should elapse before the child arriving in this country receives these benefits. They have come here to become Canadians for the future; and they should receive, almost immediately, the benefits that are given under this act. I believe the unanimous feeling of hon. members, representing all parts of 'Canada, irrespective of parties, would be in support of this suggestion.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If I had thought the hon. member intended to make extended remarks instead of asking a question I would have finished the statement I was making.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask just one question? Could the minister break down the 50,000 into categories, or, to be specific, tell us how many are children of immigrants?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have not that information here. May I say that this problem is not as easy as it would appear on the surface. One has to consider the abuses. This act has been in existence for only three years, and it is important that we do not start tinkering with it. Instead of doing good, it might do harm. We have good reason for conjectures as to what some of the abuses might be. This is the most generous act of its kind to be found anywhere; and people coming here, with no intention of remaining, because they are en route to the United States, would automatically get the benefit of the family allowance, if there were not in the act some provision regarding residence. There are considerations of this sort that one must bear in mind, and we are studying the matter carefully.
What I want to say about the family allowance administration is this. I greatly appreciate what was said by the hon. member for Cape Breton South in praising the administration, particularly in his part of Canada. As Minister of National Health and Welfare, I have had to authorize but eight prosecutions for fraudulent receipt of family allowances by individuals in this dominion. I think that is a great tribute to the people of this country. I am not saying that is the only extent of abuse. That would perhaps be placing an assessment on human nature that would be extravagant. But through the surveys that we conduct and through the special arrangements that we have had with the provinces, our judgment in the administration is that the attitude of the public toward this matter is an honourable one, and I believe that this is the place to say it.
I believe it is something of a record to be able to say that with respect to a matter involving over $725 million, going into almost one and three-quarter million homes, representing three and three-quarters of a million children, the minister responsible for the administration of the act has had to authorize but eight prosecutions. I feel that, from all the evidence that we can get, from the increase in the consumption of milk, in the use of medicines, cod liver oil and things like that,
Supply-Health and Welfare

family allowances have been a good thing. I have on my desk a report from the minister of education of Ontario, who is also premier of that province, pointing to the increase in the school attendance in Ontario since the introduction of family allowances. The same thing is true of every province. So, in making this abbreviated report on an important social welfare program, I think the house and the country may be well satisfied in the decision that was made when it was decided to establish family allowances in Canada.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: I have one observation to make with respect to family allowances. There is much to be said in favour of the arguments which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the hon. member for Simcoe North have advanced with respect to newcomers. While I can appreciate some of the difficulties that have been referred to by the minister, one feature about family allowances which I do not like is the compulsory feature. In a free country there should be an element of choice whether you want to accept the family allowance or not. The answer that is usually given is that it is not compulsory; but for income tax assessment purposes it is compulsory.
There should be a line of demarcation. If those who have incomes of $3,000 and over do not care to register their children to receive the family allowance they should not be required to do so, and the act should so provide. If that were done, the figures might be even more favourable than those which appear in the estimates at the present moment.
I can understand the increase in the attendance at schools. For the information of the minister-and no doubt he probably knows it now-I might say our experience on the committee on Indian affairs was that a marked improvement has been noticed on the Indian reserves with respect to children's attendance at school as a result of family allowances.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: I notice that in this one item, administration, the cost has been cut by $186,000. Yet it would appear that personnel has been increased by about nine. It must be in the temporary help column or somewhere that the department is enabled to save $186,000.
I should like the minister to comment on any prospects of changing the act so that it is not compulsory for people to accept the family allowance, which is the condition prevailing at the present time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The feature to which my hon. friend refers does not come under the heading of "compulsory". It is not a com-
pulsory feature. I have nothing further to add, other than to say we believe that, everything considered, this is the most effective way, administratively, to handle the matter.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: That is an answer, to say that it is not compulsory. Nevertheless, for the Department of National Revenue and for the Department of Finance, it is compulsory inasmuch as you are assessed whether you accept the allowance or not. It is assumed that you take it. There is that aspect or feature to it, but possibly it should be left to the Department of Finance to straighten that out.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I should like to comment briefly on two aspects of the statement made by the minister. The first is as to the reasons for the increase in the total annual payments by way of family allowances. The significant increase in 1947-48 over 1946-47, amounting to $18,000,000, was largely accounted for by a factor which he has not mentioned. That was the amendment of the Income War Tax Act in that year, to which the hon. member for Grey North has referred. It was in that year that the amendment took effect; and a great number of people who previously had not taken the family allowance, took it that year because otherwise they would have lost the benefit of both the allowance and the deduction with respect to the support of dependent children under sixteen years of age.
When attention is drawn to the fact that between those two years payments by way of family allowances increased by $18,000,000, it is also well to bear in mind the fact that, with the other hand, the government took away from the taxpayers of this country, by the same amendment to which I have referred, something like, if I remember the figures correctly, approximately $8,000,000 by way of increased taxation or, on the other side of the picture, by reduced deductions with respect to dependent children. So that it should not be thought of as a net increase. The net increase was, I think, only about half of that figure, when the additional taxes are taken into account.
The other factor that I should like to comment on and follow with a question or two, has to do with the subject of administration.
I think Canadians are proud of the record of the administration of family allowances, having regard to the number of prosecutions. The minister has referred to eight in all. It is an extraordinary record. There were those who feared-


Arthur Leroy Smith: And how.


Donald Methuen Fleming: 
Paul Joseph James Martin: I thank the hon. gentleman for reminding me of something I neglected to mention. The house and the country will be interested in knowing the cost of administration, having in mind the sum being expended this past year, $263,000,000. The total estimated cost of administration is $3,886,645, of which our share is $1,664,539, and the share of the Department of Finance, which issues cheques and so on, is $2,079,267. The share of the Department of Public Works, for the inspection of premises and so on, is $143,000. That truly is a remarkable figure. When one compares the cost of administration of family allowance in other countries he will find that our administration costs are substantially lower than in any country that we have examined.
As my hon. friend has said, we do have arrangements with certain provinces whose child welfare agencies we use, paying them a certain amount per case. We have arrangements with Nova Scotia, New Brunswick,
Ontario, British Columbia, Manitoba, Alberta and Quebec. In the other provinces we use our own staff, having special reasons for doing so. This method of investigation has proven itself, so much so that I think we may reasonably expect to increase the number of provinces with which we make these arrangements.


Donald Methuen Fleming: When the agreements with Alberta and Quebec came into effect-


Paul Joseph James Martin: I was wrong when I said Alberta and Quebec. We use our own staff there and selected private agencies.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What about the other provinces, Saskatchewan and Prince Edward Island?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The same arrangements there, through our own staff and selected private agencies.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There have been no new agreements since March, 1947?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is so.


Arthur Leroy Smith: What were these eight prosecutions? Were these marvellous figures produced out of the air?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have not the details, but I recall that in one case the applicant in Ontario alleged that she was the mother of two children, and false confirmatory evidence was presented, and the allowance was paid over a period until the facts were discovered. In another case there was actually a conspiracy between the applicant and the parent of another family, by which both joined in this fraudulent scheme.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Were they all of that type?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That type of case.


Arthur Leroy Smith: What can you prosecute for under the act-just things of that kind?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That sort of thing.


Arthur Leroy Smith: What have these eight prosecutions to do with the use that is being made of the money paid out by way of family allowance?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I did not mention the prosecutions for that purpose.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Then for what purpose?


Paul Joseph James Martin: To indicate the extent to which people were prepared to mislead. The use of these child welfare agencies is to meet the kind of abuse which likely my hon. friend has in mind. When we have reason to believe
Supply-Health and Welfare

that the allowance is being improperly spent we send these welfare workers to make an investigation. That is the way in which we seek to exercise a proper method of administration.


Arthur Leroy Smith: What you mean in short is this, that eight people were found out of the hundreds of thousands who were receiving this large amount of money, $700 million, who were prepared to be criminals and to obtain the allowance by false pretences. By a conspiracy or otherwise they became thieves and got a little of this money. What possible relation has that to the question as to where this large amount of money is going?
The minister used another illustration. He spoke of the increase in the consumption of whole milk. Did he compare the increased consumption of milk with a very scarce commodity called butter? We know that dairy products have had a tremendous increase in value in this country. How can you credit the family allowance with the increased consumption of milk? It seems to me you have taken an awful jump, without looking into other similar products. Am I not correct in that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: All I can say is that our surveys indicate exactly what I have said. Almost mathematically school attendance has increased with the advent of family allowances. The same is true of the consumption of milk. More clothing has been purchased and more cod liver oil, which is so important to a child's health.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I have heard that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, so the doctors say. The increase in the consumption of cod liver oil has been amazing.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Is not that because we found some fish livers out in the ocean?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No.


Arthur Leroy Smith: You are not claiming that it is any more than a coincidence in the reasons you have given up to now. Is it not a fair assumption that the money we pay out goes into bottles, one kind being milk bottles and the other, beer bottles? The beer bottles would be away down there, of course.


Mr. THATCHER:: I have received a letter from a constituent of mine who, I think, has a legitimate grievance. This lady lives in

Moose Jaw. She married an English airman during the war. She writes me this letter:
I married an English airman during the war. We had a child in Canada, then we returned to England, where we had two more. Returning to Canada after 1945 we had a fourth. The last is the only one for which I receive the family allowance.
There might be some reason why the two born in England do not get the allowance, but it seems to me that any child born in Canada should get the allowance, whether his parents were away from Canada for a few months or not. Is there not some way by which the allowance can be paid in this case? I wonder if the law does say that this child cannot have it. Is there not something that can be done; because I believe any child born in Canada should be eligible for family allowance.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I can only administer the act passed by the House of Commons. If the facts are as stated by the hon. member, she broke residence. She did not have domicile in Canada.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Her husband went overseas during the war.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, but the act is there, and I cannot give a favourable answer simply because my hon. friend asks for it.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Would you consider it?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The act is there; I cannot go beyond it. If my hon. friend will let me see the case I will look into it, and if help can be given I shall be only too happy to help.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then would the minister answer my question? Has consideration been given to increasing the scale of allowances to meet the increased cost of living-milk, groceries and the like?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That matter has been
seriously considered. In the opinion of those who have had a great deal to do with this kind of legislation in other countries, where similar statutes have been enacted it has been pointed out how dangerous it would be to the whole scheme if the scale of allowances were permitted to vacillate in accordance with the cost of living. That is the opinion, for instance, of Mr. Waters in New Zealand, who was here a few weeks ago. The very strength of this scheme must be that its rate of payment can be relied upon for some measure of constancy.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But it should be related to the cost of living.

Supply-Health and Welfare


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Can we have the minister's assurance that the three-year period necessary for residence in Canada will have his immediate attention, and that steps will be taken immediately to have that period reduced? Immigrants are coming to Canada today, some of them with children only six months old or two months old. These people are going to our farms, and as families they are doing essential work and providing the wherewithal for the starving people of Europe. We never want it to be said in ten or twenty years from now by any of these newcomers, who in the interim have become creditable citizens of the country, that when they were small children they came to Canada with their parents, but that they had to wait for a period of three years before receiving the treatment that other children w'ere receiving.
It is a most serious situation, and something which will be detrimental in future years. I implore the minister to assure the committee that immediate steps will be taken by the government of which he is a minister to remedy the situation, and that the waiting period will be reduced to no more than six months, even if it has to be said that the Canadian taxpayers paid for a child whose sojourn in this country was only one month, following which it went to the United States or some other part of the world. It should be said that those children received the treatment which we believe is necessary for our own children.
Apparently opinion is unanimous that family allowances are a benefit for our children. Let them be a great benefit to every child in Canada; and reduce that three-year waiting period to no more than six months, so that I shall not have to write to any new immigrants to Canada who ask, "Mr. Ferguson, am I entitled to those benefits for my four children? We have now been here a year. Do we have to wait for three years?" I have to write to them and state that such is the law of the land. This is the place where laws are made. Cut out the red tape; change the law, and reduce the waiting period.
Mr. THATCHER; I agree with the hon. member for Simcoe North, but I should like to get back to the situation in my constituency of Moose Jaw. I know the minister has said he only administers the act. But when an injustice has been pointed out, as it has been in the present instance, would the minister not give consideration to seeing if there is some way whereby the act could be amended?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I cannot add anything to what I have said. I have already replied to the hon. member.
Mr. FERGUSON; May I remind the minister that my question was brief.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I understood it.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Will the minister assure the committee that he will immediately give attention to this question of reducing the waiting period? Will he use his efforts to do that?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have already given a great deal of attention to these matters.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: AVill the minister give his assurance that he will give this matter immediate attention?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I cannot answer any further than that. I am giving attention to these matters all the time.


Mr. TUSTIN:: No doubt the minister has so many of these cases before him he may have forgotten that last year I presented one identical with that described by the hon. member for Moose Jaw, in which a child was born in Canada, and when the mother paid a visit of three months to England she was deprived of the allowance for that child1.
A few minutes ago the minister said that when the department has complaints they send welfare officers or workers to investigate, where it has been alleged that moneys have been misspent. If it is found by the investigators that the moneys have been misspent, what action is taken by the department?
Mr. MARTIN; We find some agency with which the money can be placed in trust, and carry on; in some cases we have to order suspension. The action taken depends upon all the circumstances.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I should like to ask-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Family allowance administration: expenditures, $1,619,287.97; unliquidated commitments, $45,251.72; total commitments, $1,664,539.69. With regard to family allowance payments, the expenditures are $263,165,192.33; unliquidated commitments, nil; total commitments, $263,165,192.33.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There are two questions which I think should be cleared up as a result of the minister's observations and those of the hon. member for Calgary West, on the subject of investigations and prosecutions.
Two quite distinct matters are involved here. One is the matter of obtaining money by false pretences or in breach of the provisions of the Family Allowances Act, section 14, which deals with offences.
The other matter is that of investigations to ensure that the moneys, if properly received in
Supply-Health and Welfare

the first instance, are disbursed for the benefit of the family. The minister's statement has dealt with the first matter only. He has indicated that there were eight prosecutions for, in effect, obtaining money by false pretences, or for kindred offences. These might foe offences of the four kinds created by section 14 of the act, namely, first, making a false or misleading statement with a view to influencing a decision with respect to the payment of family allowances; second, making or presenting to any inspector or person appointed to make an inquiry under the act any statement or document which is false in any material part; third, cashing any cheque for an allowance to which he is not entitled and, fourth, being a person to whom an allowance is payable, failing to report as required by section 4 (4) of the act.
The kind of investigation to which I was referring, and which is the subject of agreements with five provinces is, in the main, as I understand it, with respect to cases where cheques, having been properly issued and received, are being used for purposes other than the benefit of the children who are to be benefited by the act.
I notice that during the fiscal year 1946-47 a total of 4,838 cases were investigated, of which 2,985 were investigated through the facilities of the provinces, 643 by local agencies and 1,210 by the family allowances staff. Would the minister enlarge on the information he has given to the committee with reference, not to the cases of obtaining money by false pretences or the commission of one of the offenoes created under section 14 of the Family Allowances Act, but to the other class of case where the money has not been devoted by the recipient to the benefit of the children? Can he give us figures as to the number of cases in which the department has had to suspend payment or make payments to another agency?


Paul Joseph James Martin: In addition to the type of investigation carried out through provincial or local facilities, family allowances offices use staff members in certain cases where necessary. During the fiscal year a total of 10,636 cases were investigated as follows:
Through the facilities of the provinces..	3,858
Through other local agencies	 897
Through family allowances regional office staff	 5,881
The 10,000 cases that were investigated during the fiscal year must be observed in relation to the 1,669,944 families receiving family allowances as of March, 1948. The incidence of cases warranting investigation when seen in proper perspective is not great.
An analysis of the source of cases under review by the welfare sections of family allow-
ances regional offices indicates that some 36 per cent of them came from social agencies, including institutions; 26 per cent from the families themselves or from close relatives; 8 per cent from private individuals, and the remaining 30 per cent arose from clerical work within the family allowances offices in studying the eligibility of applicants.
A review of the action taken indicates that in approximately one-third of the cases no change was found necessary; in other words, the payee was considered a suitable recipient of the allowances. In other cases, changes of payee were made, or a third party administrator was used in a minority of cases, as I indicated a moment ago. It is of interest to note that in the matter of -complaints of misuse of allowances, of 1,580 such cases reported, 1,046 were discovered on investigation to be unfounded, so that payment was undisturbed.


Mr. COCKERAM:: What did the investigations carried on under the act cost?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Five dollars per case.


Alan Cockeram: Would that be $50,000 for the whole?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The expenditure last year was about $30,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Welfare branch-
Old age pensions (including pensions to the blind)-
274. Administration, $59,832.
William Scottie Bryce: Earlier in the evening I started to say something about those people who have been unfortunate enough to lose their sight. I think everyone in the house would agree to doing whatever can be done to help these people. We should do as much as we possibly can for them. The Canadian National Institute for the Blind has put out a pamphlet, and I imagine that every hon. member has received a copy similar to the one I hold in my hand. They set out six points which they want to bring to the attention of the minister and which are as follows:
1.	The creation of a blind persons' act separate from and independent of the Old Age Pensions Act.
2.	The use of the term "'blindness allowance" and elimination of the term "pension."
3.	The elimination of the means test in the award of the blindness allowance.
4.	An adequate rate of blindness allowance in relation to the cost of living. Under present circumstances, this would appear to be not less than $40 per month, preferably uniform for all provinces.
5.	The reduction of the present residence requirement from twenty years to five years, in the case of a person with normal vision who has taken up residence in Canada in good faith and at any time thereafter has lost his sight.

Supply-Health and Welfare
6.	Adequate provision for medical or surgical treatment for eye conditions to conserve or to restore vision and to prevent blindness.
I referred to the sixth item earlier in the evening. Everything that can possibly be done should be done to prevent blindness. The medical profession has made sufficient progress to save the sight of many people. I could talk for a long time on this, but I think what I have said will impress the minister with the necessity of further work being done. With the support of the government and with a sympathetic public, I am sure we can make the wishes of those who have been deprived of sight come true.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I want briefly to support the views which the hon. member for Selkirk has expressed. I have no doubt that the requests which have been made here have captivated the entire sympathy of the minister and of all members of the House of Commons as well as of the people of Canada. This is something which has no place in politics. I imagine that, in pursuing the course which has been suggested, the only difficulty of the minister will be, first, the type of scheme to help these people and, second, the matter of money.
No one can think of a legitimate reason why the unfortunate blind in our country should be associated with old age pensions. One can think of being deaf; one can think of having an accident of some kind, but I know that I at any rate cannot comprehend my position if I were stricken blind. I am not sufficiently courageous, nor have I the imagination even to contemplate a disaster so great as that.
I realize that during the present session of parliament no new act could be passed, but in support of the hon. member for Selkirk we are asking this, and I am sure we shall receive the sympathetic consideration of the minister. I want also to speak to his colleagues. When we speak of social service, security and all those things we are agreed on one thing, that this country will subscribe sufficient money by way of taxation to take care of those persons who, through injury or through accident at birth or through other causes no fault of their own, are without sight. I am sure that the minister and this whole House of Commons will not think of being penurious when dealing with a matter of this kind.
Let us think of two men, eighteen to twenty years of age, one blind and the other with his sight. One cannot conceive of the handicap or cannot get into his head any idea of any fairness in competition in the labour markets of the world, and I use the word "labour" in its biggest and broadest
sense, to say nothing of the loss of sight itself. On the economic side one immediately appreciates the handicap of these persons. The most that any of us can do tonight so far as our legislation is concerned, because our legislative life in this session is, I hope, nearing an immediate end, is to suggest this separation. I can see no reason for applying the means test, except at a point where the blind person is earning sufficient money to live in even greater comfort than the ordinary person because of the tremendous handicap that he has in the loss of sight. Braille has been a great thing. It gives the blind person the pleasure of some reading.
With respect to the age limit, we did reduce it at the last session; but there is no reason why we should have taken the age of twenty or twenty-one years, whichever it is, or why we should not have said fifteen years or ten years. I am not suggesting for one moment that when blind people come to Canada this country should assume the burden for them, but I am saying that when persons come here with the intention of living here, making a stake here, helping us along with our business, and they are stricken with blindness, they should not have to wait the length of time prescribed in our present statute. After all, the amount of money is very far from terrific; it is really a reasonable sum. I heartily commend what was said by the hon. member for Selkirk, that if sufficient funds were in the hands of people who had oncoming blindness, and through that assistance they were permitted to go to an ophthalmologist-it is a great big word that I have difficulty with- to one of those persons who might arrest the progress of the disease, or in early years even restore complete sight, then could we go home and say truly we have done a job worthwhile for the people who have suffered more from that illness or from that disability than from any other disability of which I have any cognizance?


Donald Methuen Fleming: There are many hon. members who will deplore the fact that we have practically reached the end of the session and we have seen on the order paper as yet no indication of any intention on the part of the government to introduce legislation with respect to old age pensions. I do not need to review the debate that was held in this chamber a year ago on the 1947 amendments to the Old Age Pensions Act; but I remind the committee that the increase at that time was quite inadequate to sustain health. It meant that the dominion, by setting the basic pension at only $30 a month, with 75 per cent contribution by the dominion to a maximum pension on that basis, was not
Supply-Health and Welfare

accepting the responsibility for the adequate maintenance of the old age pensioners, and was throwing the residual responsibility on the provinces where it does not belong.
When one has regard to the fact that the dominion has great resources at its disposal; that provincial boundaries have no place in meeting the needs of our aged pensioners, that certainly was a position which could not commend itself to the judgment of many of us in this chamber. The government did not go nearly far enough. The principle that the dominion was setting a limit to its responsibility was unsound.
This question is tied up, of course, with the larger question of the basic approach to the meeting of the needs of aged people. We call the present payment an old age pension. The word "pension" is perhaps a polite term to apply to the payment. It is not a pension at all in the strict and proper sense of the word. It is a payment without relation ait all to the question of right and title on the part of the recipient. There will be-surely it is apparent by now-no final solution of this problem until the whole question of a proper pension scheme, with retirement features, on a contributory basis, is taken up in this country, on the basis of joint action on the part of the dominion and the provinces. I have no doubt that all the provinces will be prepared to participate in any reasonable scheme if the dominion will take action and accept its responsibilities in this regard.
The minister is well acquainted with representations made to him and to the government on this subject by the Canadian welfare council, a body whose views on this and other welfare questions are entitled to the highest respect, as I am sure the minister will readily acknowledge. He will remember that the point on which the Canadian welfare council criticized the proposals of the dominion-provincial conferences of 1945 and 1946 was that they did not get at the root of this problem, and did not seek to bring about what will eventually be the only possible and comprehensive solution, namely, a contributory overall scheme that will provide adequate retirement, or old age, insurance for aged people of this country.
An interesting news report emanated from Ottawa in January last. I take it that there was some basis for the report which appeared in the press. It suggested that some plans were under way in the department at that time for drafting and submitting to parliament a contributory old age pensions scheme. It was suggested in this news article that a bill embodying such a scheme would be submitted

to parliament at the present session. A good many of us have been looking patiently for the introduction of such a measure. None has been indicated as yet. May I read briefly to the committee the substance of this report which appeared in the Globe and Mail on January 15? I shall refer to part of it. It says:
Measures covering a contributory _ old age pension scheme as well as a health insurance plan are being drafted, with a view to having both bills presented to the commons at the coming session. There has been no cabinet discussion of Health Minister Martin's new plans, and it is likely that they will come in for careful and lengthy scrutiny. It is the hope of the minister and the department, however, that both bills will be on the statute book before parliament prorogues at midsummer.
Both bits of legislation are based on extensive studies made in the department, using the original dominion-provincial proposals of August, 1945, as a starting point.
In both cases the legislation would follow the pattern of the original Old Age Pensions Act-


William Henry Golding: Order. I do not think it is in order for the hon. member to read press reports on this item.


Donald Methuen Fleming: We are discussing provision for administration of old age pensions in this country, and the statutory item of $65,000,000 for old age pensions. I submit that it is entirely in order to discuss all features of the old age pensions legislation and its inadequacy, and plans that will meet the exigencies of the situation and the needs of the Canadian people. What I am referring to is a report that emanated from Ottawa last January.


William Henry Golding: That report may or may not be true. Many statements appear in the press, and it is hardly in order for the hon. member to advance the report as an argument. It would be more desirable to have his own argument. It would be much more valuable to the committee.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That may be a matter of personal opinion, Mr. Chairman, but it is not a ground for ruling out of order a reference to a press dispatch. The minister will have full opportunity to indicate whether he and his department have this subject under study and whether they plan to put such legislation before the house.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Ask the question now and it will save time.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Perhaps the minister will allow me to put it in my own way. I call the attention of the committee, Mr. Chairman, to
the necessity for a courageous approach to the

Supply-Health and Welfare
problem and for finding a solution of the kind that ultimately must be sought, a solution of the kind which the government has been asked on more than one occasion to bring in. At one stage of the session the air was filled with rumours that the government would bring in such a plan, and we are now on the eve of prorogation without such a plan, without any breath of intimation from the government that any such plan is to be brought in. I say that the house has a lively concern in the question, and I am sure it wishes to know from the minister whether his department has such a plan, how far it has progressed, when we may expect to have it, and how far it intends to go.
That raises the question as to what the federal government proposes to do in this respect in co-operation with the provinces. The minister indicated in his statement to the house last week, when his estimates were up for the first time on June 11, that a happy spirit of co-operation had been exhibited by all parties to the dominion-provincial conference held in Ottawa last week. There have also been conferences of the welfare officials of the dominion and provincial governments from time to time. May I ask the minister also, in addition to these other questions, whether this subject has been discussed at dominion-provincial conferences, whether any further conference on the subject is now contemplated, and how far the matter has progressed as between the dominion and the provinces?


Mr. FAIR:: I should like to say a few words in support of the plea made by the hon. member for Selkirk and the hon. member for Calgary West. I wish also to commend the minister, even at this late date, for the action he took last session in bringing down an amendment reducing the age from forty to twenty-one in the case of blind persons receiving pensions. That, I believe, received favourable comment throughout the dominion, and I do not think we have felt the loss that has resulted from that action.
In connection with old age pensions in general, I wish to ask a few questions. The first has reference to the prairie farm assistance bonus cheques received by old age pensioners. I should like to know just how these cheques are treated by the department, whether they are allowed as income or otherwise. Perhaps the minister is not aware that farmers have to contribute one per cent of their grain cheques to a fund known as the prairie farm assistance fund, and when the average crop goes below a certain number of bushels per acre the people
contributing receive a small payment on account of the low average yield. I understand that there is some conflict in respect of the treatment of this matter. I would ask the minister to give an explanation of the method used and the reason for its adoption. After that, there are two or three more questions I wish to ask.
(Mr. MARTIN: The Department of Justice has ruled that as income.


Robert Fair: Thank you. The next question is in connection with proof of age. Recently I came across a number of cases, particularly affecting Ukrainians and Polish people, and other people from those countries who came here many years ago. Because of the spelling and pronunciation of their names, mistakes were made in recording them as they came here, with the result that, after they have spent the useful part of their lives here and have reached the age of seventy, they are unable to produce proof of age. I understand that many of them are denied pension on this account. In some cases I have tried every method I could think of and have been unable to get proof of age. I wonder what action has been taken by the department so far as these cases are concerned, or whether any method can be found whereby these people can be granted their pensions.
'Mr. MARTIN:	The regulations were
relaxed last year at the last meeting of the dominion-provincial pension board and every effort is made to assist the individual in proving his age. It is no longer mandatory that there should be a birth certificate. Other circumstances may be taken into account which are just as effective for purposes of proof.


Robert Fair: I am aware that these people can go to the bureau of statistics or the old age pension branch in the province and try to get through the census records some proof of their age, but in some cases we have been unable to prove age. Other methods such as immigration records and filing on homesteads having failed, I suggest that some method should be found whereby these people can be enabled to get their pensions.


Paul Joseph James Martin: These questions are all a matter of dominion-provincial regulation and agreement, and whatever valid proof can be given of age is now admissible under the liberalized regulations agreed to by the provinces and the dominion.


Robert Fair: One further question. Would the minister read and explain section 10 of the act.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I shall be glad to do that.
Supply-Health and Welfare


Robert Fair: I wish the minister would give that explanation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I wish to support once again the plea for the 'blind so well put forward by the hon. member for Selkirk and others who followed him tonight. I wish also to express my active interest in the old age pension question, not by making another speech tonight but by putting three questions to the minister.
My first question relates to the proposals made to the provinces by the dominion government in 1945, which included a $30 universal pension for all Canadians seventy years of age and over, without any means test, together with a means-test allowance for those between sixty-five and sixty-nine years of age. My question is this. Is the government considering implementing that proposal, at least in the case of provinces that have signed the taxation agreement?
My second question is one that arises particularly if the answer to the first question is either in the negative or a delayed reply. Is the government considering increasing the amount of $30, which is now in the basic Old Age Pensions Act, to a larger amount? I refer now not to pressure that may be put on the provinces to add to it. My direct question is this. Is the government considering an increase in the basic amount provided in the federal statute?
My third question relates to an over-all scheme, or more specifically, to tie it down to this field, to the question of contributory old age pensions. Is the government considering a contributory old age pension plan for presentation to parliament at an early date?


John Alpheus Charlton: I wish to say a few words in support of the six-point program sponsored by the Canadian Council of the Blind and the Canadian National Institute for the Blind. I think it is unnecessary for me to mention those six points again. The minister is well aware of them, and, I believe he is favourably disposed toward them.
I wish to say one word in connection with point number four, which I believe is most important. That is the one with regard to the twenty-year residence law Which is now in force. It is most ridiculous that a person coming to Canada to live, with the intention of making Canada his home, if he should have difficulty, get into an accident or have some mishap whereby he loses his sight, must remain in this country for twenty years before he can get this pension. As I said, this is a most ridiculous situation. I hope the minister will

lend his support in favour of these six points.
I might say here I see that there is a $27,200,000 increase in this particular item. I wonder if any portion of that is to go toward increasing pensions for the blind?


Wilfrid Garfield Case: Mr. Chairman-


John Alpheus Charlton: Will the minister answer the question that I asked?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will he answer the three questions that I asked?


John Alpheus Charlton: I ask the minister to answer.


Paul Joseph James Martin: A great many questions have been asked. I will deal with them as best I can after I get them all in.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: I should now like to renew the question I asked earlier with respect to income tax. I believe this is a spot where I might expect the minister, when he gives an answer to many questions that have been asked, to tell the committee if the department have recognized the recommendation by the special committee on Indian affairs, and whether they will now be prepared to grant a pension in kind-an old age pension, as it is now called- to the aged Indians on the various reserves.
I should also like to take this opportunity to underline and support the views that have been expressed with respect to the blind. I wish to go one step farther. I think the blind suffer a terrible disability, but there are other types of disablement, both physical and mental. I believe this country can afford to assume the burden in order to release society of that responsibility-I refer particularly to the parents of children who are afflicted by mental disease or physical incapacity- so that when the children attain the age of twenty-one years the state should provide for those unfortunate victims of disablement, which is no fault of their own, but who remain a burden to those whose responsibility they are, whereas the nation could well afford to provide for them.
I should also like to express a view which has been expressed before by myself and others,' that I believe the means test should be removed as of age seventy, that the amount should be increased, and that the pension should be available at the age of sixty-five, subject to a means test if necessary, but certainly at age seventy. I could elaborate at considerable length on the reasons why I think that would be a good move and would tend to promote thrift; because those people, in anticipation of a pension, knowing it would be available for them upon proving their age,

Supply-Health and IVeljare
would probably continue to save their money and might not even need a pension. But as matters stand at the present time, very often between the age of sixty and seventy people dispose of their small estates in order that they may obtain a pension, and the country is the loser.
Once again I say it is unfortunate that we use that term "old age pension", because I feel it does not properly describe the objective. I think it would be far better if the title "retirement allowance" were used, since one of the objectives surely is to remove from the labour market those who have served their country and their community, who are entitled to some reward, and are encouraged by the very terms of the act to desire retirement with a greater sense of security than they have at the present time. The country could well afford to be more generous to those who are seventy years of age and over, without the means test, even though we continue to apply it in connection with any reduction of age that might be anticipated. But I am particularly asking the minister if the government have given consideration to granting a pension in kind for all aged Indians on the various reservations.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: May I add my support to the hon. member for Grey North in advocating abolition of the means test for all blind people, abolition of the means test for all old age pensioners at the present time and certainly after they have reached the age of seventy; also that great consideration be given to the unfortunate children in this country who find themselves crippled through one means or another, and whose parents are not in a position to look after them as they should be looked after. I believe that some form of payment should be made to children who find themselves in the condition that they are not able to look after themselves and whose parents are not in a financial position to give them the proper kind of treatment to which they are entitled as Canadian citizens.
I would go even farther. I would say there should be abolition of the means test at the age of sixty-five. To encourage thrift in this country, unless figures can be produced to prove conclusively that the taxpayers cannot afford these suggestions, I am certainly in favour of the abolition of the means test at age sixty-five.


William Henry Golding: Shall the item carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: May we not have some answers first?


Paul Joseph James Martin: First of all, with regard to the question put to me by the hon. gentleman whose name indicates the good character of the weather but whose constituency I have forgotten-the hon. member for Battle River- section 10 of the Old Age Pensions Act provides that for the month in which the pensioner dies, the portion of the monthly payment covering that portion of the month in which he was alive may be applied to any debt that may be left unpaid at the time of death.
With regard to the representations that have been made by a number of hon. members with regard to the six-point program of the institute for the blind, may I say I am to be privileged, before this week is out, to have a conference with the managing director of that institute to discuss this and other matters. I must say that I am largely in accord with the general features of what they have asked, at least with regard to the suggestion of separate legislation that will place blind pensioners under legislation that is more properly applicable to them rather than including them, as they are now included, under the provisions of the Old Age Pensions Act.
The committee will appreciate the fact that in the consideration of these matters one must bear in mind a number of things-the general over-all policy of the administration, what one might expect and what one might reasonably say with regard to other features of the act. I will be frank in stating that what I am aiming at is a system of contributory old age pensions in this country.
Having said that, I should add that whatever action we may take in this regard is conditioned and contingent on action on a constitutional basis involving the transference of or agreement on jurisdiction now enjoyed by provincial governments-something that is not as simple as it may appear on the surface to some hon. members. Last November we had a meeting with the provinces and discussed these matters, and any progress we may make in this regard is predicated largely upon the kind of action we may expect from those in authority in the provinces. But as an over-all objective I state unreservedly to the committee that that is my intention, and I am hoping that the progress we have made with the provinces in the matter of health during the past few weeks may be followed by the same measure of collaboration with the provincial governments with respect to old age pensions and welfare matters generally, but particularly old age pensions which involve, if a contributory scheme is to be established, even in connection with a scheme on a co-operative
Supply-Health and Welfare

basis, agreement of some sort as to endowing the central authority with power, that is now enjoyed by the provinces entirely.
With regard to the blind, the amendments we made to the Old Age Pensions Act last session regarding the blind were very considerable in their portent. What we did was to reduce the age from forty to twenty-one, thereby adding no fewer than some twelve hundred blind individuals to the roll of recipients. In other words, twelve hundred blind people are now receiving moneys which, but for those amendments, they would not have received. That is a very considerable matter.
With regard to old age pensions, we are now paying roughly $100 million this year by way of old age pensions. What I said last year I repeat again tonight, that we are looking forward to developing a social security program in this country to cover such things as invalidity and disability which have been mentioned tonight. But we must have a sense of proportion in these things when considering expanding into other important fields of social welfare. Some 65,000 individuals have been added to the list of old age pensioners as a result of the old age pension amendments, and with respect to the $100 million let it not be forgotten that the federal government is paying 75 per cent of the cost of the basic pensions. It is all very well for some hon. members to say the federal government should pay the whole cost; but let me say, without any hesitation or doubt, I do not subscribe to that. The moment you centralize the administration and responsibiEty for all social legislation in the central government, you thereby do to social security and to social welfare and to the provinces a gross injustice, and most of the provinces do not want that. This I can tell hon. members from the discussions I have had with a number of the provinces. I think the present proportion, 75 and 25 per cent, is not an unreasonable proportion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That has been upset by the supplements which have been added by some of the provinces.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It has not been materially upset. Remember what I said last year, that the old age pension is but a maintenance grant, and we have amended the act to permit the provinces to increase the amount paid to an old age pensioner up to $50 a month. When I add that the federal government is paying 80 per cent of the costs of the social services in this country, which total between $700 million and $800 million, I do not think we are in any way capable of being adjudged as

being ungenerous. I do not say the picture is perfect, but I do not think we are capable of being adjudged as ungenerous.
With regard to the old age pension means test, let this be clearly stated, that our means test is the most liberalized means test of any country in the British commonwealth and, so far as the researches of my officers have gone, of any country in the world.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: This is one of the wealthiest countries in the world in natural resources.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I agree with that.


William Henry Golding: It is not in order for an hon. member to interrupt.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am going to say in the kindliest way, as my colleague the Minister of Labour would say, because we have to be realistic, that we have made certain proposals to the provinces. The Prime Minister, the present Minister of Justice, the present Minister of Finance and I have stated the policy of the government with regard to those proposals. They still remain in their broad essentials the policy of the government of Canada. I say this simply to keep the record straight, because the question has been raised tonight, that we are not in any respect standing in the way of the realization of that program. The Prime Minister and other ministers speaking for the government have clearly indicated that, just as soon as we get agreement with the provinces, we are prepared to deal with these important measures. Let me say to the hon. member for Simcoe North, for whom I have a very deep regard, that he has influences in certain places where I have not, and if he would bring pressure in those places he might materially assist in this program, as well as other hon. members who have influence in another large province with another head of a provincial government. No one can say that if we have not made progress in this regard it is the fault of this government.


Mr. GREEN:: Is it not a fact that, although agreements have not been signed by certain of the provinces, this government has all the money that it would get even if there had been agreements? How can the minister use his present argument as an excuse for not going ahead with the proposals made in the green book?


Stanley Howard Knowles: At least with the seven provinces.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I cannot add anything to what I have said. I have stated the policy of the government and I cannot go beyond that.

Supply-Health and Welfare
With regard to the question put to me by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, I have already spoken about contributory schemes and our objectives in that regard.
With regard to the other question the hon. member posed, the government policy in these and other matters will be announced in the light of circumstances as the government sees them at the time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Can the minister say whether consideration has been given to the specific point I asked him about, namely, implementing those proposals in the case of the seven provinces which have signed an agreement?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I cannot add anything to what I have said. The government's policy is well known.
I want to thank the hon. member for Grey North for the generous words of appreciation which, before the dinner recess, he used in respect of this department and particularly its administration in regard to the health of Indians, and to the general approval he has given respecting the administration over which I have the honour and responsibility of exercising ministerial jurisdiction at the moment.
The matter to which he has referred concerning the Indians is very much in our minds. We are following with keen interest the work of the Indian affairs committee, particularly in respect of enfranchisement and granting of citizenship. The furthest I can go at the present time is that the matter is under active consideration and is receiving our full attention.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I note that there is only $65,000,000 provided in the estimates.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The rest is paid by the provinces.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Then it is not 75 per cent of $100 million?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Under the act we pay 75 per cent of the basic pension provided for in the statute.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: You have said that figure is $100,000,000 and that would mean that this figure should be $75,000,000. It is only $65,000,000 in the estimates; is that figure correct?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Then the amount is not $100,000,000?


Donald Methuen Fleming: What are the amounts?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Old age pensions administration, $52,812.53; unliquidated commitments $25.15; total commitments, $52,837.78. With respect to old age pension payments including pensions to the blind, expenditures, $58,089,000; unliquidated commitments, nil; total commitments, $58,089,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Welfare branch-National physical fitness
[Stage Direction]
275.	Administration, $48,871.
Mr. GAUTHIER (Portneuf):: Mr. Chairman, last year I drew the attention of the minister to this law, and I asked him whether all the provinces had agreed to accept its benefits. In his answer he said that six of the nine provinces had agreed to accept the subsidies according to law, but that the three other provinces had not entered into an agreement with the federal government. Those were the provinces of New Brunswick, Quebec and Ontario. Have those provinces come to an agreement with the federal government since that time?
I feel that this national physical fitness program should render a service to our population, and particularly to our youth. I turn to page 6 of a book I hold in my hand, setting out the object of this law. Doctor Heagerty states this:
The idea of national physical fitness is fostered by all who are interested in the field of physical education and chiefly by men in the physicalfitness field who are associated with schools and universities and who urged the dominion government to establish a physical-fitness plan and provide funds to enable the provinces to establish a program along lines similar to those which have been in effect in Europe for a number of years.
And farther on, he says:
It will be the duty of the council to assist in the extension of physical education; to encourage and correlate all activities relating to physical education; to formulate plans for training teachers, lecturers and instructors and to correlate efforts of the provinces to organize activities. to promote sports and to co-operate in the amelioration of physical defects amenable to improvement through physical exercise.
For many years I took a special interest in the problem of the desertion of rural districts in favour of urban centres. That problem existed thirty-five years ago, but it is more acute today than it ever was before. In my province the population in the rural districts is about equal to that in urban centres. I know that in some provinces the population living in the cities is far more considerable than that in the rural districts. That condition should not exist.

Supply-Health and Welfare
That is why I am seeking to impress upon the minister to try to convince the provincial premiers and the provincial ministers of health in all those provinces which have not come to an agreement with the federal government, to profit by this law, and to develop what I would call rural educational and recreative centres in order to give the necessary fitness to our youth, and to make them feel more at home in rural centres. To attain that, I think it would be necessary that the provinces and the federal government should act more closely together to develop those centres, and to give subsidies so that such centres may become a reality.
A year or two ago I received a brief from Vancouver concerning community centres in Canada. From it I would quote this paragraph:
In today's world the community centre is an essential part of democratic community life. It is not intended to substitute for the home, church or other forms of social life, or to replace bowling alleys, movie theatres, libraries, art galleries, museums, or concert halls.
I should like to see these rural educational centres equipped with libraries, small gymnasia, pool tables and the like, in order that the youth who gather there might find such centres more interesting than even the urban centres. I know the lights of the cities and the opportunities to go to moving picture theatres and concert halls may be attractive; but I know also that in the rural centres we have young people with great talent. Some are talented vocally; others have other musical talent which could be developed in those centres, so that they might be more appreciated by their fellow citizens. Along with the development of such talents, the fitness of our youth could be improved.
I hear hon. members speaking about those who are crippled; but I believe that we have not been sufficiently aware of the old saying that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. We have not emphasized sufficiently the point that such prevention should have been better understood by our population.
Last night I heard the hon. member for Temiscouata speak about the sanitary units in my province. The chief aim of those units is that of preventive medicine. If there were more prevehtive medicine there would not be so many cripples or blind people today. In the past the education among the people was not sufficient. When families were asked to be quarantined for measles or smallpox they did not like it. Now they have been better

educated by the sanitary units, they understand the necessity of quarantine for certain
diseases.
The doctors know that after measles, smallpox and other diseases, eyes and ears may be affected. Many people are suffering today from kidney trouble and from eye or ear troubles because the necessary precautions were not taken.
I want the minister to understand my point, even though I have not made it quite clear. I should like to see him try to convince the premiers of the provinces which have not signed agreements with the federal government that they should do so. In my province, for instance, if we had entered into an agreement, since 1947 we would have received $130,496, which is twice the amount of $65,248 which we would have received. In ten years that would mean $1,300,000, and with that amount of money we could start rural recreational and cultural centres. With the development of such centres, we could keep our youth at home and have them better contented to live in rural areas. We would then solve the problem of the desertion of the rural areas in favour of urban centres by our young people.
I know the minister is an active minister, but I think he will agree that we shall have more success if the three provinces which have not entered into agreement would agree to do so. I hope that soon he will be able to announce that agreements have been reached, and we shall then be sure of seeing the development of these centres which are so necessary to our population.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We have agreements with all provinces but two, Ontario and Quebec.


Donald Methuen Fleming: In order to save time at this stage, would the minister place on Hansard the financial statement of the national physical fitness administration for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1948?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I tabled it in the house the day before yesterday.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not mean the full report; I mean the financial statement for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1948, which is only about half a page.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I will give consideration to that.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am trying to save time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: 8237.715.13 Nil



$237,745.13 S9,635.29 $148,109.84

[Stage Direction]
* Account paid in 1948-49.
tPeriod of account May .1, 1946-April 30, 1947-paid in 1947-48. Account for 1947-48 not received.
*Grant for 1946-47 paid in 1947-48. Grant for 1947-48 paid in 1947-48. i Period of account January 1, 1947 to March 31, 1948.
Mr. JAQUES:: When the minister told us that he was removing the duty on glucose I understood 'him to say that glucose was used in the making of jams and other similar articles. I should like to ask the minister whether his advisers consider the use of glucose in the manufacture of jams and other articles as being an aid to physical fitness? My experience is that it is an injurious adulteration of jam or anything else.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I shall be glad to have that looked into at once.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I have that report?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have not it before me, but I Shall see that it is made available.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Welfare branch-National physical fitness
[Stage Direction]
276.	Assistance to provinces, $100,353.
Paul Joseph James Martin: The expenditures for 1947-48 were $89,635.29; no unliquidated commitments; total commitments, 889,635.29.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Could we have the figures for item 275?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Expenditures, $31,938.33; unliquidated commitments, $11,190.36; total commitments, $43,128.69.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
*Welfare branch-
277.	Assistance to schools of social work, $50,000.
Donald Methuen Fleming: How was this money spent last year?
Supply-Health and Welfare


Paul Joseph James Martin: The grants for the schools for 1947-48 were as follows:
Maritime school of social work^		$ 3,250
School of social work of Laval University	- [DOT] [DOT]	6,560
School of social work of the University
of Montreal	    6,670
School of social work of McGill University	  7,300
School of social work of the University
of Toronto	;[DOT][DOT][DOT][DOT].[DOT][DOT]	12,230
School of social work of the University
of Manitoba	  4,430
School of social work of the University
of British Columbia	 9,560

Item agreed to.
Miscellaneous grants-
Grant to:
280. Health league of Canada, $10,000.


Mr. HERRIDGE:: Could the minister give the officers of this organization and details of the work that it does? I have received considerable correspondence, and I know there are many people who are not well informed.
I was wondering if there is an overlapping with the work of the Canadian public health association or w'ith departmental activities?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Health League of Canada is a voluntary body which is doing a great deal of work in the way of health education. The director is Doctor Bates, and the president is Mr. H. H. Bishop of Toronto. They publish the magazine, Health, and I cannot speak too highly of their work. The provinces, some municipalities and the dominion make contributions.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
282. Canadian National Institute for the Blind, $18,000.
Douglas Gooderham Ross: How much did the Canadian National Institute for the Blind request this year? Did they get what they requested?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is now under consideration.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: How much did they request?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I forget the full amount,-offhand, but it is now under consideration.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Did the minister get any request from the institute for the hard of hearing?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes. That, too, is under consideration.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: People who are totally deaf can be aided. You cannot do anything for people who are totally blind. People

who are hard of hearing can be aided. I suggest that intensive research be instigated, through the Department of National Health and Welfare and through the national council, to bring aid within reasonable bounds to those who are hard of hearing, in regard to the cost of hearing aids and also in regard to the cost of maintaining them. That is important. I do not think nearly enough attention has been paid to the handicap of those persons who are hard of hearing. The blind people get everything done for them. The institute is doing very well. I understand that the Canadian national institute is connected with the hard of hearing as well. It is a serious thing to be hard of hearing, far more serious than the average individual realizes. There is the great economic loss to the country as well. I suggest that some contribution be made toward the work that the institute is doing for the hard of hearing, so that they may be able to carry on that work.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
2S7.	Victorian Order of Nurses, $13,100.
Mr. WEBB:: I am particularly interested in this item. Last year when the hon. member for Wentworth took up this item the minister said at that time he would be glad to give it serious consideration, meaning, of course, that the grant is exactly the same this year as it was last year. It has been my privilege to be closely associated with the Victorian Order of Nurses in Canada for several years. The financial statement presented at the annual meeting this year, which, incidentally, was the fiftieth anniversary of this order, was somewhat alarming. I made it my business to check into the affairs of the order, and I believe it would be interesting to hon. members and to many people outside if I were to put some figures on the record. It will not take long.


William Henry Golding: Does the hon. member wish to place them on the record?


George Robert Webb: It consists of just a few figures.


An hon. MEMBER:: Eleven o'clock.


George Robert Webb: I am sorry if it is going to keep anybody up, or anything like that.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go ahead.


George Robert Webb: I have found that there has been a tremendous increase in the Victorian Order visiting nursing service during the past few years. In 1944, in round figures, 732,000 visits were made; in 1945, 757,000 visits; in 1946, 853,000 visits, and in 1947, 906,000 visits, or an increase of 23-8 per cent in the last three years.

Supply-Health and Welfare
In 1947, forty per cent of the visits were to mothers before and after the birth of the baby for care and health counseling and for assistance to the doctor when the baby was born at home. Some 187,471 visits were made to the mothers and newborn who returned home from hospital, to demonstrate the baby's bath and establish a plan for the care of the baby. Forty-seven per cent of the visits were to medical and surgicial patients of all ages, some of them with long-term illnesses. Owing to the extension of life expectancy, people are living to a greater age, and the care of the older age group has become a major health problem. The Victorian Order cares for many of these people who do not need institutional care, and are happier in their home environment. Victorian Order nurses are taking an active part in the campaign for the prevention of cancer. They use their many opportunities to teach the importance of health examinations for early diagnosis. Last year they made 37,000 visits to give care to 1,487 patients under treatment for cancer.
The Victorian Order gives care to many patients who would otherwise need hospital treatment, and to patients discharged as soon as their condition permits, to release beds for more urgent cases. This relieves the pressure on overcrowded hospitals and reduces the cost of illness to the patient and to the community. During the year, 41,904 visits were made to patients on their return home from hospital.
The Victorian Order provides nursing care to the community at a reasonable cost which permits people in moderate circumstances to have a nursing service for which they can pay. The charge may be reduced when the patients cannot afford the full fee, and when necessary, the visit is made without charge. The service is for everyone. Every call is answered, but care is continued only when the patient is under medical treatment.
During 1947, twenty-two per cent of the visits were made to people who paid the full fee; in sixteen per cent of the visits the fee was reduced; ten per cent of the visits were paid for by insurance companies for care to policy holders, and fifty-two per cent were made without charge.
As soon as nurses are available, new organizations will be set up in several other places. This heavy demand on the Victorian Order of nursing service, the increased cost of operating and the cost of training nurses in public health, have placed an increasingly heavy burden on this order. During the past four years, the educational training of nurses alone has required 872,400. The budget for 1948 shows an estimated deficit of 843,900, and includes a further 814,000 for training 5849-3404
purposes, with consideration for an additional appropriation if suitable nurses and funds are available. Prior years I find show7 the following deficits:
1947	 $ 37,458
1946	 41,050
1945	 44,838
1944	 12,737
1943	 7,388
1942	 3,247
Total	 $143,718
To meet these deficits, it has been necessary to draw on capital funds to the extent, of $137,000.
The annual grant from the dominion government has remained at 813,100 since 1934, although during the period from that year to date the number of Victorian Order branches has risen from 79 to 104, an increase of 31-6 per cent. A comparison of the number of patients served shows an increase of 46-7 per cent.
I am told that the president and members of the management committee have brought this service, and the need of increased financial support, to the personal attention of the minister and the deputy minister of national health and welfare. Personally I feel, and I know the minister feels, very sympathetic toward this order. I was quite impressed this year when the minister attended the annual meeting and brought his good wishes and every feeling of sympathy toward the order, but that does not carry the order on from the financial standpoint. I feel at this stage that with the increased service which the order has given across Canada, it is definitely entitled to some consideration in the way of an additional grant. I wonder if the minister, after making the statement he did1 last year, which I believe his predecessor also made, that serious consideration would be given this item, has in fact given it that consideration. If so, why has it not resulted in a larger amount being brought in for this order?


Howard Charles Green: Is the minister not giving an answer?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The matter is being given active consideration at the moment along with other grants.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
289.	Canadian Red Cross Society, $10,009.
Donald Methuen Fleming: With regard to all these items, I suppose we may assume that payments were made in accordance with the amounts appropriated?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Supply-Health and Welfare
[Stage Direction]
Demobilization and reconversion-
290.	Grant to Canadian Nurses' Association, $9,719.
Donald Methuen Fleming: What is the amount?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Expenditures, $46,525;
unliquidated commitments, none; total commitments, $46,525.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Demobilization and reconversion-
291.	War charities division administration, $13,412.
Donald Methuen Fleming: What is the amount?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Expenditures, $27,934.81; unliquidated commitments, $33.09; total commitments, $27,967.90.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Demobilization and reconversion-
292.	Division of voluntary war relief, $7,259.
Donald Methuen Fleming: What is the amount?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Expenditures, $13,138.77;
unliquidated commitments, none; total commitments, $13,138.77.
I promised my hon. friend that I would give the total departmental expenditures, unliquidated commitments, and total commitments. Expenditures authorized by statute: $321,267,178.61; unliquidated commitments, none; total commitments authorized by statute, the same amount. To be voted: expenditures, $11,889,820.31; unliquidated commitments, $238,853.53; total commitments, $12,128,673.84.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will this be the last year that these will be continued as demobilization and reconversion items?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I expect so.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.

Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker, I move the adjournment of the house. Tomorrow we shall take up Bill No. 344, to amend the Lord's Day Act; Bill No. 195, to provide for the investigation, conciliation and settlement of industrial disputes; Bill No. 343, to amend the Government Annuities Act. When these have been considered we shall go into committee of supply, taking the estimates of trade and commerce, reconstruction and supply, veterans affairs and agriculture.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the house adjourned at 11.15 p.m.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:

[Stage Direction]
National health branch-
246.	National health branch administration, $122,823.
247.	Food and drugs, $540,953.
248.	Proprietary or patent medicines, $24,556.
249.	Opium and narcotic drugs, $115,144.
250.	Quarantine and leprosy, $251,334.
251.	Laboratory of hygiene, $267,354.
252.	Immigration medical inspection (including "maintenance, non-resident seamen", formerly under demobilization and reconversion), $643,683.
253.	Child and maternal health, $71,565.
254.	Public health engineering. $161,292.
255.	Treatment of sick mariners, $437,981.
256.	Industrial health, $99,364.
257.	Civil service health, $212,630.
258.	Nutrition, $150,816.
Combating veneral diseases-
259.	Administration, $37,363.
260.	Assistance to provinces for control of venereal disease under regulations approved by the governor in council, $175,000.
261.	Distribution of drugs under regulations approved by the governor in council, $50,000.
262.	Health insurance studies, $23,302.
263.	Dental health, $42,551.
264.	Hospital designs, $24,664.
265.	Mental health, $79,847.
266.	Blindness control, $44,510.
267.	Epidemiology, $22,704.
268.	Grants to institutions assisting sailors, in the amounts detailed in the estimates, $2,400.
269.	Medical services-Indians and Eskimos, $7,187,530.
270.	Grants to hospitals which care for Indians and Eskimos, $55,600.
271.	Civil aviation medicine, $21,704.
272.	Welfare branch administration, $37,098. Family allowances-
273.	Administration, $1,717,513.
Old age pensions (including pensions to the blind)-
274.	Administration, $59,832.
National physical fitness-
275.	Administration, $48,871.
276.	Assistance to provinces. $100,353.
277.	Assistance to schools of social work, $50,600.
Miscellaneous grants-)
278.	Canadian Welfare Council, $12,600.
279.	Canadian National Committee for Mental Hygiene, $10,000.
280.	Health League of Canada, $10,000.
281.	Canadian Public Health Association,
$5,000.	.
282.	Canadian National Institute for the Blind, $18,000.
283.	L'Assoeiation Canadienne Franeaise des Aveugles, $4,050.
284.	L'lnstitut Nazareth de Montreal, $4,050.
285.	Montreal Association for the Blind, $4,050.
286.	Canadian Tuberculosis Association, $20,250.
287.	Victorian Order of Nurses, $13,100.
288.	St. John Ambulance Association. $4,050.
289.	Canadian Red Cross Society, $10,000.
290.	Canadian Nurses' Association, $9,719.
' 291. War charities division administration, $13,412.
292. Division of voluntary war relief, $7,259.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, June 17, 1948