1949-04-05

Mr. Jean Frangois Pouliol (Temiscouala):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege and to make a correction.


Mr. Speaker:: Order!


Jean-François Pouliot: On March 29, Le Soleil of Quebec reported as follows part of a speech I had made the previous day:
Every speech has been a funeral oration for the United Nations which was given a first class funeral. The member for Argenteuil talked at great length on national sovereignty. What is national sovereignty? It is a square wheel. It is incomprehensible that an intelligent lawyer like Mr. Heon should speak about national sovereignty as he has done.
Here is what I said, Mr. Speaker, as reported on page 2103 of Hansard:
I heard the member for Argenteuil (Mr. Heon) speak a little while ago. He talked about national sovereignty. Whoever thought of that? It is a square wheel; it is nonsense. I cannot understand such a brilliant lawyer using that expression. It shows how-I will not use the word "silly"-strange some people can be in their reasoning when they begin to talk on matters that they know nothing about.
(Text):
I was referring, Mr. Speaker, to an erroneous report which had been made of a speech which I delivered on March 28 in reply to the hon. member for Argenteuil (Mr. Heon).



REFERENCE TO ANONYMOUS LETTER

Jean-François Pouliot: rise now, Mr. Speaker, on a special question of privilege by virtue of standing order 16 and standing order 41, which deal with the use of abusive language in reference to members of parliament. In Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, second edition, there are several citations dealing with the privileges and immunities of members of parliament, and I would draw your attention to citations 151, 153 and 157. Citation 157 reads:
Interference with or reflections upon members have been resented as indignities to the house itself. May, 79.
Among the expressions that have been ruled to be unparliamentary in the British House of Commons is the adverb "cowardly". The adjective "coward" has the same meaning, and is just as objectionable. Let me refer you to the latest edition of Campion's Introduction to the Procedure of the House of Commons; I quote from page 71 as follows:
Attempts to threaten or intimidate members for their actions in the house have been declared to be breaches of privilege by the house, and offenders have been punished in numerous instances by reprimand or imprisonment. Libels on members have also been constantly punished, but they cannot be raised as breaches of privilege if they concern a member in any other respect than his conduct in the house.
Questions of privilege refer to the conduct of a member of parliament in the house in the fulfilment of his parliamentary duties. Paragraph 8 on page 194 refers to May, where is to be found a list of expressions to which exception has been taken at various times. I would refer also to Bourinot at page 361 and following. At page 363 it says that it is a breach of privilege to impute want of courage to a member of parliament. I also have the fourteenth edition of May, and I refer to pages 102, 103, 431, 432'and 441. At page 441 there is a paragraph entitled "the use of disorderly or unparliamentary words."
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I now come to the question of privilege proper. I have been a member of parliament for nearly twenty-five years.


Mr. MacNicol:: And a good member of parliament.


Jean-François Pouliot: In my long career I have no knowledge of an anonymous letter being sent to any member of parliament by one of his colleagues. It may seem strange, but the envelope is a House of Commons envelope. It was mailed at the House of Commons post office, and is stamped with the House of Commons stamp, including the date, March 28. It is addressed to "G."-for George-F. " Poulio," M.P., "Temiscouta, H. of Commons." There is no frank. If there were a frank it would not be an anonymous letter.
This is the letter, which is on House of Commons paper. I think it was Shakespeare who said, "He jests at scars that never felt a wound." This letter is an insult to every member of the House of Commons, on account of the two letters "M.P." as the signature

Privilege
at the bottom of it. I shall read the letter. I do not know who sent it to me. I have been on good terms with all my colleagues, but I consider that this letter is unique in my long experience as a member of parliament.
The letter reads as follows:
House of Commons Canada


Mr.   Poulio@: A man who is not yellow-
And "yellow" is underlined twice.
-and has the courage of his convictions should stay in the house and vote. You gave the impression of a coward who runs away in the face of danger. You are not a Liberal but a jackal, and we are ashamed of you I

Of course, Mr. Speaker, jackals feed on carrion, small animals and poultry. It is a sign of a certain degree of modesty on the part of the writer of the anonymous letter. I will send you, Mr. Speaker, the envelope and the letter as soon as the official reporters have copied it. I hope that Your Honour will investigate this incident, which is unique, and take whatever action Your Honour may deem to be necessary under the circumstances.


Mr. Speaker:: May I say to the hon. member for Temiscouata that I have noted his remarks, and, if it is deemed necessary, after due consideration, the whole constabulary force of the House of Commons will be put on the alert to find the guilty party.



REFERENCE TO REMARKS IN DEBATE ON APRIL 4

Mr. J. G. L. Langlois (Gaspe):: I rise on a question of privilege. At page 2325 of Hansard of April 4, 1949, I am reported as having said the following:


J. G. Léopold Langlois: It was at the time when Hitler
was a friend of ours.
In the French text at page 2332 my remark is translated as follows:


M. Langlois:: C'etait l'epoque oil Hitler etait un de nos amis.
The report of my remarks in Hansard tends to convey the impression that this opinion about Hitler was my own, which is absolutely incorrect. My interjection was based on a report in the Globe and Mail of November 1, 1935, having to do with an address made by Colonel George Drew at the Empire club, Toronto, on October 31 of that year. The report reads in part:
I do not suggest, and I do not believe, that Germany is hostile to the British empire. I know from conversations I had in Germany this summer that their foreign policy is directed towards establishing British friendship more than to any other objective.


Mr. Graydon:: You cannot make a political speech on a question of privilege.
[Mr. Pouliot.j


J. G. Léopold Langlois: It is a question of privilege.


Gordon Graydon: Take it to the hustings; that is where it belongs.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I understand that the hon. member has stated his point of privilege.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker; I did not hear what you said. I am rising on a question of privilege. Some remarks have been attributed to me which do not originate with me.


Gordon Graydon: You cannot make a political speech on a question of privilege. Take it to the hustings; that is where it belongs.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: I am merely giving the house the source of my information. I have just ended the quotation, and what I said-


Mr. Drew:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Gaspe has risen on a question of privilege. I would ask him to state his question of privilege as briefly as possible.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: Having ended the quotation, I now wish to repeat what I said last night. It was as follows:
This was at the time when you-
Referring to the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew).
-claimed that Hitler was a friend of ours.


Mr. Cockeram:: That is not what you said last night.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: I ought to know; and I therefore ask you, Mr. Speaker, to have the necessary correction made in both the English and the French text.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, the correction that has just been made was not related, of course,-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The leader of the opposition knows that he should rise only on a point of order or a question of privilege.


George Alexander Drew: I am rising on a question of privilege. What has just been said by the hon. member in the last part of his remarks deals with the question of privilege. What the hon. member attempted to read into the record was unrelated to that, and I simply want to say that the slander that he has repeated is one that the communists have been using in Ontario.


Gordon Graydon: You are finished in Gaspe.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: You are invited to come and find out for yourself.



BRITISH COLUMBIA APPLES


Mr. O. L. Jones (Yale):: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct the attention of the house to a few samples of Okanagan Delicious apples, which have been placed on the desks of the ministers. We feel that in the Okanagan we produce the best apples in the world, and we are placing them before the ministers partly as a tribute to the policy of this government in providing cold storage subsidies in our tree fruit area. Provision of these cold storage facilities has made it possible to have these apples in such fine condition in April; for if you examine them I believe you will find them to be first-class, both as to colour and as to quality.


Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Speaking on the same point of privilege, as a co-donor of the apples, which were sent down through the courtesy of Mr. A. K. Loyd, president of British Columbia Tree Fruits Limited, I and my colleagues from British Columbia only regret that there were not sufficient to permit each hon. member to have one. Since there were not enough for that, we placed them on the desks of the cabinet and leaders of the various parties. One was also placed on your chair, Mr. Speaker, and I am glad to note that you have put it in a place of safekeeping. I am sure when the hon. members who have been fortunate enough to receive these apples eat them, they will agree with us that the controversy as to where the finest apples in the world come from has been satisfactorily concluded.


Mr. George C. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Mr. G. A. Cruickshank (Fraser Valley):: Speaking also as a co-donor of these apples, I am going to follow the example given us the other day by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher) and say a word in French.
(Translation):
I have been glad to help in the distribution of the apples and I regret that they were not available for all members.
(Text):


Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fort William):: Speaking to this question of privilege, it seems to me that when anyone from British Columbia or any other place distributes samples, they should not give them only to ministers but also to members of the press gallery.


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask hon. members now to be kind enough to proceed with the business of the house. The hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) noted the fact that
National Capital Plan
the apple placed on Mr. Speaker's chair had disappeared. They say an apple a day keeps the doctor away. If I had kept the apple, the Speaker might have disappeared, and I want to remain in the house.



BANKING AND COMMERCE

[Stage Direction]
First report of standing committee on banking and commerce.-Mr. Cleaver.


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: I table copy of order in council P.C. 1569, dated March 31, 1949, transferring, under the Public Service Rearrangement and Transfer of Duties Act, control of the dependents allowance board from the Minister of National Defence to the Minister of Veterans Affairs.



NATIONAL CAPITAL PLAN


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I should like to take this opportunity to correct the answer given on March 28 to a question submitted by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton). The answer is to be found at page 2059 of Hansard. It had to do with a question concerning the amount of $2,500,000 appropriated by parliament last year for the purposes of the national capital plan. The question was how much has been expended so far, and the second part read:
Has any specific part of the said sum been approved or appropriated for expenditure in connection with the acquisition of lands in the Hurd-man's bridge area?
The answer was that no amount had been expended or appropriated. Between the time the answer was prepared and the present day, authority has been obtained for the expenditure of $750,000 from the national capital fund to cover the cost of acquiring lands south of Ottawa for the purposes indicated in the first interim report of the national capital planning committee tabled July 7, 1947. A part of this amount could be allotted to the acquisition of lands in the Hurdman's bridge area.



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport) moved:: That items 488, 489 and 556 of the main estimates for 1950, approved and reported upon on Friday. April 1. 1949, by the sessional committee on railways


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.	speaks for itself.


[Stage Direction]
On the order for motions:
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I have pleasure in informing the house that an agreement has just been signed with the province of Ontario under the provisions of the National Physical Fitness Act, 1943. This agreement has been signed by Hon. Dana Porter, provincial minister of education, on behalf of the province of Ontario, and by myself on behalf of the federal government.
Under this act the federal government provides financial assistance to the provinces annually to assist them in the development of their physical fitness and recreation programs. This amount is divided on a per capita basis among the various provinces. Ontario's maximum share under this formula amounts to $74,063.25 annually. The federal grant matches provincial expenditures dollar for dollar up to this maximum.
The signing of this agreement with the province of Ontario brings to eight the number of provinces which are now co-operating with the dominion government in a physical fitness and recreation program. British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island have been carrying on programs under the National Physical Fitness Act since 1944. New Brunswick and the Northwest Territories entered into agreements for the first time in 1947. This leaves the province of Quebec as the only province under the National Physical Fitness Act which has not yet entered into an agreement with the federal government to take advantage of the financial provisions of the act.
I should of course add that an agreement can be entered into between Newfoundland and the federal government under the Statute Law Amendment Act.


Mr. John O. Probe (Regina City):: I should like to address an impromptu question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, following the announcement he has just made. Will the minister indicate whether the announcement of the inclusion of Ontario as a participant in the National Physical Fitness Act, and the report in today's press that the national physical fitness council is sponsoring eight post-graduate scholarships in physical



PIPE LINES ACT


Lionel Chevrier: the first reading of Bill No. 190 (from the Senate) respecting oil or gas pipe lines.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 191, for the relief of Robert William Goudie.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 192, for the relief of Nancy Catherine Harrison Moore.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 193, for the relief of Claire Wiseman Grynberg.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 194, for the relief of Clare Breitman Elias.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 195, for the relief of Lillian Florence Katherine Kaye Kulik.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 196, for the relief of Freda Simin-ovitch Mosessohn.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 197, for the relief of Agathe Groulx Grenier.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 198, for the relief of Pamela Mabel Macrory Cameron.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 199, for the relief of Muriel Fishman Schmelz.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 200, for the relief of Virgile Zenor Joseph Poncelet.-Mr. Stuart (Charlotte).
Bill No. 201, for the relief of Mary Besner Bray.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 202, for the relief of Philip Wanton Engs.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No 203, for the relief of Blanche Marie Yvonne Boissonneau Dunlop.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 204, for the relief of Najla Tabah Ayoup.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 205, for the relief of Betsy Bruce Anderson Furlong.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 206, for the relief of Doris Mary Marjorie Evans Champagne.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 207, for the relief of David Anderson Guthrie.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 208, for the relief of Frieda Stubina Lobe.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No 209, for the relief of Mary Bridget Ellen Conway Demers.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 210, for the relief of Alexandrine Gauthier Boisvert.-Mr. Winkler.
[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 211, for the relief of Mary Grant Macintosh Dobell.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 212, for the relief of Marie Louise Irene Bouchard Magill.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 213, for the relief of Thelma Jennie Alvera Brownlee Leslie.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 214, for the relief of Elsie Roberta McCutcheon Cornish.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 215, for the relief of Vera Maude Rimmer Gasper.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 216, for the relief of Veronica Gazantseff Darrell.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 217, for the relief of Elsie Smith Brothers.-Mr. Emmerson.
Bill No. 218, for the relief of John Howard Clendenning.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 219, for the relief of Bessie Lillian Lockhart.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 220, for the relief of May Victoria Gledhill Hossack.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 221, for the relief of Marshall Frederick Lebeau.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 222, for the relief of Miriam Sarah Celeste Glass Butler.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 223, for the relief of Edna Vivian Eulie Hewitt Colclough.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 224, for the relief of Gladys Isabelle Brown Farewell.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 225, for the relief of Gladys Rollins Wilson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 226, for the relief of Anna May Tedstone Mose.-Mr. MacLean.
Bill No. 227, for the relief of Elsie Knight-Huckle Metayer.-Mr. MacLean.
Bill No. 228, for the relief of Charles Emile Groleau.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 229, for the relief of Olive Eva LaBeau Carlson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 230, for the relief of Julia Catherine Dwane Raymond.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 231, for the relief of Philip Slutsken.-Mr. Winkler.


Paul Joseph James Martin: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to amend the Family Allowances Act, 1944, to shorten from three to one year the residence period required as one of the conditions of eligibility of a child, and also to remove the decreasing scale provided in the amount of allowance payable when more than four children are maintained.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
5,	1949	2335
Inquiries of the Ministry AIRPORTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. O. White (Middlesex East):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Transport. It arises out of the tragic plane crash at Crumlin, Ontario, and reports that the receiving and transmitting equipment at the airport were not operating satisfactorily. Will the minister make a statement to the house as to the improved facilities that are planned for that airport?


Lionel Chevrier: The accident to which my hon. friend has referred has been investigated. I have not seen the report, but when I have seen it I shall be glad to make a statement.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Angus Maclnnis (Vancouver East):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Will the minister give the house a report on the shipping strike which now has tied up deep-sea shipping on the Pacific as well as the Atlantic coast? May I say that this is important, and that the members of the house as well as the people of the country should have a factual report on the situation.


Hon. Humphrey Mitchell (Minister of Labour):: I expected someone would ask me this question today, so I have come prepared to answer it.
For some months the dispute involving unlicensed personnel employed by the Canadian deep-sea shipping companies has been receiving the attention of the Department of Labour under the conciliation procedure laid down by parliament in the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act.
Late last September I was advised that the shipowners and the Canadian seamen's union had been unable to arrive at any settlement in their negotiations for a renewal of their collective agreement, which was due to expire on October 15, 1948. I appointed a conciliation officer, who held a number of conferences with the parties but was unable to reconcile the differences between them. Following receipt of the conciliation officer's report I appointed a board of conciliation and investigation, under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice J. O. Wilson, of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, the other members of

Inquiries of the Ministry the board being Theodore Meighen, K.C., of Montreal, nominated by the shipowners, and John Kerry, K.C., also of Montreal, nominated by the union.
The conciliation board conducted an exhaustive investigation into all the matters in dispute, and held extensive public hearings in Montreal. Finding that it was unable to effect a settlement, the board reported to me in February. The report of the board was unanimous, and was accompanied by a draft agreement which the board recommended for execution by the shipowners and the union.
The shipowners subsequently advised me that they were prepared to accept the recommendations of the conciliation board, but the union rejected the board's recommendations, stating that the recommended hiring arrangements would bring about a chaotic condition and that the over-all effect of the proposed agreement would involve a reduction in the take-home pay of the seamen. The union proposed that further conferences with the shipowners be held.
I might remind hon. members that under the provisions of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act the prohibitions against the parties as to strikes or lockouts are no longer in effect seven days after the receipt of the conciliation board's report.
About ten days ago the Canadian seamen's union adopted a new procedure, that of having the seamen refuse to sign new sailing articles, thus preventing the ships from sailing. Delays have occurred to several ships, including some Canadian National steamships. Since that time the officers of my department-and when I say the officers of my department I include myself-have kept in close touch with developments on the east coast, and have made it known to the parties that the conciliation services of the department would be available to them at any time.
On Thursday of last week, at the request of Mr. Percy R. Bengough, president of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, the deputy minister of labour and the director of industrial relations of the labour department met a delegation consisting of Mr. Bengough and Messrs. Harry Davis and T. G. McManus, president and secretary of the Canadian seamen's union. The conversations were of an exploratory nature, and were discontinued late that afternoon when it was learned that the seafarers international union of North America had entered into an agreement with the east coast shipowners. ,
The department has been advised by a number of shipowners that they have received

a letter from Mr. Joseph P. Ryan, president of the international longshoremen's association, in the following terms:
You are aware of the controversy involving the Canadian seamen's union, the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, the American Federation of Labor, and a number of affiliated A.F. of L. organizations.
This situation is giving cause for grave concern to a number of international unions, including those engaged in the shipping and maritime industry. Among these is the longshoremen's association, which is anxious to see that this controversy is disposed of in such a way as to eliminate those communist elements which have kept the industry in an unsettled condition for so long.
We would be disturbed if your company continued to give aid and comfort to the communist group, particularly the Canadian seamen's union, and we feel that we should advise you of this so that our own relations and operations may be continued on an amicable basis.
And a subsequent telegram from Mr. Ryan reading as follows:
Please advise if you are now in a position to assure me crews on your vessels will not come under domination of communists in order that loading and unloading instructions may be given my people.
That reference is to unloading instructions in the United States.
These communications may have an indirect bearing on the owners' consideration of the matter. Advices from Halifax are to the effect that: (a) Canadian members of Mr. Ryan's organization at Halifax and Saint John are respecting the picket lines of the Canadian seamen's union; (b) members of the Canadian seamen's union have left the C.N.R. vessel upon being served with a court order to do so; (c) there have been no disturbances at these ports.



REPORTED UNEMPLOYMENT AT HEAD OF THE LAKES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ronald Moore (Churchill):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour, of which I have not given him notice. The question arises out of a radio announcement yesterday evening to the effect that there are large numbers of unemployed in Port Arthur and Sault Ste. Marie. It was stated that legal action would be taken against transients entering Sault Ste. Marie.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would call the hon. member's attention to the fact that the purpose of a question is not to give information to the house; it is to obtain information.


Ronald Stewart Moore: My question is this. In view of the serious labour situation at the head of the lakes, is the minister in a position to make a statement to the house at this time?


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I can make a statement to the house. It is a simple one. Anyone who has any knowledge of the head of the lakes knows that at the moment there is a seasonal fluctuation of labour there. Men are coming out of the woods, and they will be going back. I make this prediction, notwithstanding the calamity howlers: this will be the greatest year of productive effort this nation has ever seen.


Gordon Graydon: It will be at its height about June, I fancy.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



STRAIT OF CANSO


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. I sent him notice of it on March 30. This is the first day since then that we have had an opportunity to meet him on the orders of the day. Can the minister give the house some indication of the date on which his department will call for tenders for the construction of the bridge across the strait of Canso?


Lionel Chevrier: The board of engineers set up to consider modes of transportation recommended to the government that an agency be set up for the purpose of constructing the bridge. The government has accepted that recommendation. I hope to be in a position this week to state that a consulting engineer has been appointed to prepare the plans and specifications. Just as soon as that has been done, tenders will be asked for.


Clarence Gillis: Thank you.


Gordon Graydon: Will that be before June?


Clarence Gillis: That is progress.


Mr. Brooks:: It takes an election.


Mr.  J. T. Hackeil@Sianstead: I should like to ask the Minister of Transport what type of agency has been set up by the government to construct a bridge across the strait of Canso.


Lionel Chevrier: I said that that matter would be decided some time this week, and I shall be prepared then to make an announcement. I think it will be a consulting engineer, but I am not prepared to say at this time.
Inquiries of the Ministry INCOME TAX



FARMERS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: As reported at page 2229 of Hansard of April 1, the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Jutras) requested-
-a full statement ... as to any additional consideration now being given fanners with regard to the allowance for depreciation on the farm house, because of the preponderant part it plays in the farm business; and also as to the basis on which it is to be calculated.
My answer is this: In view of the large part which the farm home plays in the conduct of the farm business, it has been decided that commencing in 1948 a farmer who resides on the farm may claim depreciation on the cost of the farm house at one-quarter of the usual rate of depreciation, and may also claim one-quarter of the cost of repairs to the house, in addition to the full amount of the cost for light, power, taxes, telephone and fire insurance. As indicated, the basis on which this depreciation will be calculated is on the cost of the farm house.


Mr. McCullough (Assiniboia):: Is any provision made for depreciation of farm houses which are used fully for hired help, in addition to the allowance now allowed for farm houses?


James Joseph McCann: That matter has not been taken into consideration. The statement which I made took into consideration only the farm home.



QUESTION AS TO EXEMPTION OF UNION DUES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Since trade union dues are in the nature of a business expense, will the government consider allowing them as an income tax deduction?


James Joseph McCann: That is a matter of policy, Mr. Speaker. When a change is made, it will be announced.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  W. Chester S. McLure@Queens: I have an urgent question to ask the Minister of Public Works-due notice of which I have given him-concerning future housing of

Inquiries of the Ministry owners and tenants. My question arises out of an answer he gave me to a previous question. When will the government pay for these properties, and when will owners and tenants have to vacate in order for such tenants and owners to be able to make other arrangements for housing in the year 1949?


Hon. Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public Works):: In this year's estimates an amount is provided for the acquisition of these properties. The amount will be paid to the owners when the negotiations are completed.
I have instructed my officers to give six months' notice to vacate. I do not believe we shall need these properties before September 1 of this year.



SILVER FOXES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  W. Chesler S. McLure@Queens: should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance, due notice of which I have given him. Has the minister received from the Canadian National silver fox breeders association a copy of their unanimous resolution demanding that the tax for processing silver fox furs, and also the other taxes, be removed immediately?


Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance):: I have not received any representations in recent weeks from the association referred to, but I think I received representations last January.



INQUIRIES FOR RETURNS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver South):: I should like to ask the Acting Secretary of State if he will find out when I may expect a return in answer to a question asked on March 2 concerning crown companies.


Hon. Colin Gibson (Acting Secretary of State):: I shall be glad to have the matter looked into for my hon. friend.



CONTRACTS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF VESSELS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. King Hazen (Saint John-Alberl):: should like to ask the Acting Secretary of State when I may expect an answer to a question of mine about shipping; it was passed as an order for return on March 10 last.


Colin William George Gibson: I shall have the question looked into and an answer made as soon as possible.


Douglas Charles Abbott: that the house go into committee of supply.



NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE

Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Rosetown-Biggar):: Before you leave the chair, Mr. Speaker, I wish to discuss a matter which I could not bring up on the orders of the day because it requires some explanation. I do not want to delay the house too long, but I think the time has come when we should get from the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) a statement of the government's policy with respect to national health insurance. The house and the country need to know, by means of a categorical statement, whether the government of Canada is in favour of national health insurance or not. If it is in favour of national health insurance, when is it going to take the initiative in bringing it about?
I know of course that a great deal has been made of the relatively inadequate health grants which have been made available to the provinces over the last year or so; but it seems to me that if we are to have a real health plan in Canada we should not rely upon a system of that kind. We should have a definite bill before us so that an act of parliament governing national health insurance could be put on the statute book.
I bring this question before the house because there are rumours that a federal election is in the air.


Mr. Hackett:: Do you believe that?


Major James William Coldwell: Whether I believe it or not, I tell the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett) that rumours are in the air. During the last general election, in 1945, a great deal of attention was paid to national health insurance, by gentlemen who occupy seats on the government side, and their supporters. In 1944 a draft bill was introduced into this chamber and received first reading. A draft bill was before the social security committee of the House of Commons and was thoroughly gone into. I remember that in 1945 this bill was placed before the electors in printed form. It was taken up and down the country, and the people were told: This is the bill that the government intends to do something with if it is re-elected. I have heard nothing of the bill since. It was a very important measure, so important that a great deal of attention was paid to it.
I note that the committee on social security of that time heard 117 witnesses, representing thirty-two groups, including the health insurance committees which had

appeared before the advisory committee on health insurance. All groups expressed themselves generally in favour of the principle of health insurance. After discussing the draft bill the special committee on social security made the following report to this House of Commons:
The committee approves of the general principles of health insurance set forth in the health insurance bill respecting public health, health insurance, the prevention of disease and other -matters related thereto.
If hon. members will look at the bills- and I use the plural-which were discussed at that time, they will find that a most comprehensive plan of health insurance was indeed approved by that committee and placed before the house, and,- as I say, it was printed and discussed across the country.
Those of us who are much interested in this type of legislation have been waiting for a statement from the government and from the minister as to what the present intention is with respect to the recommendations made by that committee several years ago.
As I remember the bill-and I looked it up-the draft bill and the sample bill which was attached to it covered medical, dental, pharmaceutical, hospital, nursing and all the other services required in illness. Many of our people thought that it was going to be put into effect. Indeed, in my own province of Saskatchewan something of that kind has been put into effect. It was done because the provincial government believed that it would receive some aid in carrying out a general health plan, or that this would become a part of a general health plan for Canada. They have been disappointed.
I want to find out what is the government's policy in regard to this matter now. I repeat that grants by order in council are uncertain and unsatisfactory. If we are to have a national health plan which will meet the needs of the Canadian people, it has to be on a dominion-wide basis. It is true it will have to be by provincial administration, but it should be in the form of a statute and not by way of estimates and orders in council. What I want to find out is if the idea has been abandoned; because I have been looking up newspapers, and I find, for example, that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) spoke in Toronto on April 1, and in the course of that speech he recalled a recent statement by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), in which the Prime Minister said:
It is up to the people and the government in each province to take the initiative in working out health insurance plans in line with their local conditions and their traditions.
National Health Insurance
Then my hon. friend himself commented:
Canada, through such measures as the Atlantic security pact, was building bastions around its way of life, but must not fail the cause of humanity by slackening up the drive forward towards social justice.
How thoroughly I agree with that! But what I am pointing out is that the government appears to have slowed up the pace in matters of social justice. The minister goes on:
If this nation is to withstand the pressures of other political philosophies, Canadians must continue to shape up in this country measures for the health and welfare of our people that no other country can surpass.
We are a long way from shaping up in our country measures which no other country can surpass. I have been disappointed in what I have read. I have before me a copy of an article which appeared in the Washington Post in January of this year, and I have the page. This article was written by a gentleman who is opposed to the national health plans proposed in the United States by the present president. I refer to Dr. Graham L. Davis, who is the director of the division of hospitals, W. K. Kellogg Foundation, of Battle Creek, Michigan. Dr. Davis had been in Canada. May I just say that he had taken back with him a picture of the Canadian scene in regard to health, and I have learned from the premier of Saskatchewan that the references to Saskatchewan in this report are inaccurate. I am not going to comment on that reference or the report on that province, but I want to refer to this gentleman's impression of the minister and the department over which he presides. Dr. Davis writes:
My impression, gained from conversations with Paul Martin, Minister of National Health and Welfare, and Dr. G, D. W. Cameron, deputy minister of national health, and from participation in a recent three-day conference at Ottawa, is that Canada is not nearly as certain now as it was in 1945 that the compulsory health insurance proposals were the best answer to the problem of financial medical care. For this and other reasons, Canada in 1948 adopted a different approach.
Of course it was a different approach-an approach, incidentally, which is altogether different from the approach in the United States, and in Great Britain, where a scheme has gone into effect which, unpopular with certain sections of the country a year ago, is now generally regarded as the most popular piece of legislation that the government has placed upon the statute books.
In yesterday's Montreal Gazette I noticed an article by Clifton Daniel of the New York

National Health Insurance Times service, in which he discusses the health plans in Great Britain. He says this:
A prospective Conservative candidate for parliament acknowledged that the health service was the most popular measure enacted by the Labour administration, and that one of the major problems of the Conservative policy was how to make legitimate criticisms of the operations and costs of the service without seeming to attack its objectives.
Unpopular among some people a year ago, but today probably the most popular thing that the Labour government has done, is the British national health and medical plan. Similar in many respects, but not in all, to what has been done in Great Britain is the plan now before the congress of the United States which was proposed by the President during the United States elections last November. The bill now before the United States congress creates a national health insurance board within the federal security agency with an administrative set-up-part state, part federal-similar to that of the social security board. It would extend complete medical, dental, hospital and nursing care to everyone except the destitute, who would remain as charity cases. That seems to me to be a strange provision, that the people who are perhaps least able to pay and to care for themselves should be left to charitable organizations. In this it differs from the United Kingdom plan.
Doctors and hospitals could join the plan or not, as they chose. Patients would choose their own doctors, and doctors could reject them if they wished. The medical bills would be paid by the national health insurance board. Doctors would be reimbursed on a stated-fee basis varied to compensate for skills, locations and other differentials. The plan would be financed by a three per cent pay-roll tax. Of course a pay-roll tax is the poorest way to finance a measure of that description. If we are going to have a levy it should be one based on the ability of the person to bear the load. I think that is the point of view we should adopt in that regard.
While the legislation in Great Britain was unpopular in some quarters a year ago, it is now the most popular piece of legislation that the Labour government of Great Britain has put into effect. Since we have been getting so much propaganda against what is going on in Great Britain, propaganda against this health plan, propaganda that is absolutely ill-founded and false, I should like to read parts of an interview that was given by three outstanding medical men of Great Britain while in the United States recently, men who up to a year ago were in the main opposed to the British health plan.
I looked up these doctors in the 1948 British medical directory and anyone who cares to consult the directory will find that while
tMr. Coldwell.]
there are some hundreds of doctors listed these three gentlemen are among the most outstanding in their fields in the United Kingdom.
Sir Stanford Cade, K.B.E., C.B., holds many distinguished offices. He is a member of the executive of the investigating committee of the British empire cancer committee, and so on. Dr. Brian Windeyer is a professor of radiology at London university. He is the author of a number of treatises on cancer, et cetera. Dr. Alexander Haddow is a man of such world-wide reputation that one does not need to look him up in the medical directory. He is a professor of experimental pathology at the university of London, director of the Chester Beatty Research Institute, Royal Cancer Hospital, and so on.
A short time ago these gentlemen were in Memphis, Tennessee, attending the meeting of the American cancer society. At that time they were interviewed by Dr. Edward H. Skinner of Kansas City, Missouri, the editor of the Kansas City southwest clinical society's bulletin and also a leader in the national physicians' committee which is vigorously opposing national health insurance in the United States as well as the President's plan and any other plan which is for state aid in this connection.
Apparently Dr. Skinner had met at least one of these gentlemen in Great Britain last year and he thought he would find some good grist for his mill, some good ammunition to use against the health plan which is proposed in the United States and which is similar in some respects to that in effect in Great Britain. Sir Stanford Cade and Dr. Brian W. Windeyer were interviewed by Dr. Skinner and I should like to read a few extracts from the report of that interview as it appeared in the Kansas City Star:-
"What is the effect on the income and social status of English doctors?"
"Fine," said Sir Stanford.
"Fine?" Doctor Skinner said, as if his ears heard wrong.	.
"Fine," repeated Sir Stanford, and he leaned forward. "More patients, more income."
This is not what Sir Stanford had predicted of the health scheme he had opposed so vigorously during Doctor Skinner's 1947 visit to England.
"Exactly," said Sir Stanford, "it hasn't worked out as I feared. I must tell you frankly, the doctors of England are being disillusioned in a pleasant way.
We still have our essential freedom. We have more work, more pay. And the people, I am sure, are getting better medical care."
"But the cost, Sir Stanford, the cost," said the Kansas City citizen, hitching up his chair, while Doctor Joseph L. Farrow of New York, his son-inlaw, watched.
Sir Stanford shrugged.
"The cost," he said. "What did the atomic bomb cost? What did the last war cost? Destruction costs billions, so why not some billions for everybody's health, say the people."

Doctor Windeyer nodded at this and said the present government of England was not quaking at the health service cost, and was assuming the service would go on decade after decade, under Labour, Liberal or Conservative party governments.
"What are the results in terms of effectiveness of service to the patient, in office consultations and in hospitals?" was Doctor Skinner's next question.
"Good," said Doctor Windeyer. "The poor see they no longer have to depend on charity for medical care."
"Are the doctors still obligated to visit some patients in their homes?" Doctor Skinner continued.
"If the doctor has signed a contract to give them service-yes," was the answer.
"Is a patient allowed to transfer from one doctor to another-has he free choice of a physician?" "The patient has this choice, and the doctor, too, has the right not to continue to treat a patient if he feels results are not what they should be," Doctor Windeyer replied
"How does it affect hospital morale, and nursing services?" Doctor Skinner went on.
"The pay of nurses has been doubled," Doctor Windeyer said.
"Isn't there a lack of enterprise and initiative on the part of doctors? If they have a stipulated income from each patient, paid by the government, why should they seek to give improved service or seek out better ways?"
"Doctor Skinner," said Sir Stanford in response to these questions, "we are finding that the standard of care the doctor gives is as good as under the private enterprise method. A man is inherently honest and a seeker of better wavs toward health, or he isn't. That applies to different doctors in either type of service.
"I would suggest," Sir Stanford continued, "that the American doctor welcome any plan of medical service to all, projected in America. Let the doctor go into it and give the leadership.
"You have a great and rich country, fine doctors, and when the ground-swell of a national medical service starts, the opportunity is for the doctors more than for the politicians, in the final analysis.
We assume that the people trust competent doctors, under a national medical service or otherwise, and are finding that the doctor more than the politician is the determining factor in the actual control of socialized medicine. So I say to you and other American doctors-when a national health service is wanted, go into it as leaders and planners of a comprehensive enterprise desired by the majority of the people."
Then the other medical man to whom I referred, Dr. Haddow, the great cancer specialist, said something similar. He describes the British health service so far as "an instrument of achievement." I read:
"It holds potential dangers as well as potential benefits," Dr. Haddow said, "and the best policy is the flexible policy, for correcting the errors, compromising the disputes, adjusting the disorders in the administration."


Mr. Wylie:: Does the plan not apply to Scotland?


Major James William Coldwell: Of course the plan applies there also. I am reading from a United States newspaper, and unfortunately the people of that country usually refer to England, Scotland and Wales as England. If you and I were referring to the same countries we would speak either of the United Kingdom or of Great Britain, but I was reading at the time from a United States news-29087-148J
National Health Insurance paper. This scheme applies to the United Kingdom. I think anyone who has been in the United Kingdom has seen that it is appreciated in that country. I know what my own experience was last autumn in Great Britain. One day traveling on the train I heard a very heated argument between two gentlemen. I discovered afterwards that one of them, the man who was saying that thousands of pairs of spectacles were being distributed to people, and that everybody was getting new dentures, and so on, was a London lawyer. The other man pointed out to him that the people who were getting the spectacles were getting them because they needed them, and were getting new dentures because they needed new dentures. He also added that it was a public scandal that up to this time so many people in Great Britain had been deprived of spectacles and dentures because they could not pay for them. That gentleman is a surgeon. I happen to have his card in my pocket this afternoon.
One was impressed with what was being done in that country to care for those who needed care by way of medical services. In spite of the difficulties, what a wonderful thing it is to have, at least in one great democratic country, without regimentation and by the free vote of the people, a nationwide plan in which everybody participates.
The other day at dinner I heard an American, speaking to my own friends, tell a story which impressed me because a similar thing happened when we arrived at the airport in London. When we arrived there we were given a yellow card, and we were told to hold that yellow card as long as we were in Great. Britain. What did that card do? It gave me, and this American friend who told his story to my friends, the right while we were in Great Britain as visitors to participate in this great scheme. If we needed a doctor we could call one. If we needed a tooth extracted, or something else done to our teeth, we could call a dentist. If we needed! to go into a hospital we could go into a hospital and take advantage of the care that was provided by the people of that country as freely as the people of that country get it today.


John Thomas Hackett: The United States are paying for it.


Major James William Coldwell: My hon. friend says that the United States are paying for it. I think that kind of remark is beneath the hon. gentleman who made it. I have very great respect for the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett), as have all members of the house, but the-hon. member knows that is simply not true. He knows that these medical health services are being paid for by the British people out

National Health Insurance of their sterling funds, of which they have a vast quantity that they cannot use in the dollar area. Because they cannot use them in the dollar area the dollar area has had to assist in the rehabilitation of western Europe and the United Kingdom, not so much because of the United Kingdom itself as because the United Kingdom is the key to rehabilitation in the rest of the world. It is not charity; it is self-defence which has brought the European recovery plan into being.
We should not forget, either, that a short time ago we were in a common war together. In that common war those countries suffered devastation that we escaped. When we, as a part of the rehabilitation of a world which suffered from war, make a contribution to the western European nations, including Great Britain, we are simply assuming a part of the share that we should assume for the rebuilding of this devastated world. As for saying continually that the United States is paying for something, I want to say that the United States is paying for nothing in regard to the medical scheme. I appreciate the generosity of that great country in doing what it is doing for the world, but what the people of Great Britain are doing in this connection for their own social security they are doing with their own sterling funds; they are doing it out of their own resources. We should recognize that.
I am not arguing whether it is being paid ior by the United States, by Great Britain "herself, or by somebody else. What I am arguing is that this great plan which is now in effect in Great Britain, and which is working well, should be an inspiration to the minister and to the government. The minister and the government were talking about national health insurance five years ago, but now they are turning around and saying that the initiative must be taken by the provinces. That is what I am after. I am trying to get the minister and the government to say categorically to the Canadian people that they are going to take the initiative, that they are going to give leadership in the building up of a Canadian national health program that will be available to all our people so that the poorest as well as the richest can get the best medical care, the best hospitalization, the best nursing care, the best pharmaceutical, dental, optical and other facilities that are needed to ensure decent health for the whole nation.
I am keenly interested in this matter. I think that this is the most important project that the government can undertake at this time.


John Oliver Probe: At any time.


Major James William Coldwell: At any time. But I am disturbed because bit by bit I have seen the retreat from the proposals of 1944 and 1945 until today, while we get a great deal of talk and a tremendous amount of fanfare across the country, we are not getting the policy that we need. Therefore I am asking that the minister this afternoon make a categorical statement on the matter and let the people of Canada know, not in words, but by the promise to introduce a measure at this session before the election that will lay a real foundation for a medical health plan for all the people of Canada.


Jean-François Pouliot: have listened with interest to the speech which has been made by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) about socialist medicine. He has quoted to us the example of the United Kingdom. I have another example to put before the house in a few words, and it is much nearer to us. I wonder why we should take it for granted that the right must always come from Great Britain because there is a socialist government in power there at the present time.


Major James William Coldwell: That is not the reason.


John Oliver Probe: Get a little light from Saskatchewan.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: Have your factories not closed down?


Mr. Bentley:: Your woollen mill has closed down.


Jean-François Pouliot: This is not the choice of the British people.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: Your factories have closed down.


Thomas John Bentley: You have your woollen mills closed down, too.


Jean-François Pouliot: This is just an observation on the appeal of socialist policies to certain people. I am opposed categorically to compulsory health insurance, for the reason that those who need special care most of the time have not the means to pay for it, and therefore cannot contribute to the fund.


Major James William Coldwell: They get it free.


Jean-François Pouliot: Just a moment; they do not get it free as quickly as that.


Mrs. Strum:: They get it free now.


Jean-François Pouliot: Just a moment.


Mr. Irvine:: We know how they get it. You do not know any more about it than we do.


Jean-François Pouliot: Just be patient. I shall reason with you quietly, and I can bet that within a

short time you will agree with me. It is free, we are told, but who pays for it? The taxpayer.


Major James William Coldwell: Contributions.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes, but if it is by contribution those who need it most cannot have it.


Major James William Coldwell: But they have it whether or not they contribute.


Jean-François Pouliot: Either it is free to the patient or it is not. If it is not free, the patient may not have the means to make any contribution. If it is free to the patient the burden is so heavy on the shoulders of the taxpayers that very often the revenue of charitable institutions dries up. In England many people who were most generous to charitable institutions in days gone by can no longer contribute, just on account of the heavy burden of taxation caused by all sorts of socialist measures. This is one point of view. When the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) spoke he said that according to the American national health insurance board act the destitute should be left to charitable institutions.


Major James William Coldwell: That is what the act says.


Jean-François Pouliot: Well, the charitable institutions live by gifts coming from people who have money.


Major James William Coldwell: I said I disagreed with the American plan.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes, I know you disagree. The hon. gentleman who is the leader of the socialist party in the house disagrees with that measure because he believes charitable institutions should be supported by the state-


Major James William Coldwell: No, no.


Jean-François Pouliot: -instead of being supported by private individuals.


Major James William Coldwell: No, no.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am very glad my hon. friend has said that.


Mr. Williams:: That is wrong.


Jean-François Pouliot: Do not say that is small.


Arthur Henry Williams: I did not say it was small; I said it was wrong.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Golding):: Order. I would ask hon. members to refrain from interrupting the hon. gentleman who has the floor. That is not in order. Furthermore, if hon. members wish to ask a question they should rise and address the Chair. If the hon. member who is speaking remains on his feet, no other hon. gentleman should ask a question, because only one hon. member should be on his feet at a time.
National Health Insurance


Jean-François Pouliot: Thank you, Mr. Speaker; but the arduous task for me is not to speak without being interrupted, but to try to convince my hon. friends of the C.C.F. group. That is a very difficult task, but I shall go on with it and hope to make some converts. Then the hon. gentleman mentioned Dr. Skinner. I may be ignorant, but I do not know Dr. Skinner. However, "skinner" is a proper name for some doctors who practise in socialized medicine.


Major James William Coldwell: He is in private practice.


Jean-François Pouliot: I know; but some of them are skinners.


Mr. Zaplitny:: He is not a lawyer, you know; he is a doctor.


Jean-François Pouliot: If my hon. friend were in trouble I am sure he would find the fees of lawyers most reasonable for services rendered.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to your attention a splendid medical service being rendered in a free-enterprise part of the country, the province of Quebec. I am sorry I have not at hand the report of the provincial department of health, which shows great progress in the care of the people. There is one organization I cannot praise too highly; I refer to the health units which were established in the first place by the Rockefeller Foundation with the assistance of the county councils, and which are now supported by the provincial government. They are doing a marvellous work. When an epidemic breaks out somewhere the whole unit goes to that point, where there may be contagious disease. They vaccinate the children; they inspect the schools; they prevent the spread of the disease, and they are devoted to the poor. They have a dental clinic; they have trucks carrying equipment for the diagnosis of tuberculosis. Those trucks have covered a great deal of territory, and the X-rays have been most useful in warning the people against the-possible danger of tuberculosis. If one leads the reports of the department of health one must wonder at the progress that has been made.
I do not mean that the dominion government is doing nothing. I have a special tribute to pay the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin), who has given all his time to the study of these highly important social problems. He deserves special praise for that. He has also been open-minded; he invites constructive criticism, and is ready to do all he can to prevent the spread of sickness and disease among our citizens.
There is one man who has rendered, I will not say more service, but as much service to
'2344	HOUSE OF
National Health Insurance the community as any legislator. I am speaking of the general practitioner. I have known many of these men very well and find that they have not only a general knowledge of medicine, but also knowledge, from, personal 'experience, of what I might call applied psychology.
We live in a time of specialization. Everyone who concludes a course at a university thinks that he is a specialist. This applies to all spheres. How many times do we see bright young men who have just come out of college advertise themselves as specialists- heart specialists, ear specialists and specialists on the different parts of the human body. My contention, sir, after conversations with university professors and medical men of great learning, is that no medical man can describe himself as a specialist unless he has had general practice for three years in some centre. The return might not be as good for a young man who goes to a rural area to start the practice of the medical art as it would be if he opened an office in the city where he could describe himself as a specialist, a surgeon or something of that sort.
Some years ago some young students, by means of provincial government support, were enabled to continue their study of medicine. This provincial subsidy was granted to them on the understanding that, upon the conclusion of their medical course, they would practise in a rural area. A very small number of these students lived up to that solemn undertaking. Instead of practising in a rural area many of them commenced to practise in the city in order to make more money. That was unjust, not only to the provincial government but also to the people who were deprived of a doctor's services in these rural areas.
Specialization has gone so far today that everyone wants to go to the hospital, even for a checkup. The hospitals are filled. If anyone hurts his finger, instead of going to a doctor and returning home he stays at the hospital for a few days. Everyone seems to believe that no illness can be cured outside of a hospital. It is for this reason that, even though our hospitals are large, they are not large enough to receive those who really need hospitalization for some major operation. It is not the same as in the old days. Then, everyone would trust his family doctor in a case of ordinary illness. Today if someone suffers from a certain deficiency he has to knock on the door of several specialists.
If someone goes to the hospital for any disability or deficiency, the number of doctors coming to his room is something incredible. A specialist comes for one ear and another specialist for the other ear; one comes for the
[Mr. Pouliot.l

right eye and another for the left eye and the nose. There is no end to it.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Could not the one doctor look after both eyes?


Jean-François Pouliot: It all depends on the case. In the eyes of some people the outlook for the socialist governments of England and Saskatchewan is desperate.
I have another reason for opposing health insurance in addition to the fact that the people who need it most could not contribute.


Major James William Coldwell: They would get it anyhow.


Jean-François Pouliot: There is a preference for army doctors. Think of all the difficulty I had with army doctors during the war; some of them were good but many others were bad. With that health insurance system we would have the military preference given to army doctors and we would see a lot of quacks and blacksmiths going ahead of very good doctors who had no military service. During the war, Mr. Speaker, you were present when I mentioned the cruelty of army doctors to soldiers. The list was very long. One day I received a letter from the dean of the medical faculty of one of our universities saying that I was unjust to the faculty. I sent him a few copies of Hansard and he replied that it was unfortunate but he expected such things could have happened.
To tell the new members who were not here during the war what was done to the N.R.M.A. personnel and other soldiers by army doctors would take a long time, and the time at my disposal does not permit it. I will mention one series of cases, though. Very often draftees were examined by army doctors and put in category A, while they were suffering from disabilities which would have put them in class E. I had to make representations to the Department of National Defence and to the National War Services department to enable those men to undergo another medical examination by competent doctors. In nine cases out of ten the men who had been put in class A were put into class E after that medical examination. I believe that is sufficient to clearly establish my case. It was enough to establish that the doctors who had examined the N.R.M.A. men or the soldiers were incompetent or completely neglectful while doing their work. Many times mothers wrote to me asking that their sons who were in the army be X-rayed to find out how they were. They did that just for the motherly satisfaction of having their sons well looked after by the medical branch of the army. I received letters from Montreal and Toronto complaining of what I had said. Those who wrote to me had read only summary reports of my speeches. But

when I sent them Hansard with the remarks in full, they changed their minds, realizing that reform was necessary.
I do not see why military preference should apply in favour of any army doctor. I know of one in particular, in the city of Quebec, whose name I have in mind, who was in charge of M.D. No. 5 during the war and who qualified himself for overseas service by a Cook's tour of a month or two over there. Can we say that he is a gallant warrior and that he followed the troops to the battle front when he was somewhere overseas just for a short trip? There were many others like him.
Another reason why I object to state medicine is the fact that every honest, capable and experienced doctor-or at least ninety-nine per cent of them-will become a pure bureaucrat as soon as the insurance scheme is in force. Then to cap it all we shall have half-baked specialists who sometimes are murderers. A young man who completes his university course is not qualified to call himself a specialist in surgery and to practise as such unless he has at least three years of practice as a general practitioner.
The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) spoke well this afternoon, as he always does. I do not agree with part of what he has said, but I give him credit for raising this question, which is an important one. It is not an easy one. It is a difficult one, and he knows it.


Arthur Henry Williams: No, it is not.


Jean-François Pouliot: When my hon. friend has had more experience in parliament he will realize that some things that he finds easy are more difficult than he thinks.


Arthur Henry Williams: It just wants the will to do it.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes, that is the way God created the world; but we are not all so gifted. There is one way to help the poor who are in need of medical assistance, and it is an easy one. It is to put them in the same class as those who receive old age pensions and family allowances, and to try to help them by supplying them with the funds they need to look after themselves at home when they can do it, and when they are willing to do it. Many people are in an unfortunate health condition. In the province of Quebec they need the treatment that would be given to them by the province, and they refuse to accept it because they are unwilling to go to the hospital. There are charitable institutions, but very often they will not go there. They want to stay at home. But they need some assistance and the best assistance we can give them now- and it would not be so expensive after all,
National Health Insurance considering the amounts that are spent by this government for public welfare-would be to supply them with allowances that would permit them to look after themselves properly at home.
I could say a good deal more about the matter because I have been in direct contact with men and women who have quite large families, who have invalids in their families, and who show a great deal of courage in trying to ask as little as possible from the state. They deserve a great deal of admiration. They are fine citizens, but they are handicapped by their disability or by the disability of their children. They would be ready to suffer in silence and to hope for a better future if they had gome assistance from the state in their disability or their physical deficiency.
At the present time, taking for granted that the old and the young are helped by the state, there is a gap there between sixteen years and seventy. At seventy a man is entitled to a pension mostly on account of his age, because it is the main consideration, although the means test enters into the matter. But between sixteen and seventy there is nothing for a disabled individual unless he is blind. There are others who are not blind -there are others who are dwarfed, but who are intelligent and who are good citizens; there are others who are hunchbacked; there are others who suffer from chronic or other disabilities, who are poor and who cannot get the assistance to which they are entitled.
The position of the taxpayer is not at all the same as it was before the war; for obvious reasons, charitable institutions cannot rely so much on private charity as they did before the war. The state must come to the forefront. The government agrees to pay $1,000 for each new bed when the province pays the same amount. This week I had a letter from the mother superior of one of the finest hospitals in the province of Quebec. She thanked me for my offer of that contribution and told me, "I cannot accept because the expenditure for one bed is much more than that." After having obtained some information about it I found that the expenditure for a hospital bed today is between $5,000 and $7,000. I do not say that to depreciate the wonderful work which is done by the department of health, but I tell you, sir, and my colleagues, that one of the quickest ways to come to the relief of the suffering people in Canada who are not blind, and whose ages range from sixteen to seventy, would be to give a grant of so many dollars to each invalid in this country.
I cannot conclude these remarks without mentioning the names of three men in the medical profession in Canada who are most

National Health Insurance deserving. They are all in the province of Quebec. I shall mention the deputy minister, Dr. Jean Gregoire, whom I know very well, and his assistant, Dr. Beaudet, who practised as health unit doctor at Riviere du Loup for many years. They are men of outstanding ability and of great devotion to duty, who have done much for the people of the province of Quebec. There is another name which should be written in golden letters on the scroll of the medical faculty of Canada. It is that of Dr. Groulx, head of the health department of the city of Montreal. What he has done there is marvellous. The minister, and all the doctors who are here, who know about medical accomplishments, will be ready to pay a well deserved tribute to these men who are great Canadians.
My final word is this. I appreciate the sincerity of all my colleagues, but I sincerely invite them to visit any health unit in the province of Quebec, to have an interview with Dr. Groulx, Dr. Jean Gregoire and Dr. Beaudet, Dr. Groulx in Montreal and the others in Quebec city, and I am sure that they will be surprised at the immense progress which has been shown by the medical faculty of Quebec under the system of general practitioners, with very generous aid from the state.


John Thomas Hackett: It is not
my intention to enter into a lengthy debate as to the relative merits of the way in which the doctors of this country should exercise their profession. It would of course be impossible for a person entertaining the beliefs of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) and myself to come to an agreement on any of these matters. He is a socialist, and believes that the state should intervene in a major portion of human activities, and should even take over and direct many of the professions.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Including law.


John Thomas Hackett: Including law. As I have said, Mr. Speaker, I did not rise to enter into that debate; but when the hon. gentleman was telling the house of conditions which prevail in England, and was lauding the system of state medicine there, I permitted myself to remind him that socialist Britain was doing these things with the aid of other countries which practise another economy; that it was doing these things with the aid of the United States and of Canada where private enterprise still obtains. The hon. gentleman seemed to think, and in fact said, that my interjection was rather contemptible and my assertion untrue. I am not unduly prone either to complain of what has been said or to explain what I have said in the


house. I am rising now to point out that this is not merely a matter of dentures or eyeglasses; it is a matter of the livelihood, of the standard of living of the people of Britain; and I submit, with documents under my hand, that the standard of living of the people in Britain would have been horribly lowered had it not been for the contributions which went to Britain from this continent. One of the great worries that besets Britain today is the lowering of her standard of living which must inevitably follow the day when the aid which flows from this continent ceases to flow as copiously as it does.
If socialized medicine obtains in Britain it is because the government is able to get from its taxpayers and benefactors moneys sufficient to pay for those services. If, for instance, to make it easy, Canadian wheat were not going to the mills of England at subsidized prices there would not be very much tax available from the British milling industry; that source of revenue would dry up. To that extent it would react against the socialized system of medicine, and to that extent render it impossible.


William Irvine: If it were not going from this country the same thing would apply here.


John Thomas Hackett: I am asserting, Mr. Speaker, that whatever may be the divergences of opinion as to the relative merits of one system of government compared with another, socialized medicine is possible in England largely because of the generous and copious assistance that Britain has had from this continent. And this continent, or the governments of the countries of this continent, are not socialistic. They still practise private enterprise.
I am not complaining of what the hon. gentleman said concerning my interjection, but I do insist that if socialist England is able to do certain things which it is doing it is because of the aid and assistance that are going to it as the fruits of private enterprise of this continent.


John Oliver Probe: Explain New Zealand on the same basis.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: I do not
wish to extend this debate, but there are certain things which should be said. I am sorry that the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) has left the chamber because I wanted to bring some new evidence before the house for his information. I am going to call this exhibit A. This is evidence of what insurance does for me. This is my hospital insurance card. Like all hon. members who come from my province, I can take this card if necessary and go to a hospital in this city

and receive medical services for 60 days at the rate of $6 per day. We can go to any place on this continent and obtain $360 worth of hospital services. The government of our province meets the cost of my hospital insurance. By pooling my premiums with those paid by all the other people in the province I am given protection anywhere in North America.
If I am in Saskatchewan I receive protection for any number of days; it is not limited to 60. I am entitled to any number of X-rays, a special diet if necessary, unlimited care for 365 days in the year if I should fall and break my back or my hip or suffer some other injury or ailment that requires extended treatment. For $25 my family is covered. My husband and I each pay $10 and then $5 is paid for our daughter who is a university student in Manitoba. If she breaks her leg skiing, as she well may,
I know that I will not get a wire asking for money to get her into a hospital. For the $5 that has been paid she would be entitled to 60 days in the best hospital in Winnipeg and receive service at the rate of $6 per day.


Mr. Blackmore:: Is that $5 per month or $5 per year?


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: It is $10 per year for me and $5 per year for my daughter, who is still a dependent. That, gentlemen, is the value of insurance. Thank goodness none of my family has needed to use it, but it was a marvellous thing to know that if we did need protection we had it. My husband left today for Saskatchewan by way of the United States because we have no trans-Canada highway. If he is injured in Chicago or Minneapolis or St. Paul or Sarnia he can go to a hospital for 60 days and get $6 worth of protection each day.


William Irvine: It does not come from the United States either.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: It does not come from the United States, it comes from the pooled contributions of all the people in Saskatchewan. This plan does not interfere in any way with the charitable institutions, with the Salvation Army homes or with the old folks' homes kept up by various bodies. These charitable institutions no longer have unpaid bills and our hospitals are no longer faced with dreadful deficits because of the treatment given out of the goodness of their hearts.
My husband is the reeve of a municipality. That municipality buys cards for all the indigent people. Everyone knows what used to happen. Some poor old man might have a lingering disease which kept him in the hospital for months and the municipality would be faced with a bill totaling hundreds of
National Health Insurance dollars. You cannot let people die on the streets. If you are an officer of a municipality or of a town council, if you are an alderman or a mayor you must take care of the indigent. The municipality is able to purchase these cards for $10 for their indigent and they know that they are protected. So the municipal people love it and the people who run charitable institutions love it. It does not weaken their efforts in any way; in fact it strengthens them because there are the pooled contributions of all the people in the province behind the scheme. There is a supplementary government contribution but this is the cheapest, simplest, sanest thing we have ever had in our province.
I want to take this opportunity to tell the minister how much I appreciate what he is doing in the field of health. I think very often in our zeal to improve conditions we fail to give credit where credit is due. In spite of the fact that we have not yet achieved health insurance I think the minister deserves a great deal of credit for the imagination and sympathy and initiative he has shown since taking over the portfolio. I am saying what I have said today to try to strengthen his hand, to let him know that we are behind the principle of health insurance because it is the most sensible, reasonable and logical method of tackling the problem of providing medical services.
Let me say to the hon. member for Temis-couata that the reason I am a social democrat is that I have a responsibility to more people than my immediate family. We have managed to take care of our own family, but there are many other families who also need looking after. Not only are there families without resources, but there are many people able to pay for care. This is the simplest method for those people who can pay for what they require. This is the best plan for those who are not indigent, for those who are earning. This is simply the principle of insurance which is one of the soundest developments of this century. This is a reasonable method and we should apply it in a democracy. Wanting this to be under democratic control we use the modern mechanism that society has developed-government. Government is nothing but the instrument that has been developed by civilized man to take care of the needs of the group. Government after all is the most democratic thing there is because it brings to the people the right of choice. Very soon in this dominion we are going to give the people the right to choose in the matter of policy and principle. I am a social democrat because I believe in the right of the people to choose as between parties and policies and principles and governments.
2348

National Health Insurance
I believe in taking care of all society, not just my own family. Many steps have already been taken and every Canadian province has made tremendous contributions in the field of health. I should like to mention a few of those who have rendered outstanding service to mankind and identify them with the provinces from which they came. We are all familiar with the contribution made by Dr. Banting of Ontario when he gave insulin to the world. We are not quite so familiar with the new vaccine which came out of Quebec. I had the honour last year of listening to an address by the doctor who helped to develop that, but I regret that I have forgotten his name.


Mr. Marlin:: Dr. Frappier.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: Thank you, sir. He developed this new vaccine, which has been used on thousands of children in Europe, in mass vaccination against tuberculosis. Then in Saskatchewan we have Dr. Ferguson, who developed the tuberculosis services that led the world. Then there is Dr. Stewart of Manitoba, who has given extremely valuable services in the same field. We have the Doctors Robinson of Banff who have made such an outstanding contribution in the field of arthritis-Dr. Robinson senior and his two doctor sons. There are many others who must be nameless.
I want to emphasize again that there is a place for everyone in health insurance. There is a place for the Robinsons in the field of arthritis; there is a place for the Bantings; there is a place for people like our late Dr. Blair, who did so much in Saskatchewan in the field of cancer. Then we have great institutions of healing in our country taking part in the drive for health. At this point I want to pay tribute to the Grey Nuns hospital of Saskatchewan. It became the site of our first cancer clinic, and the facilities of that great institution were made available to the provincial government to establish a diagnostic and treatment centre. It has recently been expanded by a new wing with government assistance. This great Catholic hospital, staffed by the sisters, is now leading Canada in cancer services. I am saying this to point out that the Saskatchewan plan is not a threat to these institutions, and it is not a threat to these doctors. Rather we are organizing the resources of the communities to place at the disposal of the doctors facilities through which they can expand research, treatment, knowledge and the health which should be the birthright of every Canadian.


Mr. Knight:: Give them the opportunity.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: In addition to this health insurance card, which is so treasured and so valued, and which I hope will soon be followed in every province of Canada by the same kind of set-up, in our little town we have a new hospital. I am mentioning this merely to add to the remarks of the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) who I regret is not now in his seat. This hospital fills a long felt need. Up until last year there was no hospital on our railway line between that town and Regina, a little over 100 miles. If you wanted to take someone who was ill to the hospital you had to take a train at five o'clock in the morning. That meant that you came in the night before and stayed in the little country hotel. The person who was in pain had to endure the trip into town, had to stay in a small hotel, and then had to get up at five o'clock in the morning and make a three-hour trip to Regina. The family of the person who was suffering had to find hotel accommodation, which was extremely difficult to procure during the war. They had to stay there, and then take a train back which arrived about eleven o'clock at night, which meant that another stay was necessary in the small hotel. The whole procedure meant days and many dollars to take a loved one to the place where hospital facilities were available.
That went on until just last year. Then, with the assistance of our provincial government, and with the backing of our insurance which now sees that this hospital is properly financed, we built one of twenty-four new hospitals that up to that time had been built in the province in the last four years. When you go into this hospital, as I did on New Year's day, you find happy families in the corridors. The place is crowded with visitors. People come in from the village and from miles around. The wards are full. There is the mother and the new baby; there is the grandfather; there is the child with mumps or measles. There are the facilities for treatment, the trained nurse, the splendid young doctor whom we would never have been able to get without this hospital, because well trained doctors do not go to villages any more unless there is a hospital there.
In this hospital we have proper surgical equipment. We have an emergency operating light so that if the power plant in the village goes off the operation will still go on. We have the most modern kind of operating lamp. We have the most modern kind of incubator which can be plugged into a socket, heated, taken to the country, and brought back with a premature infant.


An hon. Member:: Where is this?


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: This is at Kipling. We will never know how many lives that hospital will save. I repeat that it is one of the twenty-four new hospitals that had been built before June of last year. Of course, we are out of the minister's grants. We were too smart; we went too fast, so we get nothing from those grants. That is one of the penalties of leading in the field of health. Those provinces which have not yet started to build hospitals will now come in and receive grants, but we are glad they are doing that. I do not begrudge any hospital aid which may be given, even though we built our own without it.
I repeat, this is the sort of reasonable, sensible thing that sensible people should do, to supply the facilities where skilled people can reach the greatest possible number of patients. The young doctor, whom we have been fortunate enough to get, is a well trained young surgeon who took his post-graduate work in Scotland. He came to look over our proposition, just to make a call, and he has been there ever since. He was so delighted with our hospital, he just stayed.
This is the best protection that mothers and children can have. It is the best protection that families can have. It is the most democratic set-up you could have because the hospital is run by a board that is elected through the rural municipal and village councils which participate in the hospital district. This is a health centre, Mr. Speaker, and this is a unit which the people voted to join. They took a vote in their municipalities. They voted to come in themselves. They decided to do this, they support it, and they administer it through the board that is elected year by year.
What could be more democratic, what could be more useful, what could be more helpful than to cover our land with small hospitals available to rural people, and in these hospitals install the equipment and the facilities that will attract ambitious well-trained young medical men, and well-trained young nurses who wish to do their best in their profession.
Coming back to insurance, I want to exhibit again this card which gives all the people of our province medical services for 365 days a year in the province, and gives us medical care up to $6 per day for sixty days anywhere in North America. I submit this evidence for the benefit of any hon. friend who is still afraid of health insurance.
In closing I want to say that yesterday I had the privilege of reading a report on the world health organization, one of the latest agencies to be established under the United Nations. I was pleased to see that, in the
29087-149J
National Health Insurance formation of the charter and the plans for world health, Canada, to quote the booklet, played a stellar role. I think it is a splendid thing that we have men who can go from Canada to lead the world back to health, but I think it is regrettable if we do not lead within Canada, and if we stop short of overall protection of our own people. We are not limited by lack of resources. We are not a poor, decimated, battle-ridden country such as Great Britain, Germany, or other countries of Europe today. We are much richer because of the war.
When people talk about what it has cost us to help Great Britain I think we should at least have the decency to admit how much it has helped us too. It gave us new industrial plants; it gave us new agricultural development; it gave us all kinds of new equipment to use to add to our potential and actual wealth. It gave us industrial knowhow that we would never have had if we had not been forced to develop it under the impetus of war. Therefore it is not financial resources that are stopping us. It is not lack of money, it is not lack of example, and I hope that it is not lack of vision. I hope that whatever the lack is we will remove it very soon and establish in every province of Canada these life-saving agencies that mean so much to the people of our country.
(Translation):


Mr. Alderic Laurendeau (Berihier-Maskinonge):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I wish to tell you that I am very glad I heard such interesting speeches this afternoon. I hope that during the Easter recess you may find a way of letting us hear, from our desks, speeches as interesting as those that were made this afternoon. As I was not in my own seat, I was able to hear the speech of the C.C.F. party leader (Mr. Coldwell), that of the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) as well as the remarks of the charming and only lady member of this house (Mrs. Strum), who told us what she thinks of the C.C.F.
I have only a few remarks to make at the present time. I am particularly happy about the level at which this discussion has been taking place. A few days ago I read an article by the former leader of the Liberal party (Mr. Mackenzie King) in which he said that men must come before material things, in other words that human capital must have priority over material things, and that even governments had long neglected the human values to care for only the material values.
Inasmuch as, in my sphere, I have always cared simply for men and not for material things, I was glad when I heard a while ago

National Health Insurance the C.C.F. party leader make a speech which, I must confess, has pleased me.
Now, I have heard a different version from the hon. member for Temiscouata. One cannot arrive at a conclusion by reading only a few pages from a book. But when one reads a whole book and weighs the arguments, it is still exceedingly difficult to arrive at a conclusion, without having had some experience and without sound judgment.
With reference to national health, although I approve in principle the speech made by the leader of the C.C.F. party-and I am speaking for myself as a country doctor- the rural population need the help of medical service.
I have been practising medicine for over 30 years; my father and my grandfather did the same for over 50 years. Therefore, I may state that the rural population-especially the population with which I am acquainted: that of the province of Quebec-is now lacking proper medical care. Many things are lacking in this connection.
I wish to congratulate the Liberal party and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) for what they have done so far for the welfare of the rural population. Health insurance would serve them no purpose at the present time because we have neither the means nor the facilities to take proper care of that population. A great many of my rural patients are presently in need of medical care, hospitalization, X-ray examination, etc., but there are no institutions available and ready to receive them.
The action which the government has taken in having small hospitals built- especially in rural districts-is, to my mind, the beginning of socialized medicine. Undue haste should be avoided, because, as I said, we are unable to give those people the care they need. Even if we now had specialized physicians, the needed institutions are nonexistent. Besides, we lack people with the required ability, especially in the rural areas.
I do not wish to offend country doctors, but neither do I want medicine to be decentralized, as it is seemingly intended. The hon. the Minister of National Health and Welfare should not decentralize specialized services, such as those connected with cancer and tuberculosis. Some latitude might be given as regards the early diagnosis of cases, but when it comes to treatment,
[Mr. Laurendeau.l
especially for cancer, the patients should be sent to specialized institutions. I would not like research to be decentralized or have rural hospitals claim the right to treat all cancer cases. I do not feel this would be of benefit to the patient.
In the matter of grants for the building of rural hospitals, I should like to point out to the minister that in my district, for instance, in centres such as Louisville, Berthierville, St. Gabriel de Brandon, the best plan would be to build small hospitals, in each case with the co-operation of the provincial government. They could be provided with a clinic, a few beds for purposes of general medical practice and even a section for old people, which could also serve as an old folks' home. They should also have an up-to-date laboratory for purposes of diagnosis.
I feel it would be more practical to build a sort of clinic for the aged, maternity cases and general medicine.
Again, I do not think it would be wise to build large hospitals in rural areas because there are not enough specialists and practitioners of major surgery.
I do not think it advisable for you to decentralize medicine to that extent. What makes a good surgeon, a good radiologist, a good biologist, is not only technical knowledge but what has been learned through examinations and operations.
Mr. Speaker, without reflecting any discredit on the rural surgeons, or on small town surgeons, I feel that the welfare of our rural population requires that the practice of specialized medicine be restricted to the large centres.
I sincerely thank the minister for the substantial grants given for research work on cancer, in Montreal, especially for work done at the Radium Institute. He should carry on his efforts in that direction, because there are laboratories, in Montreal and Quebec, located near the hospitals. As a matter of fact, the doctors and surgeons in rural centres have not enough practice, as they are not called to perform a great enough number of major operations. Speaking through experience and as a rural surgeon, I would suggest that small hospitals be built, for various purposes, and that cases of major operations and mental cases be treated in large centres only.

I have in mind, precisely, the hospital of Joliette, a city located near my home town. It is a splendid hospital whose physicians go to New York and Paris to take postgraduate courses, which are surely beneficial to the patients of that institution. Should general medicine be divided into too many spheres, I believe that it would be detrimental to the rural population.
A short while ago, the leader of the C.C.F. spoke about socialized medicine. That is all right and I believe that eventually the government will establish it. However, the time is not yet ripe and I even understand that Canadian doctors are vigorously opposed to it. Although I do not know what results and consequences that method has brought about in England, I submit that there is certainly something to be done in this respect. However, I wish to insist on the fact that our rural people should have the right to be examined free of charge in our hospitals and should have the benefit of X-ray services and laboratory examinations such as urine and blood tests. This would greatly help their family doctors in their diagnosis.
The doctor could indeed direct more safely his patient to a rural hospital or to a large centre according to the seriousness of the case.
I sincerely congratulate the government for what they have done in the district and elsewhere, for doing the utmost to improve our national health.
Without interfering in the differences between the provinces and the dominion-I feel the minister is better qualified than I to deal with this question,-the matter of provincial autonomy is certainly involved, for as we all know national health comes under the jurisdiction of the provinces rather than under that of the dominion. For that reason, I congratulate the government again on the splendid assistance they have given the provinces in that particular field. I quite understand that certain members claim it will be necessary to levy heavy taxes for the purpose of securing free medical aid for our rural population. But I am not now dealing with the financial aspect of the matter. Nevertheless, I consider that our rural population is entitled to the benefits and modern resources of medical science. X-rays should not be the exclusive right of the rich. In my opinion, the farmer, the man who labours the whole year, spends half his time on the land in the summer and the other half, during the winter, in lumber camps, has very limited means.
National Health Insurance However, he should have the right to undergo a medical examination and X-ray, just as much as any other person who has more money. I think that these conditions account for the dissatisfaction of our people who should be entitled to benefit from new discoveries of medical science just like anyone else. Now, as to making medical services available free of charge I leave it to others to decide whether such a plan should be contributory or not. I am not conversant with financial or legal matters. I am only a country doctor, practising in a rural community. I repeat that country folk are honest and proud. They would be very pleased if specialized medical services were easily available as it would prevent them from relying on public assistance. I am deeply concerned when I see my patients unable to benefit from the tremendous improvements made available by modern medical science. That is why, in order to help them, I intend to keep on practising. That is also why I urge the government to develop its social security program as quickly as possible.
The leader of the C.C.F. party made a fine speech. Listening to him, one feels that what he says sounds well and that he is right. I believe, however, that the government is even more justified in carrying on with its present policy, that is, in gradually supplying us with equipment, hospitals, specialists and technicians before organizing medical services on a wide scale as is urged by the leader of the C.C.F. I do not know how things are in Saskatchewan, but I may say to our political opponents that in the province of Quebec, some of my patients, because there is a shortage of beds, have long been awaiting their turn to be admitted to hospital. This means that, in the province of Quebec, we would be no further ahead, even with state medical services, since there are no beds available irr the various hospitals; sick people would therefore be no better off.
I therefore consider that the government has been most provident in extending to Quebec, as well as to the other provinces, sufficient funds to provide hospitals with extra beds and to assist them in training specialists, nurses, prominent surgeons, technicians of all ^kinds. This will allow us to help our people enjoy better health, thus making everybody happier.
(Text):


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, the rather glowing reports of the achievements of the provinces which we have heard so far tend to indicate that the minister

National Health Insurance is on the right track. He is wise in encouraging the provinces to take the lead in the matter and to be ready to supply them with the support which they need in making headway with their health program.
I believe the members of the house would be interested in hearing something about what Alberta has done. There are a good many people who, because of political interest, like to misrepresent. I will give you, Mr. Speaker, some information from a special government document published in the year 1948 from which members of the house and the people of the country will be able to gather some idea of what our province is doing. I will read at some length from it so that the people will know that what I am saying is entirely authentic and not in any way coloured by my own interest.
I am reading from a pamphlet entitled "In the Public Welfare":
The Alberta government's public welfare services cover a wide field.
This document is issued by the government of the province of Alberta and is printed by the king's printer.
Mothers' Allowances
'Number receiving benefits in 1947-widows, 1,561; children, 3,385. Average monthly allowance per * child, $17.70.
Periodical investigations and reports are made.
Child Welfare
When a child becomes a ward of the government, *every effort is made to immediately place it in the type of home best suited to its particular needs.
3 might interject just a word at this point, Mr. Speaker, about "babies for export." Because of a highly coloured article concerning "babies for export", the idea got abroad and even gained expression in this house that Alberta was mistreating its babies. The statement which I have just read covers perfectly the Alberta program and the attitude of the responsible authorities. The idea of the Alberta child welfare department is to place each individual child in what appears to the Alberta authorities to be the best possible home environment to be obtained. If in order to do that it has been found advisable to go across the line on occasion, the Alberta government always thought that, in the interests of the baby, they were justified in doing so. I am not wishing to pronounce on that matter, but that has been the idea of the authorities. This document continues as follows:	[DOT]
Every child in the home of prospective adoptive parents is placed there on a probationary basis, and after the probationary period of one year has expired, the adopting parents are required to submit a petition for an order of adoption to a judge of ithe district court through the facilities of the child welfare commission.

The following points are worthy of note:
1.	The home in which a child is to be placed is carefully investigated by the home investigating committee before placement is made, and it is thereafter periodically inspected during the period of probation.
2.	A thorough medical examination, including the Wasserman test, is made of each individual child and the result of this, together with a complete history of the child, is given to the prospective adoptive parents.
The number of children placed in prospective homes during the year 1947 was 517, while those placed in foster homes during the same period was 171.
So much for child welfare. The next item with which I wish to deal is free blood plasma.
Transfusions of blood are now available free of cost to all residents of Alberta. This means a direct saving of approximately half a million dollars each year to our citizens. We ask our people to continue to donate their blood so that this service can continue.
Old Age Pensions
Alberta has led the way towards economic security for those who have devoted the best years of their lives to the development of our country.
Amount of pension paid since April 1, 1948- $37.00 per month.
I may say, Mr. Speaker, that I understand the amount has been increased since to $40 per month.
Cost of Services
The estimated expenditure out of provincial revenue for health and welfare services for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1949, is $7,717,000.
These figures I am giving, as I said, are based on estimates in the middle of 1948. There may have been revisions since that time.
I think the house would be interested in hearing some more about Alberta's health program. I am quoting now from an official government publication in 1948 called "These are The Facts", an authentic record of Alberta's progress between 1935 and 1948. Those who do not happen to know that 1935 was the date at which the Social Credit administration took over in Alberta will be interested to learn that fact.
Public Health Services Tuberculosis Services
Tuberculosis Act passed by Social Credit government in 1936.
Result-Provision made for treatment of all residents suffering from infectious types. Way opened for vast expansion of free diagnostic services.
Work of Mobile Clinics
Number X-rayed	in	1943	
9,926Number X-rayed	in	1946	
226,987Number X-rayed	in	1947	
400,000
It must gladden the minister's heart to know that as much interest as that is being taken in the tuberculosis problem in Alberta. Hospital Accommodation Increased
Number beds available in 1935	 270
Number beds available in 1946	 485
Construction of a new 300-bed sanitarium under way at the present time.

Poliomyelitis Services
Alberta becomes first province to provide special facilities for care of poliomyelitis victims.
In 1938, Poliomyelitis Sufferers Act passed to give free medical, surgical and hospital care for all residents suffering after-effects of the disease.
Cancer
1940-	Cancer Treatment and Prevention Act.
1941-	Free diagnostic clinics established.
Result	1942	1946Patients examined	
2,055	4,288Patients treated	
429	2,060
Number of patients for diagnosis and treatment in 1947, 5,722,
From that the house can readily recognize that the province of Alberta is taking stern and effective measures to care for the cancer problem.
Free Maternity Hospitalization Another Public Health First
1944-Maternity Hospitalization Act
Result:
Free public ward hospital care for all maternity cases.
More than ninety per cent of the 23,000 maternity cases each year come under hospital care.
Total expended by the government in providing maternity hospitalization in 1947, $760,000.
All those who have gone through the experience of having an addition to the family realize that when a maternity case is coming up the need for assistance is considerable. That free maternity grant for the mothers who are ready to go into a hospital is a godsend to thousands and thousands of Alberta fathers.
Mothers' Allowances
Grants
1935	 $507,000
(50 per cent charged to municipalities)
1946-47	 $592,655
(Only 25 per cent charged to municipalities) (Deserted mothers included)
1936	1947
Average monthly allowance per
child	 $ 8.87	$ 17.70
Average allowance per mother... 20.25	38.94
From that hon. members will be able to recognize that the Alberta government under Social Credit is making progress just as rapidly as its financial means will enable it to do so.
Nursing Services
1935	1947
Number of district nurses	 15	36
Provides free to residents in rural areas the following services:
Pre-natal and post-natal care Free immunization services Regular baby clinics School health inspections
District Health Units
1935	1947
Number of units	 2	17
Hospital Grants
Provincial government grants to approved
hospitals in 1947	 $750,280
Number of people benefiting under the municipal hospital plan	 238,788
National Health Insurance
Mental Health
Number of patients in five mental institutions operated by government	 3,201
New buildings erected in 1947 to provide accommodation for 533 patients.
Public Health Entomology First such provincial division established by Social Credit government in 1944.
Result-Occurrence of Rocky Mountain fever, tularaemia, encephalitis and plague investigated. Immunization clinics established.
Education in this work started.
Research into diseases conducted.

. . . Applying to old age and blind pensioners, recipients of mothers' allowances, with dependents of each, regulations provide for medical services, hospitalization, all forms of dental care, including 50 per cent of the cost of all new dentures.
That is also a godsend, Mr. Speaker, to the people of Alberta.
Treatment given by persons other than medical practitioners when recommended is also provided, as are glasses if approved by the director of medical and hospital services.
Total Amount	Paid by	Alberta	toward	Old Age
Pensions, April		1, 1944-March, 1947		
	1946	-47	1947-48	1948-49
			(estimated)	
Alberta's share	of			
basic pension... $ 747,191 $1,225,071				$1,084,000
Supplementary				
paid by Alberta 804,541	857,498	1,388,500Yearly total ...	... $1,551,732 $2,082,569	$2,472,500Total for above three	years ..	$6,106,801Blind Pensions Paid	1939-40	1946-47	1947-48	*1948-49Alberta's	share 	$ 9.850	$16,396	$ 29,475	$ 32,500Dominion's	share 	28,316	60,829	74.382	128,250Other 	2,787	7,864	7,793	10,250Total paid...	$40,953	$85,089	$111,650	$171,000* Estimated.	Expenditures	
Health and welfare services-Income Account
1936-37	1948-49
Total expenditure	 $2,035,000	$7,717,000
Medical services and hospitalization for old age and blind pensioners and recipients of mothers' allowances were provided for the current year at an estimated cost of $503,000.
I do not hear expressed so often nowadays, Mr. Speaker, the idea that all the brains are to be found in Ottawa. I am glad that idea is being expressed less and less. It is well that everybody should learn that Canadians everywhere have brains, and they are progressive. We do not need to have any central board at Ottawa or anywhere else dictating to the provinces what to do in respect of health or any other thing. All that is necessary is to enable the provinces to discharge their responsibilities, and you will find them prepared to lead out and do their job effectively.
I think the house would also be interested in one or two excerpts from another docu-

National Health Insurance ment called "Hospitalization through co-operation", the Alberta government municipal hospital plan. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mrs. Strum) did a service to the house and to the country by giving us an idea of what is being done in Saskatchewan. These excerpts will give us some idea of what is being done in Alberta. I shall quote from a speech by the Hon. Dr. W. W. Cross, minister of health and public welfare.
We have several of our municipal hospital districts that provide free hospitalization to their ratepayers. This is possible in all districts if the elected hospital boards, with the approval of a majority of the ratepayers, decide to make the mill rate property tax, plus provincial government grants, sufficient to cover the whole cost of hospitalization.
There were twenty-one of these hospitals in operation in 1936 and since then the people in various districts have gone ahead in a democratic way, that is by a majority vote of the taxpayers, and established thirty-four more in the last twelve years.
This is by far the best hospitalization scheme in Canada.
I have not the information to enable me to judge the accuracy or the inaccuracy of the statement, but knowing Dr. Cross as I do, I would say that it is probably entirely accurate; certainly it is accurate in accordance with the best information that he has been able to obtain. I continue:
Someone has to pay for hospitalization and the total cost for this service last year in Alberta was $8,057,000, or $9.58 per person.
The department of health paid out of general revenue last year through its various grants and free hospitalization services over $4,300,000.
Twenty-five per cent of the ratepayers in any given area with sufficient population, i.e., 3,000 to 30,000 people, may petition for the establishment of a hospital district, or the councils of the contributing municipal districts may petition the minister. When the proposed district has been approved by the department, a provisional board is then appointed by the contributing councils, consisting of three, five or seven resident ratepayers. The provisional board members hold office until the date of the next regular municipal election, at which time a board is elected by the ratepayers of the hospital district. From then on the hospital is managed by the ratepayers' elected representatives.
The scheme also provides for a patient day rate which is usually $1 or free for the ratepayers, their wives, dependent families and domestic female help residing with them."
In Alberta we already have 7-3 beds per 1,000 of our population, which is the highest hospital bed capacity rate of any province in Canada. This has been made possible mainly through our municipal hospital plan.
Provision is also made in the act whereby persons who are non-ratepayers may receive hospitalization at the $1 per diem rate or less, on purchasing a contract or ticket from the hospital board, the cost of which ranges from $6 to $12 per annum.
Each hospital is owned and controlled by the district and the administration and operation is conducted by their own elected board. Several more districts are being organized this year and with the progress that is being made, it will not be long until
[Mr. Blackmore.j

all our citizens will be able to obtain hospitalization at a per diem rate of their own choice on a democratic basis.
We Social Crediters feel happy about the progress in Alberta up to the present time. When the Social Credit administration took over we were very deeply in debt. Just as soon as the Social Credit administration took over in Alberta the people discovered that they did not have suitable roads. Consequently we have had a tremendous amount of work to do in building roads. And we have had many other responsibilities, Mr. Speaker. In Alberta we have endeavoured to discharge all the responsibilities of the government all across the board in a way comparable to that in which we have discharged public health responsibilities. We have done just that. If our progress has not been any more spectacular than I have indicated, and I think it is very good, then I must say it is because we have had a rather wide field over which to distribute the money which came into our hands; and we have done that.
A further word regarding the administration of health insurance in Canada. The nearer you get the control of people's affairs into the hands of the local communities, the better it is. I favour decentralization in practically every item of government, especially in health, in education and in social services generally, and in a great many other things. I believe that the dominion government should contribute liberally to the support of those services in each and every province for the simple reason that the provinces, with the limited revenue sources at their disposal, are never able to collect enough money to enable them to discharge adequately the responsibilities which are theirs under the British North America Act.
The dominion government has access to sources of revenue far beyond those available to the provinces. Moreover, as I have said so many times in this house, and will now say once more briefly, the dominion government has the control of credit, currency and the banking system of Canada. Therefore it has the power to render available financially the full physical capacity of the dominion. What is physically possible can be made financially possible. The only agency in the Dominion of Canada that has the power to make what is physically possible financially possible is the dominion government. If they will do that, then we shall find that the extent of health services possible in the provinces of Canada is dependent only on our capacity in Canada to produce goods and services-food, clothing, shelter and equipment and trained doctors and all the other necessities which enter into the provision of adequate health services for the

nation. I say, Mr. Speaker, that if the dominion government assumes that responsibility and exercises it, along with its capacity or ability to tax money from the people and then redistributes that money in accordance with the needs of the provinces, we need have no fear that within a reasonably short time Canada will have a health program which will be the pride of all Canadians and the envy of people throughout the world.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at seven-thirty o'clock.


Mr. G. J. Mcllrailh (Ottawa West) moved: that the house go into committee on Bill No. 30, respecting the corporation of the city of Ottawa, Ottawa Transportation Commission and the Ottawa Electric Railway Company.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Golding in the chair.
On section 1-Agreement ratified and confirmed.


Mr. Church:: Mr. Chairman, this bill has been reported by the standing committee, and I quite agree with its report. There are two features about this bill in which I am interested. If the national plan to build a capital is adapted to our circumstances I am in favour of it. I am not opposing this particular bill and I expressly said so in the house and in the committee. I intended no criticism of the private ownership that had existed in Ottawa as well as in Toronto. The people interested in those two systems set out to make profits. They risked their money and no doubt substantial profits was their aim.
Private enterprise carried on from 1894 to 1910 but the advent of the motor car interfered with the receipts of electric railway systems throughout the whole continent. The people who put their money into electric cars, omnibuses, and horse cars must have had faith and courage to risk losing their money. I appreciate that the owners of the two local daily newspapers in Ottawa have over the years sought to develop and prepare the way for this particular franchise and venture in public ownership. I should like to pay a word of tribute to the former mayor, Mr. Lewis, who took part in bringing about this agreement. The present mayor, the board of control, the city officials and other officials serving the city of Ottawa worked for this agreement faithfully and well.
Ottawa Transportation Commission
I am glad to see that in drafting this bill they have taken advantage of the experience of the city of Toronto. I was head of that city when a similar state of affairs existed. At one time the street railway system served only a territory about as large as that served by the system here; it served only the older part of the city, not much past Bloor street. The Toronto railway system, which serviced less than half the city, was purchased on September 1, 1921, by arbitration.
I am glad the city of Ottawa has followed what was done in Toronto. The three members of the commission here will be in charge during the most critical time. When the private interests first acquired the franchise in Toronto in 1891 I have no doubt that they were out to make increased profits. They obtained the franchise for the price the city had paid, $1,400,000. The charter was to run for thirty years and would terminate on September 1, 1921, at which time the city would have the right to buy them out. Then they introduced Sunday cars and electric cars. In 1912, 1913 and 1914 they had the support of five newspapers in Toronto in suggesting that they would sell the railway system to the city for $22 million and an old electric light plant for $8 million. The five newspapers, the Star, News, World, Globe and Mail and Empire supported that proposal. If that deal had gone through we would have been so overcapitalized that we would have had to charge a quarter for only two tickets. I am glad that that did not go through.
As the city grew the city itself developed a system of car lines and in time this system covered practically two-thirds of the city. These lines were standard gauge and when the city took over the system they were in the position of being able to service two-thirds of the territory with the lines they already had. I am sorry that the city of Ottawa did not follow the same procedure.
On January 1, 1920, the electors of Toronto voted to purchase the street railway system. At that time we had fifteen different fares. The system was unified with a flat rate to cover the whole city. In 1921 public ownership came into being. At that time I was presented with a voluminous bill about the size of a budget speech. I did not accept it and I wrote a street railway act which covered only a page and a half which contained all the main features of the present bill. I suggested that instead of seven commissioners there should be only three, and that they must also be ratepayers who were residents of the municipality. The number of commissioners was reduced from seven to three. The commission was to have the management, control, operation and maintenance of the



HOUSE Ol

[Stage Direction]
Ottawa Transportation Commission system. Those four words were written into the statute by me. They were to operate independently of the city council, just like any other commission. The city council supplied the capital, but after that the operation of the system was placed entirely in the hands of the three men who were chosen.
In the present case, in my opinion, they have chosen three very capable men, and I hope that they will succeed. In our act, which the people voted on, as they voted here last February, I think it was, the mayor was to be a member of the commission. In the private bills committee of the legislature, where the Ottawa bill was recently, they decided that the mayor should not be on the commission. In the legislature they decided that it would be far better not to have anybody connected with the council on the commission, the same as in the Ottawa bill. No member of the council could be appointed to the commission. It was to be independent of the city council when appointed. They were to have control over the operation of the system, and it was to be run at cost after depreciation and sinking fund charges. That is in the Ottawa bill, too. Not a cent of taxes has ever been collected from the people of Toronto to support the system. It is entirely self-sustaining out of the earnings of the system. Not a cent of taxes has been collected for capital. The car riders pay the entire cost. The commission is appointed for three years. The Toronto act gave the system the right to build subways and operate interurban buses. I hope that Ottawa will follow the same course. If they do I think they will be on safe ground.
I may say that I had some trouble, as they had here in Ottawa, to secure three good men, but I believe we got three good men in the Toronto system. After a lot of trouble with politicians, and so on, I appointed three good men, Mr. P. W. Ellis, Mr. George Wright and Mr. Fred Miller. I chose those three men myself. They were appointed in the morning. The next day council met and gave them two and a half million dollars for capital. After :hree years of operation they paid out of the earnings $23 million, or half the debt which they assumed for the whole system to take it over.
I think that is about all I have to say. We appointed three very good men, and the road was acquired accordingly. As I say, we have had honesty and efficiency in the system. While the commissioners act as a corporation, under the constitution setting forth the purposes the people who are responsible are the three men. Therefore they must be very capable men. I think you have made such appointments here. The Toronto council of 1920 should be remembered for the appointment of the three men whom I chose. The 
[Stage Direction]
appointees gave their services for nothing. May I wish the city of Ottawa every success in their new venture. I am sure that, if they follow the cardinal principles that we had in our statute, they will have success in public ownership which will mean the betterment of the welfare of the people as a whole. I am sorry that they did not take this step long ago.
Mr. Harris (Danforth):: I should like to have the high privilege of associating myself with the remarks of the hon. member for one of the Toronto ridings who has just sat down. It has been my privilege to know what he did in his position as administrator of municipal affairs when he was for seven years mayor of the city of Toronto. I know what he was able to do in a like instance some twenty years ago. It was my pleasure to support him then on the project which he undertook on behalf of the citizens at that time. The words which have come from his lips tonight might well be remembered by our friends in the city of Ottawa. It has been the voice of experience speaking. I know from my own limited association with my hon. friend that during the last twenty years he has done wonderful work for the citizens of Toronto in a similar case. In resuming my seat, all I can say is that Ottawa was twenty years too late in commencing this work.


Mr. Case:: I take it, Mr. Chairman, that you have called clause 1, and that the schedule to the bill will be passed in toto, that is to say, we have nothing to do with the particular terms of agreement entered into by the city of Ottawa in connection with the acquisition of this railway?


William Henry Golding: What is before the committee now is clause 1.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: Having had considerable experience in municipal affairs, and knowing something of the problems facing municipal councils today, I should like to join with the members who have preceded me in extending to the city of Ottawa my very best wishes, and my hope that they will succeed under what I consider to be rather difficult circumstances. The purpose of this measure coming before the House of Commons seems to me to be rather unusual inasmuch as municipal governments are controlled in the main by a set of statutes passed by the provincial governments of the provinces in which they are located.
Apparently the terms of agreement were entered into and fixed by the negotiating parties. In the schedule I notice that the property has been acquired for a total of $6 million. We, who probably have not had an opportunity to explore the extent of the system, may consider that is a very exorbitant price, but I do not feel that we are called

upon to determine whether or not it is a good bargain or a bad bargain.
What I am thinking about is that when this bill was introduced some rather disparaging remarks were made about the city of Ottawa and its municipal council. I do not think it would serve any particular purpose to recall statements that were made at that time. I had the good fortune to be associated for many years with members of municipal councils from coast to coast in Canada, and particularly in the province of Ontario, when I was president of the mayors and reeves association of that province. Many of the people who were in the council of the city of Ottawa at that time are still there. There is one whose departure I regret very much, ex-mayor Stanley Lewis, who was secretary of the mayors and reeves association of Ontario, and who was for a period of five years or more president of the Canadian federation of mayors. My experience with these splendid men was that rather than being narrow-minded at all they had an appreciation not only of their own communities but of the welfare of those they were privileged to serve. Before I became a member of parliament I think I came to appreciate Ottawa a great deal more than some of us appreciate this great city today, because here I always found a hearty welcome, a desire to assist me with my problems, and at least a realization that at this first level of government, the municipal government, there was an opportunity to appreciate and understand each other's problems and a will toward national unity not possessed by any other body.
It would be the easiest thing in the world for me to say that I think this is a dilapidated transportation system which has been taken over by the city of Ottawa, but I believe they have moved in the right direction. This is a service which no doubt the citizens of Ottawa appreciate. I know when I want to travel to a given point at a very economical rate I use the Ottawa street railway system, and I am not going to find fault with it. It is so easy to find fault when we do not have to pay the bills. Believe me, the ratepayers of the city of Ottawa are in the same position as all other ratepayers in Canada today; all our municipalities are seeking to provide services for the people with a very limited basis of taxation, which cannot be expanded unless the statutes are changed. The people of Ottawa are going to foot the bill to the extent of over $6 million in order to claim for themselves a transportation system which in the years to come I am sure will be improved as circumstances permit. And the citizens of this city will enjoy the benefit of
Ottawa Transportation Commission any profits that may be earned by this system. So it does seem to me that a transportation system primarily intended for the service of the people within the municipality should quite properly come under public ownership, to be operated by a commission as set forth in the bill, on behalf of the municipality as a whole.
There is one thought I should like to express, however, and I brought this up on more than one occasion while on the executive of the Georgian Bay hydroelectric power commission. I believe all these utilities should pay a portion of the taxes required to maintain the services of the municipality, in order that they may be operated on a competitive basis. In the same way I have said in this house that I believe all dominion government property located in the city of Ottawa should be assessed. Then instead of sending a deputation here to see what kind of handout they are going to receive, they would obtain a fixed amount based on the assessed value of the property, whether it would be forty per cent of that value, fifty per cent or even sixty per cent. There should be some yardstick which would enable municipal councils to draw up their budgets at the beginning of the year and know exactly what revenue they were going to obtain from both public and private bodies within the municipal limits. We have noticed the trend toward crown companies and similar bodies; and the time is coming when we will have to adopt some method to determine what would be an equitable tax rate for public property in relation to private property.
Having said that much, I want to state that this bill meets with my wholehearted approval. I join with the hon. member for Broadview in wishing every success to these public-spirited citizens who are willing to serve on this railway commission without expectation of reward; and I hope that in the very near future they will have a system of which they may be proud, and which everyone will acclaim.


Mr. Reid:: I rise at this time, Mr. Chairman, not to oppose the bill but to say a few words in regard to the storm I evidently stirred up by what I said in the house when the bill was before us previously. I want to correct some wrong impressions which seem to be in the minds of some of the city fathers. I was a member of the committee which recommended that the grant to Ottawa be increased, and I think I can say without fear of successful contradiction that no one on that committee was more zealous than I on behalf of the people of Ottawa. The record will show the interest I took on that occasion.

Ottawa Transportation Commission Without continuing the controversy that has been stirred up, I must say that at least it appears that I have made the council think they might need some reforms in this city after all; and if I have done that I believe my remarks were well timed and well placed. But if anything was required to vindicate the stand I took in outlining the views of many people in Ottawa, I want to say that in the twenty years I have been coming to Ottawa my fan mail has never been as great as it is now. I have had stacks of letters, most of them saying, "What you said, Mr. Reid is what we have been endeavouring and wanting to say for the past ten or fifteen years." Perhaps I can leave it at that. My advice to the aider-men of this city would be to go out and listen to what the average citizen has to say. I am not a ratepayer of this city, but I have a great interest in it; and I would ask city council: Why does it require twenty men to run a city of from 150,000 to 175,000, when the city of Vancouver, with over 600,000 people, is run decently and well by eight men?
As I say, I am not going to continue the controversy; but I was sorry indeed that instead of using reason in their arguments they resorted to statements concerning a hobby of mine, which had no relation at all to what I had said. That hobby is music; but in their arguments they used noise. I am not opposing the bill. I have as much interest in what goes on in Ottawa as anyone in this house. I have taken a keen interest in the development of the city, but I repeat what I said before, that the streetcars and streetcar tracks are not in keeping with the national capital.


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Chairman-


William Henry Golding: I hope the hon. member will speak to the section, which is section 1 of the bill.


Gordon Graydon: I shall be very brief in what I have to say. I rather suspect the hon. member for New Westminster is enjoying the storm in which he finds himself, and that perhaps some of the criticism which has been directed to him may be used to good purpose in the place from which he comes. After all, the people of Ottawa are quite powerless either to put him in parliament or to take him out of parliament, and I think no one realizes that better than the hon. member. I did not like to hear him say, however, that his musical efforts were just a hobby. For those of us who have been privileged to enjoy that music through the years it is something more than a hobby; it has become an institution, and I hope the hon. member may continue it for many years.

I do not rise at this time in a desire to impede the passage of this measure in any way, because in my opinion it is definitely a step in the right direction. I fancy the sponsor of the bill would be the first to admit that it is long overdue, and for that reason I think there should be no delay in putting it through the committee. My main reason for rising was to pay a tribute on this very appropriate occasion to my colleague the hon. member for Broadview, who I think occupies an almost unique position in a debate such as this.
I suppose that throughout the years of Canadian municipal history there has been no one who has been more faithful, nor one who has been more effective and successful, in promoting public ownership of this type of municipal utility than the member for Broadview. Throughout the years he has had the great privilege and honour of having his native city endorse those policies of his in a manner which enabled him to establish an unequalled record for length of service to his native municipality. Tributes have been paid to the member for Broadview by his own city and, although I cannot claim the honour of being a Torontonian, I can claim the honour of being at least one of those who reside in what might be called a suburb of that city. That suburb has been served for a great many years by the forms of transportation with the origination of which the member for Broadview had so much to do.
Representing the neighbouring county of Peel I should like to add that we have appreciated his efforts throughout the years.
I take this opportunity of sounding his praise and paying him what I think is a very well-deserved tribute on behalf not only of myself but of the people whom I represent, with whom indirectly he has had so much to do.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. G. Power (Quebec South) 'moved the second reading of Bill No. 7, to amend the Dominion Elections Act, 1938 (election expenses).
Gordon Graydon: I am quite sure the hon. member would not like to be denied the opportunity of making a full explanation on

second reading of this bill, and I should like to hear him do it.


Mr. Power:: This bill is an exact copy of a draft bill recommended to the house by the 1939 parliamentary committee on elections. It may be that in the ten years which have passed some of the provisions need modernization. I commend it as it is to the consideration of the house and I hope that those who may desire to move amendments or bring about modification will avail themselves of the opportunity after studying the bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee and reported.


Clarence Gillis: the second reading of Bill No. 20, to amend the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act (enforcement).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Speaker, the house is in a very good humour tonight, so it is too bad the budget is not before us. The purpose of this bill, Mr. Speaker, is to amend the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act so that the responsibility for enforcing the act would rest with the labour relations board. As the matter now stands, if a dispute arises under the present act and after a lot of discussion and the taking of evidence by the board one or the other of the parties to the dispute cannot come to an agreement, the determination of who is in an illegal position under the present act must be made by the courts ovi an application by either the employer or the employee.
I feel, and the group to which I belong feels, that legislation such as this should be enforced by the body that handles the matter, as the national labour relations board does. The labour relations board takes the evidence in the first instance and is in a position to determine which party is in an illegal position or committing an infraction of the act, or, in other words, behaving in a manner that is unreasonable. As such we think they should fix the responsibility on one or other of the parties-the one who in their opinion is guilty. The matter then would merely go to the magistrate's court for fixing the penalties now contained in the act. In view of the fact that you enforce the income tax act and other acts that have to do with the business of government, we think it is only reasonable that a matter as serious as that of labour relations should be handled by
Industrial Relations
those who constitute the court that hears the case in the first instance rather than be passed along to the magistrate's court. Many of the magistrates know nothing about industrial relations and are not in a position to assess even the evidence that goes before the labour relations board. Our amendment suggests that the responsibility for enforcing the act should rest with the government-appointed body that administers the act rather than with the parties to the dispute.


Humphrey Mitchell: I was not aware, Mr. Speaker, that this bill was coming up this evening.


Clarence Gillis: I was not either.


Humphrey Mitchell: I thought so. My mind goes back to the original establishment of legislation having to do with labour relations in the Dominion of Canada prior to the inception of the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act which was drafted under the direction of the right hon. the member for-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Glengarry (Mr. King).


Humphrey Mitchell: I will come to that in a minute.


Angus MacInnis: Take your time.


Humphrey Mitchell: I think it is only fair to say that little legislation of this description was in existence in any country with the possible exception of Australia. It is quite true, notwithstanding opinions to the contrary, that prior to that time the German people had gone into the regulation of labour organizations and trade unions by legislation passed by the state. As hon. members all know, I was always opposed to that kind of policy. The fundamental principle of the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act had for its purpose the system of conciliation. If my memory serves me correctly-and the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) can probably correct me if I am wrong- that act arose out of a dispute that took place in western Canada affecting the miners. At that time the right hon. member for Glengarry was deputy minister of labour. As a result of that dispute, study was given to a labour-relations bill for the settlement of industrial disputes. I think it can be truthfully said that that legislation was the forerunner of most of the statutes that exist today in the Dominion of Canada. Speaking from my own experience-and I think it is the experience of my friend, the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis)-the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act in its day served a useful purpose. The hon. member for Cape Breton South will, I am sure, have a vivid recollection of the part it

Industrial Relations
played-and it was not always successful, of course-in the settlement of disputes affecting miners in the Cape Breton area. With the exception of British Columbia, and to a lesser degree Alberta, that was the only labour legislation that existed in the Dominion of Canada prior to the outbreak of the war.
Out of our war experience, when industrial relations came under the jurisdiction of the federal Department of Labour, through the War Measures Act, we saw the development of legislation which is now on the statute books. Of course there are always two points of view on this legislation. If this bill carries, my hon. friend will, in my judgment, turn the Canadian labour relations board into a court rather than a board composed of the two parties concerned in an industrial dispute. I think it can be agreed that our good friends to the south of us, after the passage of the Wagner act, had a great deal of experience in the method of procedure which my hon. friend would have us adopt in Canada.
In Australia, of course, in a similar way labour courts or arbitration courts were established some years ago, for the adjudication of labour disputes. Those courts are not representative bodies, as we understand them. They are judicial courts established for the arbitration of labour disputes in that commonwealth. I think that any impartial observer will agree-and I have no criticism of what our Australian friends do in this regard-that those courts have not functioned in the manner expected when they were set up. While they are arbitration courts in name, I think it is only fair to say that even at this moment industrial disputes in the commonwealth of Australia are much greater in extent, and occur more often, than those in Canada.
We have a vivid recollection of the study we gave to this problem in the committee, in the house, and across the country, with the representatives of organized labour and employers, on the very matter to which my hon. friend has referred. At that time I think there was almost unanimous agreement that the method of procedure we then adopted would be the best procedure under the circumstances as we understood them, and in the light of experience during the second great war.


Clarence Gillis: The Canadian Congress of Labour do not think that.


Humphrey Mitchell: I know. That is one organization. But one swallow does not make a summer.


Clarence Gillis: It is fairly representative.


Humphrey Mitchell: There are other organizations like the railway brotherhoods, the national

Catholic syndicates and the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada. When you are fashioning legislation for the purpose of adjudicating labour disputes, you must, by the very nature of things, go down the middle and not to one extreme or the other. I have also this opinion, and I have discussed it with the framers of the Wagner act in the United States, that under any democratic system, when you have a different law for the rich and a different law for the poor-


Clarence Gillis: Such as they have in Quebec.


Humphrey Mitchell: Just a minute. I am not talking about Quebec.


Clarence Gillis: Labour relations.


Humphrey Mitchell: When you have a different law for the rich and a different law for the poor, dealing with the same subject, you are bound to get into trouble. It is the very basis of revolution itself. I think it is the fair thing to say that the approach to this problem of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada and the other labour organizations concerned has been more sensible than possibly that of any other country which has legislation the purpose of which is the settlement of industrial disputes. I know that my hon. friend will quote legislation from some other country, but the final judgment can be reached only in the practical application of the legislation itself. May I give this as an analogy or an example: Prior to the last great war more conventions of the international labour office were approved and adopted by Roumania than by any other country in the civilized world. Notwithstanding that, I think it is fair to say that conditions in that country were certainly far behind those of any country in Europe, and still farther behind conditions in any country of the western hemisphere.


Clarence Gillis: Will the minister permit a question?


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes.


Clarence Gillis: The machinery which we now have for settling labour disputes was tested within recent months in the Hull transportation case, and proved conclusively to myself and to the Canadian Congress of Labour that if it is going to work it has to be substituted for the present act. Is not that true?


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend is a member of the united mine workers of America. I think that organization has biennial conventions with brass bands and so on.


Clarence Gillis: No brass bands.


Humphrey Mitchell: You know about the brass bands. This act has been on the statute books since last September. To my knowledge, and

I speak from memory now, we have had leave twice to prosecute. What you have to remember is this, and I think the experience in the United States will bear it out. You cannot make a national war labour board the grievance committee of a trade union.


Clarence Gillis: We are not asking that.


Humphrey Mitchell: Or of employers.


Clarence Gillis: It is not the war labour board.


Humphrey Mitchell: The labour relations board. I was a member of the war labour board and that is why I used those words. I know the fundamentals; I know the fundamental principles behind the legislation. But if my hon. friend had his way it would no longer be a labour relations board; it would be a judicial body.


Clarence Gillis: A body with some authority.


Humphrey Mitchell: It is a matter of opinion. If you are ever sitting over where I am sitting you will be able to try some of these things on the anvil of practical experience.


Clarence Gillis: I would want to be the Minister of Finance.


Humphrey Mitchell: As Minister of Labour I say to my hon. friend-I think I said it in the committee and in this House of Commons-


Lionel Chevrier: There are still a few bridges to build.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You are sitting on a hot anvil too.


Lionel Chevrier: Right on top of the world.


Humphrey Mitchell: I think my hon. friend used this argument in the committee. The responsibility should be with the Minister of Labour. If my memory serves me correctly, I think my hon. friend used that argument. I am subject to correction.


Clarence Gillis: It is corrected now.


Humphrey Mitchell: I put the argument to the committee last year. I believe the soundest approach to this legislation is on the anvil of practical experience. Like a constitution-


Angus MacInnis: They got it in Hull. They got the anvil of practical experience in Hull.


Humphrey Mitchell: I would not call that the anvil in a legislative sense or in the sense of my hon. friend's organization, the Amalgamated Street Railway Workers of North America. They do not change their constitution until they are quite sure that its provisions are unsound and not in the best interests of the organization. This legislation has been in existence only since last September; and notwithstanding the opinions of any organiza-
Industrial Relations
tions, whether it be employers-we get enough submissions and suggestions from employers and from trade union organizations-


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


Humphrey Mitchell: -I think it is working out well. My hon. friend says "hear, hear." Let me say this very plainly. So long as I have been Minister of Labour I have believed it is a ministry of labour and that you have to be fair to-


Mr. Speaker:: The hour reserved for private and public bills has expired. The house will now revert to its business prior to six o'clock.

The house resumed consideration of the motion of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) that the house go into committee of supply.



NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE

Thomas John Bentley: I believe now, sir, that we are on the motion to go into committee of supply. During the discussion of this motion this afternoon a number of hon. members rose in their places and expressed their beliefs as to what should be done in the way of health and medical services and so on. A number of hon. members gave information to the house as to what was taking place in their respective areas. I thought it was a very healthy debate in this way. It was the first time that I can remember a debate in this house when so many members from so many different sides of the house rose in their places and boasted about the great amount of good that was being done in this field in their province or area. That is good. When we start to vie with each other for the honour of leading in social services we are actually making of this parliament of Canada something worth while in the interests of the people.
I rose for two reasons, Mr. Speaker. My first reason is this. I should like to make a reply to the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett). I am sorry he is not in his seat, because during the debate this afternoon when the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), the leader of our party, was speaking he was dealing with the social services which are at present being undertaken by the British Labour government. The hon. member for Stanstead interrupted the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar and pointed out that they were doing this at the expense of the American taxpayers. I do not believe it was a fair statement to make because the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar was not
2362	HOUSE OF
National Health Insurance debating where the good things came from. He did say, and I say with him, that we are very glad this continent is able to supply many of the goods required by the people of Great Britain and to help them out. We agree that, if it were not so, then undoubtedly their standard of living would be, using the words of the hon. member for Stanstead, "horribly lower than it is at the present time." But I point out-


Mr. Fraser:: He said American and Canadian.


Thomas John Bentley: I said North American. I will take American and Canadian as a correction. We could include Mexico in my geography, but I mean what he meant. We agree that if we were not able to supply these goods from these countries then undoubtedly the British standard of living would be lower. But the point to be remembered, the point that the hon. member for Stanstead ought to remember, is that, regardless of where Britain gets her supplies, owing to her present legislation she is making that supply of goods and services available to all of her people. That is an important point to remember when dealing with the matters discussed by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar. I wish our Progressive Conservative friends were as anxious to join in such boasting as we have heard about the accomplishments in the field of health in the different provinces.
My other reason for rising was to do a little boasting myself. I am proud of some of the things my province has done, and I am particularly proud of some of the things that have been done in my region in the southwest part of Saskatchewan. Undoubtedly this region leads the North American continent and the province of Saskatchewan in the matter of health services.
I have the hospital services card which the hon. member for Qu'Appelle mentioned. This cost me $10 for my wife and $10 for myself.
I also have the health region No. 1 card for which I pay $15 for myself and $9 for my wife. With the card from the hospital services I get complete hospitalization when I need it in the province and for 60 days outside the province at the rate of $6 per day.


Mr. Sinclair:: Does that include drugs?


Thomas John Bentley: Some drugs, but not all.


Mr. Gibson (Comox-Alberni):: Mental care?


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: Is the hon. member interested?


Thomas John Bentley: If the hon. member for Comox-Alberni is interested in mental care and feels he is slipping over the edge he should come down immediately. I want to say something more about our health region because the set-up is completely democratic. It is set up under legislation of the province of Sas-


katchewan but at that point any influence by the provincial government ceases. There is no imposition of power or authority on our health region. The legislation provides that if the people in the region wish to establish a health region they may do so. A vote was held and 71 per cent of the ratepayers voted in favour of setting up a region.
I am going to give the details of the services we get in addition to what we get under my hospital services card. We get medical care from any doctor within the region who has signed a contract with the regional board, except residents of municipalities 22, 52, 112, 142, 172 and 232, who may attend Medicine Hat clinic. Those are municipalities that range along the Alberta border. The people there have contracts with doctors in Medicine Hat, Alberta, which is nearer to them than Swift Current or other hospital centres. They may go to Medicine Hat and receive exactly the same services from doctors and dentists as they would from those resident in the region or in other places.
Medical care does not include drugs, chiropractic treatment, glasses, serums or appliances. We hope to have these introduced when financial arrangements make it possible. Then we have what are known as referred cases. A doctor may refer a patient to some other doctor outside the region, maybe a doctor in Mexico, in Ottawa, in Vancouver or somewhere else. When a person is referred in such a way he comes under the provisions of the health region constitution. If a patient is duly referred by a contract doctor the region will pay 75 per cent of the account rendered, at the 1938 schedule of fees of the Saskatchewan College of Physicians and Surgeons.
Emergency sickness while on a visit is paid for on the same basis, that is, 75 per cent of the 1938 schedule of fees. For instance, if I were taken sick here in Ottawa I could claim all the attention I would receive from a doctor in our region and he would be paid 75 per cent of the Saskatchewan fees. Then we get out-patient service at the hospital. A person may not be sick enough to go into hospital but his doctor may want him at the hospital for dressings or for certain medicines or for some other purpose. The fee and other costs for that are taken care of. Then we have dental care for children under 16 years of age.
Reference has been made to the splendid things that have been done in other provinces, but I think what I have mentioned should give even a greater lead to the Minister of National Health and Welfare than anything that has been indicated. I know that there is a tendency to believe that our health region plan has limited the freedom of the medical profession. I should like to read

a paragraph from an address given by Mr. Kjorven, the president of our health region, at a district council meeting held in July, 1948, at Gull Lake. I should like to read all of his speech, but as it is quite long I shall quote only one paragraph as follows:
There have been a great many changes in our program and certainly some improvements, since our original meeting of January, 1946, but today I feel that we have reached a point in the regional affairs which marks the turning point between experimentation and financial stability. It gives me pleasure today to tell you that our negotiations with the medical profession of Swift Current for a renewal of contract as of July, 1948, have been successful and, as a result of these negotiations, we can look into the future without fear of heavy deficits cropping up at the end of each year. I hardly think it is necessary to go into detail on the contract, but simply to state that the doctors have agreed to so allocate the amount of money mutually agreed upon for medical care that we cannot overspend our medical budget. I would like to publicly thank the doctors of this region for their co-operation and their willingness to negotiate on hitherto untried grounds.
And again:
The doctors are satisfied that the proposition advanced to them is fair and the regional board is satisfied as to the amount of money involved and the services which will be rendered to the residents of the region under the contract.
An estimate was made by the regional board of how much the doctors' fees should cost. They went to the doctors and said, "Would you as doctors be agreeable to accepting that and allocating it among your members in the region according to the services that they give?" It must be remembered that no medical man is on salary except the radiologist who does work for all the doctors in the region. The general practitioners are free agents who operate their own offices. The patients call on them or they call on the patients, as they would under ordinary circumstances. The proposal was made to them that they accept this lump sum which I think was $481,000. I have the correct figure somewhere and I could find it if necessary, but it is approximately that. The doctors said, "That is fine."
When I spoke about this matter some years ago, I think during the first session of this parliament, the hon. member for Stanstead interjected and said that we would drive all the doctors out of the region. I would quote again from the speech of the president of the region where he said:
We have, at the present time, 33 doctors in the region, an increase of 13 doctors since the region started
That speech was made last July. In two years' time thirteen more doctors had come into the region than were there when we started. As far as I know, not more than one or two doctors have moved out of the
National Health Insurance region. One of them left because he is retiring from his profession. I believe another one left to take a post-graduate course, or follow some other line of activity in his profession.
Shortly before I left home for this session of parliament I was informed that two more doctors were likely to come into the region, that they were investigating the possibilities of a place in which to operate. Therefore you can see that we have not interfered in any way whatsoever with the private life of our doctors.
I want to deal for a moment or two with the matter of complete medical attention. It is recognized by us, and I believe by all other hon. members who spoke this afternoon, that we have not reached the glory of God in complete medical and health services. We know we have many things to do. That is recognized by the region, but we have gone as far as our financial ability will permit. We have received considerable assistance from the province. We have in the region a population of about 48,000 to 50,000 people in slightly over 19,000 family units, ranging from one in a family to seven in a family. We receive from the provincial government a per capita grant of 25 cents. We receive a grant of 50 per cent for all our hospital outpatient costs. We receive 50 per cent of all dental costs, and we also receive 50 per cent of the cost of paying and equipping our radiologist.
There are many things that the people of the region would like to have. I want to quote a short sentence from a speech by the president of that particular region to show how he thinks these things will have to come about. He is dealing in his remarks with some of the requests for extended services. He has this to say:
That, however, I feel is for you to decide.
He is speaking to a meeting of the representatives of the people.
It is not for a centralized committee of any kind, it is for you men right here to know how much the residents of this area can pay by way of taxation to provide services which you deem necessary.
That indicates the completely democratic nature of the organization. Dental treatment we provide for all those up to sixteen years of age. The reason it was organized in that manner is that many of our public-spirited citizens believe that if the children's teeth are cared for until the age of sixteen, a great many of them will never need any expensive dental treatment thereafter. If they reach adult life with good sound teeth it is possible that a great many other potential illnesses will not attack them, and that eventually the

National Health Insurance age limit will be extended and we will be able to give complete dental care to all citizens. It was felt desirable, however, to start with the younger ones and raise a generation with good, sound teeth. To take care of that program we have traveling dentists. With the exception of the radiologist, they are the only salaried or professional men in the region. They are not brought in by press gangs; they are not conscripted from outside. They are advertised for, and they offer their services at a salary. If their qualifications are satisfactory to the region, and the salary is agreeable to them, then they are supplied with dental equipment and a car. Their itineraries are arranged, and they visit these small rural areas and villages, set up their equipment and attend to the children. In that way these dentists are covering everybody in the region as quickly as possible. It has not all been done yet. We grant all that, but we believe that we are at least giving leadership along this line.
I do not want to take a great deal of the time of the house. I know that government members are very anxious that we get on with the supplementary estimates and pass them. They are quite critical because we are taking up time on these matters, but I should like to say to the government that it is their own fault. If they would tell us frankly and honestly when they propose to hold the election, if we are really coming back after Easter and will have an opportunity to deal completely and exhaustively with the main estimates, if the house were convinced that it was going to have all the time that it requires, we probably would not take up the time of the house on the supplementary estimates. Failing assurance from the government that we will have that opportunity, I think the government can expect nothing but an exhaustive examination and study of the supplementary estimates.
I expect that the time I am taking on this matter will be somewhat irksome to our friends of the Progressive Conservative party. They have their claymores sharpened, their knuckle-dusters shined, their arrows pointed and their bows all strung, ready to go out and engage in combat.


Mr. Smith (Calgary West):: Buttons and bows.


Thomas John Bentley: Yes, all kinds of things. They want to get at the defence estimates. Apparently they want to resume the next war that they were fighting last night. They will have a little more time, however, to get their ammunition ready because I am going to take more time for the purpose of dealing with another matter. I want to bring this question directly to the attention of the

Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin). A year ago it was announced in the house that the government was going to make extensive grants to the provinces for certain specific health services, one of which was a grant of $1,000 for each hospital bed constructed in the provinces. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mrs. Strum) mentioned that this afternoon. I want to point out that it is not working as generously as the announcement led us to suppose that it would. I want to read a letter written by the secretary-treasurer of health region No. 1 to the Department of National Health and Welfare. It is dated September 28, 1948, and it deals with the matter to which I have referred. The letter reads:
Sirs:
We have recently been able to give some consideration to the matter of the grants to be made available to the province of Saskatchewan for public health purposes by the dominion government. While we deeply appreciate the benefits which will accrue from the grants, there are several points on which we feel justified in asking that some reconsideration be given.
Under the provisions of the order in council setting up these grants, a grant of $1,000 per bed is made for new hospital construction. However, the regulations to the order in council stipulate that, where a new hospital is built replacing an obsolete hospital, only the actual increase in the number of beds will be available for the purposes of the grant. In our opinion this particular paragraph should be reconsidered.
During the last two years in health region No. 1 several new hospitals have been built, replacing hospitals which, while they served their purpose during the previous twenty-five or thirty years, could not be further considered as hospitals, owing to construction, plumbing and heating defects, and it was found necessary to build completely new hospitals. The equipment in the old hospitals could not be transferred to the new hospitals as most of it was out-dated and could not be repaired to make it of any practical value. The new hospitals had to be completely re-equipped before being opened to the service of the public.
There seems no good reason why all of the beds in these hospitals should not be classed as new beds. We have in mind the case of the Swift Current hospital, a hospital with the rate capacity of forty-nine beds. This hospital is being replaced by a fully modern hospital of one hundred and nine beds. The present hospital is of no particular use and could not possibly continue under the present conditions. The city of Swift Current built this hospital thirty-seven years ago and, while there has been some new equipment purchased, this equipment is not suitable for taking into a modern hospital.
Under the present regulations to the grants program, all that could be expected by way of a grant from the dominion government would be $50,000, and this board feels that the grant should be for all of the new beds, namely, covering one hundred and nine, or $109,000.
We trust that this matter will be taken up with the committee in charge of the disposition of grants, and that a change may be made, making a grant available to all new hospitals, regardless of the fact that the new hospital may be replacing an old hospital.
That is signed by Mr. Stewart Robertson, secretary-treasurer of health region No. 1,

and a copy has been sent to the hon. member for Maple Creek (Mr. McCuaig) and myself, because our two constituencies are largely in that health region. The point is this. If you have a hospital that has served the purpose but has become obsolete according to modern standards, and want to replace it with a new hospital, then you must deduct $1,000 for every bed supplied by the old hospital. We do not think that is fair. Carried to its illogical conclusion-I was going to say its logical conclusion-as might be done by someone not quite in sympathy with what is being done, this is what could happen. Go back to the old days, when we had railroad camps, logging camps, construction camps and so on, and I have worked in many of them. We had what was called a hospital but was usually referred to as a pest house. If a man got anything from scabies to typhoid fever, smallpox or anything else, he was taken to this little place. Suppose a village still had one of those hospitals, which it had renovated and whitewashed a bit, and then it felt able to build a new hospital, in the expectation of getting this grant. It would find that for each of the old jackpine pole beds in the old pest house, which was passed on from the construction camp to the village which now exists at that spot, $1,000 could be deducted from any grant that might be made.
That is what could happen. Perhaps that is a bit extreme; but under the order in council and regulations it could happen, and it should not be allowed to happen. When a municipality embracing an area both urban and rural undertakes to build a union hospital and taxes its people for that purpose, in the belief that according to an announcement made in this House of Commons they are going to get a grant of $1,000 per bed, that undertaking should be carried out. They set their sights accordingly; they dig their basement; they call for tenders and get all ready to build their new hospital with all modern equipment. Then suddenly they find that the grant they expected is to be reduced by $1,000 for every old bed in the obsolete hospital, and their financial arrangements are knocked cock-eyed, so that in some cases they are not able to go ahead with the construction. In other cases they have to go back and tell their people that as a result of this deduction another mill or two must be added to the property tax. I would ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) to give serious consideration to this aspect of the matter.
I should like to go on with other things, Mr. Speaker. I have a number of very interesting documents in reference to the health region, but I need not take the time
National Health Insurance of the house tonight. I am hoping that what I have said will be accepted by the minister as the truth-not all the facts nor the whole truth, but nothing but the truth-and that this government will undertake to give a lead in order to make services of this kind available all across Canada. Like my hon. friend from Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore), I do not want to have authority centralized so that people are told, "You must do this thing, and you must not do that thing." I want this central government to make it possible for those areas or provinces that wish to do certain things to carry out their wishes, with certain financial assistance from this government. If they will do that they will find, as the hon. member for Lethbridge has said, that many communities will be able to go ahead with hospital and health services such as are already provided in some portions of the country; and those portions which already have this service will be able to extend it under leadership of that kind provided by the federal government.


Arthur Leroy Smith: If the hon. member will permit a simple question, in the health region he spoke of, with 48,000 or 50,000 people, how many hospital beds are there?


Thomas John Bentley: I would have to look up the records. If the hon. member wishes it on Hansard I can give it on another occasion. If he wishes the information privately I shall look it up and give it to him.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I just wondered.


Thomas John Bentley: There are so many village hospitals and new union hospitals that I have not been able to keep up to date on the matter, but there has been a considerable increase.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I suppose I may now assume, Mr. Speaker, that we have had a general discussion and that I am expected in closing to say something regarding some of the speeches we have heard today. I cannot be expected, of course, to cover everything that has been said, for instance, in the speech made by the hon. gentleman who just resumed his seat; he would not expect me to deal in detail with his remarks. The particular matter he raised is one that I suggest he be good enough to discuss with me tomorrow, so that we can get the facts and see what may be done under the orders in council as they now exist.
The first thing I would like to say tonight is that I am sure hon. members noted with considerable regret the announcement in the press that the minister of health of Ontario
2366	HOUSE OF
National Health Insurance was taken seriously ill this afternoon and had to be removed from his office. Only last Friday I spent all day with Mr. Kelley discussing matters in connection with the national health plan and the collaboration and co-operation I have received from the minister of health of Ontario, as indeed from all the provinces, prompts me to express the sincere hope that Mr. Kelley may be restored to good health in the near future.
I took special note of the speeches made today by the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge (Mr. Laurendeau) and the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mrs. Strum). I suggest to any hon. members who did not hear them that their speeches are well worth reading, not only because of their content but because of the way these hon. members approached this problem, which goes beyond political boundaries and should excite the interest of every hon. member, regardless of party.
It would not be fair to say, as was said by the hon. gentleman who initiated this discussion, that the present program of the government is one of retreat. That, I take it, was a figure of speech and did not represent his true convictions in the matter. Instead of retreating in this all-important matter of health the policy of the government, while perhaps not developed as rapidly as some would like, nevertheless has been one of constant advance, as is attested to by those able to give neutral judgment in the matter. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) referred to the observations by Dr. Davis of the Kellogg Foundation. Over the dinner hour I have had an opportunity of reading what Dr. Davis said in his article in the Washington Post about Canada's national health program. These are, among others, some of the many things that have already been referred to by the member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell).
There is another statement in that regard which I think bears mention in this debate.
I should say that Dr. Davis is director of the hospital division in perhaps the greatest private foundation of its kind in the world.
I am sure the Kellogg Foundation will be recognized by everyone as one of the great organizations that are promoting health standards and health facilities, not only in the United States but throughout the world. Dr. Davis said:
Canada is outstripping the United States in its planning for an over-all national health program. What Canada is doing is essentially what the national health assembly last May recommended should be done in this nation and what Mr. Oscar R. Ewing, federal security administrator, recommends in his report to President Truman on national health goals for the next ten years . . .
[Mr. Martin.)

I do not know what that gentleman's views are on health insurance, but I take it from that statement, he having been a member of that assembly and that assembly having been the source of the recommendation made to the President of the United States, that he shares the views of Mr. Oscar Ewing with regard to health insurance in that country. In any event his appraisal of our program to date, a neutral appraisal, is one that should be taken, not without full appreciation of its significance because of that gentleman's great experience in this field.
If one wanted another objective appraisal one would simply look at the appraisal made by the director of the health planning commission of the province of Saskatchewan. His appraisal of the national health program was generous and it characterizes what is being attempted as a bold and courageous program that takes into consideration the fact that, under our constitution, health is primarily the responsibility of the provinces. And so that there can be no doubt about it, Mr. Speaker, let me say that by this program the government does not for one moment wish to intervene in matters which primarily belong to the provinces. We do not want to do things that the provinces can do better themselves. We do not want to do anything that individuals can do better themselves. Essentially, this program is one to supplement the existing health services of the provincial governments under whose authority these matters primarily reside under our constitution.
I am sure when the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar bears in mind that Dr. Jackson, the former deputy minister of health in the province of Manitoba, was seconded to come to Ottawa a few months ago to take direction of this national health program, he will recognize by that fact that the government was not for one moment retreating from the position it has consistently taken over the years in regard to health insurance. Dr. Jackson is recognized as the outstanding public health official in this country. His record in the province of Manitoba is a record of the promotion of public health; free treatment in necessitous cases with regard to tuberculosis, cancer and the like.
This Dr. Jackson would not agree to direct a program that represented a retreat rather than an advance in the matter of health insurance.
I may say that our program is not a retreat. It is exactly what the Prime Minister said it was when he introduced the program last year on May 14. It represents the first stage in a system of national medical and hospital

care insurance; one based on the jurisdiction that the provinces occupy under the constitution, and on a recognition of the jurisdiction of the federal government under the constitution. The Prime Minister said that the purpose of the grants was to assist the provinces in setting up the machinery which will be necessary to ensure the most effective use of the other health grants now being proposed and in planning the extension of hospital accommodation and the proper organization of hospital and medical care insurance. That was the statement made by the Prime Minister at that time. It corroborates the statement made by the present Prime Minister, who said what must be the position of any federal government in this federal state of ours, that it is up to the people and the government in each province to take the initiative in working out health insurance plans in line with their local conditions and their traditions. Is there anyone who would quarrel with that statement? I suspect, Mr. Speaker, that on reflection anyone who would quarrel with that statement would be contributing more effectively than by any other method he could possibly adopt to the sabotaging of a health insurance system. The health insurance program in Britain was not something that happened the other day. It was not introduced by the present government in the United Kingdom. The present health insurance act in the United Kingdom is the outcome of a continuing process that began in Britain in 1911 under the ministry of Lloyd George.


An hon. Member:: It was 1913, was it not?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, 1911. The British government began by taking precisely the same steps in regard to local governments as this government took on May 14 with regard to provincial governments.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: You are thirty-eight years behind.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Someone says we are a long way behind. In some ways that may be true, but in considering the over-all picture of our social security program no one can say we are behind anyone.


Joseph Henry Harris: Perhaps the minister will admit that in the same speech in 1904 Lloyd George referred to social waste.


Peter Francis Martin: Mr. Lloyd George, Mr. Asquith and others, early in the beginning of the century laid the ground work, the kind of ground work we are laying today for health insurance. In Saskatchewan the policy of gradualism has been the policy of the provincial government. Except for the Swift Current area
National Health Insurance in Saskatchewan you have not got a full system of health insurance. In most parts of the province you have a system of hospital care insurance. There is an extension of that in the particular area of Swift Curi ent, but the policy of gradualism is the one that has been adopted by the province of Saskatchewan generally. Consequently, I think it is only elementary to suggest that a program of the immensity of the one we are discussing tonight is one that, if it is going to succeed in this country, can succeed only if we respect provincial rights and obligations as outlined in the constitution.
Where would any minister of health be, regardless of his political party, if without preparatory stages, if without a system of grants to meet great needs, he suddenly brought in a broad measure without consideration of the ability of the provinces to carry it into effect. Such a measure would not receive the support either of the people or of the provincial governments; such a scheme would be doomed to failure from the beginning if initiated here in that way by any federal government.
The hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge (Mr. Laurendeau) spoke in French, and I am sure that if the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) had been following his French he would have appreciated the points he was making when he said we agree in principle with what the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar stated. On behalf of the government I reaffirm the position that was taken by the government when, in 1945, it made certain proposals to the provinces. In 1945 we proposed to the provinces at that time a system of grants for health planning and organization. Those grants were conditioned upon the provinces agreeing to adopt compulsory health insurance. Our position has not changed one bit. I stated that position in this house on February 23 when I said, as reported at page 835 of Hansard:
When this program was announced last year by the then prime minister, it was emphasized that these federal grants "would have the added advantage of being fundamental prerequisites of a nationwide system of health insurance."
That is exactly what the present national health program is. It is a fundamental prerequisite of a nation-wide system of health insurance, and I hope in a moment or two to show how valid that contention is. Then I went on in that statement to say:
Indeed, they represent the first stages. The new services being developed and the new hospitals being built with these federal grants are hastening the moment when in every province it will be possible to consider further action towards hospital and medical care insurance-for which, of course the federal government stands ready to provide assistance. under satisfactory agreements for dominion-provincial co-operation.

National Health Insurance
Surely no one could state the position more clearly than that. Surely that is the position that this government has maintained from the time that it made its proposals in 1945. During the period since that time, on occasion, various members of the government and myself have reiterated this position and I reaffirm it here tonight.
What is the situation in this country? Is there need for preparation? Is there need for a preparatory stage? The answer certainly is: Of course there is. I do not want anything that I say tonight to be taken as criticism of any provincial government in respect of its health administration. We have worked out an arrangement with the nine provinces, and that in itself I believe is no mean achievement. We have the nine provinces of Canada, through their departments of health, co-operating fully with us in the implementation of this program; and as I say, that is no mean achievement in the light of some more recent dominion-provincial relations.


Joseph Henry Harris: Will the minister permit me to ask a question at this point?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes.


Joseph Henry Harris: To the same degree as the provincial governments help with this problem, will the hon. gentleman, in his capacity as minister of his department, see that the individual institutions receive the same consideration?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, I certainly will. This program was announced on May 14 last. This house passed the measure at the end of June. A conference was held at once with all the nine provinces in Ottawa. That conference was called for the purpose of discussing ways and means of implementing the program.
At that first meeting I was told by some representatives of some of the provincial governments that their presence was not to be taken at that time as an indication that they were going to accept the national health program. Let it be clearly understood that while eight of the grants were made on a nonmatching basis, the provinces have to put up money, and considerable sums of money, in connection with the hospital construction grant and the cancer grant. I was told by some of the provincial governments, as I say, that their presence was not to be taken at that time as an acknowledgment of their willingness to carry forward, as far as they were concerned, the program that the federal government had initiated. But two months later all provincial governments, speaking through the proper political authority, agreed to collaborate and to co-operate. That cooperation has gone on and continues to go on in such manner as to lead me to suggest that

there is no doubt that this plan will realize the great purpose to which it is dedicated.
Having said all that, I do not want, as I say, anyone to construe anything I am saying as a criticism of existing provincial health services. But the fact is that because of financial incapacity, or for other reasons, all of our provinces do not have the same health facilities. I could take hon. members, if time were available, over a review of the health facilities as one sees them in all of our provinces, and I am sure that such a review would indicate the tremendous achievements that are being effected under this program.
Let mergive an example. The hon. member for Swift Current (Mr. Bentley) spoke of the great work that was being done in Saskatchewan at the present time under the provincial government's health policy. I am not saying that there is not much useful work being done; but what I am going to say is that many of the things that he suggested- he mentioned them and properly so-are things that are now being done in the province of Saskatchewan with financial assistance given to that province under this federal plan. Let us take for example the mobile dental clinics to which the hon. gentleman called our attention-those clinics are being projected into areas where there are no dentists. The situation in Saskatchewan is that there is a great shortage of dentists. A great maldistribution of dentists exists in fact throughout the country. One of the ways by which proper and more complete dental treatment can be accorded to the people of that province is by the use of these mobile dental clinics. I forget the exact total because I have not my papers with me, but we have approved at least nine projects for Saskatchewan to enable it to carry on and to extend this program of mobile dental clinics.
Take, for instance, the work that is being done in trying to bring dental care to the school children in Saskatchewan. In Saskatchewan we are providing dental care for over 40,000 school children under an expanded program suggested to us by the government of that province and paid by the federal government. That whole program of prevention and of dental care for the schools, to the extent of the 40,000 children I have mentioned, is being borne entirely by the federal government. I am not saying that for the purpose of trying to encourage this house to pay me or this administration a tribute, or anything of that sort. I merely mention this fact as an indication that, no matter what progress has been made in any province, there is great room for further much-needed advance, which I am sure could not finan-

daily take place but for the assistance now being given by the federal government.
In addition to that dental care, in Saskatchewan immunization will be brought to thousands of children formerly unprotected. I could mention-and I am speaking now from memory-no less than ten hospitals in the province of Saskatchewan which will have improved X-ray facilities as a result of this program. Hon. members will say: That is fine, but what is the point? The point is that there are many preparatory things to be done before all the provinces are in a position to introduce a system of hospital and medical care on an insurance basis that will be efficient and that will not break down in the process of its early operations.
Take the question of mental illness in this country. I am not reflecting on any province when I say this, and I want to affirm at once that in some provinces the mental institutions that they have built are a great tribute to the various governments responsible for the erection of those institutions. I think of the building at Essondale; I think of the building at Whitby, Ontario; I think of that new great institution that is being built at Mont Providence. But I can say this:	there is no
province-I am sure every minister of health will agree with me in this-that can affirm that in its institutions for mental care it has all the equipment that it requires to do an adequate job.
We are purchasing thousands of dollars' worth of all sorts of equipment to go into our mental institutions throughout every province in Canada. Not only are we providing equipment for mental institutions, but we are providing training for psychiatrists, for occupational therapists, two personnel units which are sadly lacking. This lack has a great deal to do with the very serious situation which exists in regard to mental illness in Canada. Let no one think that this is not a serious problem. Over half of the people occupying hospital beds in Canada are people who are suffering from mental illness. Under the new schemes of training and treatment, where proper equipment exists, where adequate professional and junior psychiatric personnel exists, it is possible to effect the most remarkable cures and the most remarkable treatment. I am told by my advisers that in a fully equipped mental institution, where there is sufficient equipment and where there is sufficient personnel, it is possible within the course of a year to discharge over 75 per cent of the persons in those institutions, and of that 75 per cent it is said but 25 per cent ever have to return to the institution. That was not so twenty years ago; it was not so ten years ago. But because of new treatment methods, because of new equipment, it is
National Health Insurance possible to effect what I believe to be a very great achievement in mental health care.
Our mental hospitals have not got that equipment. In the maritime provinces, in the western provinces, in all of our provinces, that is the case. About a month ago with two other hon. members of this house and the minister of health of Ontario I was taken on a tour of certain mental institutions in Ontario. I am sure that the minister of health of that province would be the first to admit that the equipment required, the program of training of occupational therapists required, the program of recreational therapy that is required in those institutions which we visited is so great as clearly to cause one to be very hesitant about making any final judgments about the moment and the time when it will be possible for all the provinces to introduce schemes not only of hospital but of medical care insurance. But as I say, these are all first stages.
Hon. members talk about tuberculosis. We have made great progress in tuberculosis care. But the fact is that the problem is still acute. In some provinces the mortality rate is still very high. The only way in which that mortality rate can be reduced is by the building of new hospitals, by the provision of better equipment for X-rays, by both institutional care and pre-institutional care, by providing schemes of rehabilitation both while the patient is in an institution and after he leaves the institution before he goes back to the job of making a living. We are now doing these things, thanks to the national health program. These are part of the preparatory effort that I am talking about, and by giving these examples I am seeking to indicate that we do have to go through these first stages before we can set up an adequate system. Before that time comes, provided the constitutional provisions are observed, it will be possible to make even greater advances not only with regard to one phase of health insurance but with regard to the whole problem of health insurance, hospital and medical.
Take penicillin. Under our venereal disease grant we give penicillin free to the provinces to enable them to cut down the contagious character of this disease. Take streptomycin. I think this does indicate how important this important program has been and is. Streptomycin is a new drug. It is a very costly drug. A year ago one hon. member of this house called me on the telephone and said that one of his constituents was suffering from tuberculosis, and that according to the doctor he was going to die. The doctor had said that that patient could be cured only if streptomycin was administered. But the sanatorium had no funds for the purchase of that expensive drug. We had no provision

National Health Insurance for it in our department, nor did the provincial department concerned have provision for the purchase of drugs in this particular instance. If that situation arose today-and it has arisen in three instances that I know of personally-whether or not the patient could afford it, that drug would be given free. And in two instances of the three of which I have knowledge lives are being saved as a result of our national health program.
The hon. member for London (Mr. Man-ross), who is not in his seat tonight, will I am sure corroborate this. These little examples do illustrate how important this national health program is, and this is the first stage in the realization of the proposal noted by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell). Take another example. A woman in the city of Woodstock had had one leg amputated. Her doctor, a well-known and respected doctor in the town, advised her husband that if streptomycin could be applied he could save her other leg from being amputated. The total cost of that drug in the circumstances indicated by the doctor would have been $580. The husband in question was an ordinary workingman, working for the corporation of the city, I think. He could not afford to buy the drug. He called me himself on the telephone on Christmas day-with tears in his eyes, I suspect. He said, "What kind of a country is this that an ordinary workingman with a wife about to lose a limb cannot get this effective drug?" He asked, was it not possible to find some way by which that kind of situation could be corrected. I was able to say to that gentleman that, under the national health program, funds had been given to the province of Ontario to enable that government to provide streptomycin in such cases free. In that particular case streptomycin was applied and the woman's other limb was saved. I feel that that one example-and there are many others that I could recite-is a clear indication of the purposes covered by the national health program.
We are making a real advance through this program. It is the first stage and, whatever be the ultimate character of future developments, let me say, speaking for those on this side, we want to see preserved the traditional relationship between doctor and patient.
No scheme of health insurance will work, especially in a confederation like this where the initial jurisdiction over health resides with the provinces, unless there is co-operation by the provinces, unless there is co-operation by the medical profession, by the nursing profession, by the dental profession and by all other bodies concerned. It is in that spirit


that we have approached this problem. We do enjoy now a great measure of co-operation by the provinces, by the medical profession, by the dental profession and by the nursing profession. I am sure that in approaching this problem responsibly, as we are going to approach it, by maintaining that kind of collaboration, we will have laid the foundation for a more successful operation of the ultimate scheme than would otherwise be the case.
When the moment will have arrived to initiate such a scheme by any particular province, along with contributions to be made by the central government, will be a matter to be determined in the light of the progress we have made with regard to the effective use to be made of the grants of money provided to the provinces. Already we have made a tremendous advance in hospital construction. We have set for ourselves an effort of 40,000 hospital beds in the next five years. A month ago I told the house that within a period of less than seven months we had committed ourselves to the payment of funds for the construction of 13,000 additional hospital beds. I take it that the committee generally will recognize that that in itself is a remarkable bit of progress.
With progress carried on on that accelerated basis the time will come when we will be able to say that there are hazards to human welfare that only the collective strength of the community can overcome. We have seen the growth in this country of the humanitarian conviction that no Canadian should be debarred from adequate health care because of a mere lack of money.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) in his closing words stated a proposition with which no hon. member of this committee will disagree. In his remarks he has emphasized some of the problems which, as he correctly pointed out, must be dealt with under our constitution by the dominion and provincial governments. On more than one occasion during his remarks he emphasized the fact that the ground work has not yet been fully laid for the carrying into effect of general plans for the health measures that were first brought under discussion in August, 1945, and that were discussed during the succeeding months until May, 1946, when the conference which was discussing them adjourned. Since that time certain steps have been taken which undoubtedly have advanced the further examination of this subject. Undoubtedly the plans made for assistance to hospital construction have encouraged the expansion of

construction and have made it possible to begin the construction of hospitals which had not already been started.
The scope of the subjects referred to by the Minister of National Health and Welfare indicated to some slight degree the broad scope of the problem which must be dealt with and solved through the joint action and co-operation of the official representatives of the various governments. The points the minister touched upon were only a few of the many which must be under consideration in the broad field. However, it would be well to remember that the point now being discussed is merely the preliminary stage of the broad plans for health and social security measures which were under discussion from August, 1945, until May, 1946, when the representatives of all the governments were meeting in conference.
I think it should be remembered that practical attempts, or I shall go further and say that a practical beginning, had been made in working out the details of this problem. Those who attended the meetings of that conference will recall-I should like to emphasize this point-that the representatives of every provincial government agreed in principle with the health and social security program under discussion in August, 1945. It was then pointed out that there were many things about which there was not sufficient information and the first stage was the setting up of a dominion-provincial co-ordinating committee which was made up of representatives of all the governments. The record is quite clear that the intention and the desire was that this would become a continuing committee made up of the heads of the dominion and provincial governments or their representatives, to meet from time to time to discuss ways and means of working out the plans about which there had been agreement in principle.
When the representatives of the governments met again in November, 1945, after the preliminary adjournment during which certain inquiries were to be made, it was recognized that there was not sufficient information in regard to the financial aspects of many of these problems and that if there was to be agreement among the governments which would make it possible to carry forward these broad plans for health and social security, extended statistical details would be required. Therefore, at the meeting in November, 1945, a second committee, a very important committee, was set up, known as the dominion-provincial economic committee. That committee was made up of economic representatives of all the governments and it met continuously from the time it was appointed 29087-150
National Health Insurance until the governments met again in the latter part of January, 1946.
In the meantime they had worked out many statistical details which were of great assistance in considering the way in which this measure of co-operation on a practical basis could be extended. That committee continued to carry on its work, and was still an operative committee at the time the conference last met on May 3, 1946, as was also the dominion-provincial co-ordinating committee. May I repeat that not only in August, 1945, but at all subsequent meetings, as the record shows, there was agreement in principle that these broad health and social security measures should be carried out so that there would be an even standard of health and social security measures for all the people of Canada, no matter where they lived and what their circumstances might be.
What became very clear at the last meetings of the conference in April and May of 1946 was that the details, not only in regard to the financial requirements, but also the statistical details in regard to the hospital bed requirements, in regard to the adequacy of equipment of the various institutions throughout the country, and all similar details, had not yet been fully accumulated. That was agreed by every government, and the representatives of those governments. Therefore there was a request, and it was made by several of those present, that the work should proceed, and proceed continuously and vigorously, by way of an examination of the whole problem and thus lay the foundation for the extension of these health and social security measures upon which all governments were agreed in principle, even as I am sure they are now. The very nature of these discussions is evidenced by the last paragraph of my closing statement to that conference on May 3. We had dealt with the health program and the approval of these principles, and this was the closing paragraph of my remarks:
The dominion government knows the needs of the provinces. It knows where the heaviest fields of tax responsibilities lie. It has had the figures from the submissions of the provinces and from the calculations of the economic committee. I strongly urge that the dominion government observe the remarks made by the Minister of Finance yesterday that you could not quickly make decisions on these things. Decide how long it will take to revise your position in the light of the clearly stated position of the provinces, then call us together to consider a transitional tax agreement which will deal only with the transitional tax problem and leave us free to consider as separate problems other matters upon which we all agree in principle but in regard to which neither the dominion government nor any other government has the essential statistics. In that way there is still hope in the interests of unity, in the interests of carrying out the objective of this conference. I do urge you to carry out that suggestion.

National Health Insurance
Those were the closing words of my statement at that time. May I repeat those words which indicated quite clearly that all provinces had agreed. I said.
. . . upon which we all agree in principle but in regard to which neither the dominion government nor any other government has the essential statistics.
Remember that we are told now that it is not possible yet to proceed with these things because a sufficient examination has not yet been made. It was in relation to a statement, almost exactly in the same terms, made by the Minister of Finance on May 3, 1946, that I said:
I strongly urge that the dominion government observe the remarks made by the Minister of Finance yesterday that you could not quickly make decisions on these things.
What the provinces were urging then was that we should proceed to examine the details, and with those essential details proceed with these broad humanitarian measures about which there was not a single dissenting voice from the representatives of any government in Canada.
Let me remind hon. members, however, that it is not enough to work out the statistical requirements as to the operation of such health measures as may be put into effect. It is not sufficient that we know with complete exactness how many hospital beds there should be, what facilities there are to care for tuberculosis, to care for the various arthritic and pulmonary diseases, how many beds there should be for surgical requirements or for ordinary medical requirements, or what particular type of equipment is required to meet the demands of particular ailments. It is not enough to have all that statistical information. It is not even enough to know exactly how many doctors, nurses and supporting staff are required to man these vitally important institutions.
It is also necessary to work out a basis upon which these governments can then carry out their joint responsibilities in the field covered by that great undertaking. No matter how perfect any plan may be for health and social security measures-and in this case we are dealing particularly with health measures which in some respects dovetail into certain of the social security measures-no government is able to go ahead until there has been a definition of the field of authority and responsibility, and until there has been an agreement as to how the obligations are to be carried out. That has been the essential requirement ever since the conference was adjourned on the motion of the dominion government on May 3, 1946. It will continue to be the essential requirement until the dominion government reconvenes that conference.

It is so easy to make the cynical remark that there is no use calling a conference together when an election is pending. If that attitude were taken no conference could ever be held, because there is never a time in this country when, with a dominion government and now ten provincial governments, it may not be possible that one of those governments, or more than one, will have an election. That excuse simply does not hold water.
We have had some mention of the Potsdam agreement in relation to another subject which has been under discussion. They did not call off the Potsdam conference because there was an election in Great Britain. The election went on, the representatives changed, and for good or ill the conference went ahead and reached its conclusions. So it is with any of these great conferences. Even if there is an election in the offing, there is no reason why the Prime Minister of Canada should not be at the commonwealth conference which is meeting so soon. All these conferences can and should be carried on according to the needs of the conferences, not according to the political winds which may blow one way or the other at a particular time.
But there is another step that could be taken, even if the government has come to the conclusion that it has no chance of being returned here. A great deal can be done so that the government formed after the election will be able to carry on, and that is by reviving those two committees which were set up and were intended to continue as operating committees. There is no reason why the dominion-provincial co-ordinating committee could not be called together tomorrow, on notice sent out by the dominion government; and there is no reason why the dominion-provincial economic committee could not be reconvened through notice sent out by the dominion government tomorrow. Those committees could be instructed that it is the desire of all governments to have all essential facts, not only in relation to health and related requirements, examined in fullest detail, and also that they examine how those plans may be carried out by an appropriate allocation of taxing powers as between the different governments.
Let me give an illustration of how important it is that there be adequate provision and allocation of taxing powers. I want to join with the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) in expressing pleasure that an agreement has been worked out in regard to the physical fitness program, which he mentioned this afternoon. In spite of many things said here from time to time,

often in ignorance of the details, I know, rather than with any intention of misleading, there has been a great measure of agreement between the dominion and all provincial governments in many fields. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) knows the extraordinary degree of co-operation that existed between the dominion and provincial governments in regard to the educational programs associated with the rehabilitation of the members of our armed forces. The minister knows that under agreements between the governments, Ontario and the other provinces handled the whole educational program involved in the rehabilitation of the veterans of the last war; and it was carried out with satisfaction not only to the governments themselves but, I am sure, with satisfaction also to the veterans who obtained that training. There have been many fields of agreement. Where there has been a desire to work in a spirit of co-operation as between the governments, that has not been found difficult.
In the particular case I have mentioned, it has now transpired that the very extensive physical fitness program of the province of Ontario is working in with the efforts being made by the dominion government. But when we express approval of what has happened it is essential that we keep things in proportion so we may understand how vitally necessary it is that the provincial governments have taxing resources adequate to carry out these plans. This afternoon the minister pointed out the great advantages of physical fitness training and what it means in laying the foundation for the structure of our country; and in nothing could I agree with him more completely. The best way to begin a health program is by building the physical stamina of our youth; and the accomplishments in this connection are very satisfactory. I want to express most emphatically my very warm sentiments toward the Ontario minister of health, Mr. Russell Kelley, who has shown such friendly co-operation with the federal minister in this matter. I want to express also, perhaps with a sense of more intimate concern than anyone else here, for obvious reasons, my great concern about the news that this afternoon he had suffered a heart attack. I just want to say- and this applies to all who assume the responsibilities of public office, whatever the field may be-that all too often in this way we see evidence of the very heavy burdens that fall upon those in public life, and I know I am uttering the sentiments of every hon. member when I express the hope that this vigorous, genial and efficient public servant may have suffered only a slight attack, and will soon be on his feet again.
National Health Insurance
I was pointing out that in the case of physical fitness there is a very extensive program under way in Ontario; and the agreement which has been reached is between the federal minister of health and the provincial minister of education. The amount mentioned by the minister this afternoon as the payment to be made by the dominion government from public funds was $74,000. I want to make it very clear that I am not criticizing this amount, which is contributed by the dominion government under this plan. But may I remind hon. members, so they will realize the obligations of the provincial governments, that this year the cost to the provincial government of its physical fitness program is not $74,000, to match the federal contribution, but instead $682,000. And I would point out also that this $682,000 is only the amount set aside for the physical fitness program which has been in operation in Ontario for some years. In addition the government of that province is spending millions of dollars on a physical fitness program in the schools, out of funds not specifically segregated for that purpose. So the expenditure on the part of the province runs into millions of dollars, as against a contribution of $74,000 in this case by the dominion government.
That is important. I am not mentioning it to belittle in any way what has been done, or to minimize the desirability of co-operation. I am mentioning these figures to indicate that if these programs are to be carried out it is absolutely necessary that along with agreement as to what the program will be there must also be agreement as to how the funds are to be raised to provide the money necessary to carry it out.
That applies equally in the case of hospitalization, of course. I could point out that under this very desirable policy the dominion government is contributing $1,000 per bed, but that this government was only following the example given some time before by the Ontario government, which had been paying $1,000 a bed for all new general hospital construction, and $2,000 a bed in the case of hospitals for chronic cases.


Joseph Henry Harris: 


George Alexander Drew: The contribution by the dominion government in that case is $1,500, and $2,000 by the Ontario government; and those contributions were made for some time before the dominion government entered that field. The point I am making is that these contributions that have been made from public funds by the dominion department of health were made and were part and parcel of this program that we had under discussion back in 1946. But again let us remember that, for

National Health Insurance many long years, the Ontario government has been paying from the public funds which it collects very much more in annual payments than are now being contributed by the dominion government to the people of the province of Ontario. That is also true of most provinces in Canada.
All these contributions are important, but they are part and parcel of an over-all plan. That being so, let us recognize it. You will find there was complete agreement in principle, and there is complete agreement in principle now. The minister of health very properly explained to the members of this house that he has found the provinces were ready to agree to enter into a broad plan for which the payments made last year were simply a preliminary stage. He himself has indicated the basic measure of agreement that exists. That being so, may I in all earnestness, urge the minister and the government as a whole to recognize that there are things to be done which could be done even without calling the dominion-provincial conference, important though that would be.
The motions are still on the records. The committees were set up. All the governments, and that means every one of them, approved of these plans in principle. Every one of them supported the motion to set up a co-ordinating committee. Every one of them supported the motion to set up an economic committee. I urge that, since this general measure of approval is indicated, although it is late, that is all the more reason for the government to decide that it will immediately reconvene these committees and instruct them to make a proper inquiry so that we may carry forward this great health program to which all governments have given their approval.


Hon. Brooke Claxton (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I must say that I did not come to the session of the house today expecting to speak on dominion-provincial relations. I had thought that we might get *on with the business which had been put before the house dealing with the further supplementary estimates, and particularly those relating to defence. The question of health insurance, however, has been raised. It is within the right of any hon. member to raise a question of any character on a motion to go into supply. We then had this interesting debate this afternoon.
Having had something to do with the formulation of the dominion government's proposals to the dominion-provincial conference in 1945, perhaps I might have spoken earlier but I thought the subject had been adequately covered by the speakers. I had no

intention of speaking until the leader of the opposition made the statement he has jus1 made.


Mr. Ferguson:: You did not know what it was all about.


Brooke Claxton: I can remember very clearly the proceedings at the dominion-provincial conference, having taken part in them from start to finish.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Even so.


Brooke Claxton: I have refreshed my memory by referring to a copy of the record of the plenary conference discussions. The leader of the opposition also referred to the work of the economic committee, which was a committee set up to work between sessions of the plenary conference. I had the honour of presiding over the work of the economic committee during its numerous sessions. During those sessions we had together the ministers and deputy ministers and officials appropriate to each branch of the activities of the dominion and provincial governments to discuss problems that had been raised by the dominion's proposals or by the discussions that followed. I must say that those discussions in the economic committee were exceedingly co-operative and exceedingly friendly. We had no difficulty at any stage. There were no votes; there were no dissents. It was an honest effort by well-meaning and well-informed servants of the public of Canada, either in the federal or in the provincial sphere, to find out what could be done to meet our common problems in the interests of the Canadian people.
At the conclusion of the conference, before we went back to the plenary session, I must say it was a matter of some personal satisfaction that a vote of thanks was moved to me by the representative of Ontario or Quebec and seconded by the other. I mention that purely to indicate that at that stage there was that degree of unanimity and co-operation to which the leader of the opposition has referred.
But when he speaks about health insurance in the way he has tonight I must say that I fail to find, either in my recollection or from my perusal of the record, justification for his statement that all the provinces were in favour of health insurance. I must say that I have not read through the proceedings-


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege, I am sure that the minister has no desire to mislead the house, but I should refresh his memory-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I suggest to hon. members, who often rise on questions of privilege when they have no question of privilege at all, that they first state their question of privilege.


George Alexander Drew: It is simply that the economic :ommittee was moved in a closed session and, :onsequently, it is not reported in this book. :t was at that session that the agreement in jrinciple was made and that the economic :ommittee was set up, as is known to the nembers who were there.


Brooke Claxton: There is absolutely and utterly 10 question of privilege in that. How the eader of the opposition can accuse me of eferring to a matter that had come up in :amera when he goes on to review it and vhen I was there and he was not, I do not mow.


George Alexander Drew: Of course I was there. I moved he motion to set up the committee.


Brooke Claxton: The hon. member has just said hat this agreement to which he refers took ilace at the economic committee. He was not iresent at any meeting of the economic ommittee.


George Alexander Drew: I do rise on a question of privi-ege, Mr. Speaker. I said that it was at the neeting of the governments in November, irhich meeting was in camera. There is no ecrecy about it, and I moved the motion to et up this committee.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Brooke Claxton: Yes, sir, and the motion that ie moved said nothing whatever about health nsurance, which is the point in question.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That is what you say.


Brooke Claxton: I will refer to the record and eal with it, not as fully as I should like ecause I must say I should like to proceed /ith the supplementary estimates, but I annot allow these misrepresentations of what ccurred at that conference, and which are latters of public record, to go unchallenged. With regard to Ontario, if you look at the roceedings you will see that the province f Ontario made submissions on January 8, 946. They begin at page 225 of the published roceedings. There it is quite true that they re dealing with financial considerations, and ley give a summary of Ontario's objections ) the dominion's proposals. At page 238 we ave this in the summary:
10. Decentralization of services provides the best isurance that the flexibility, vigour and efficiency : public administration will be preserved.


George Alexander Drew: Certainly.


Brooke Claxton: To diverge for a moment, I lould like to contrast that statement with the ;atement made by the hon. leader of the pposition as quoted in the Toronto Globe f November 10, 1936-


John Ewen Sinclair: That is a communist paper.
National Health Insurance


Brooke Claxton: -and appearing at page 90 of Hansard of this year, in which he says:
Canada must eliminate the costly inefficiency of ten governments doing, in most cases, the job of one, or else sink in the rising tide of fascism, Lieutenant-Colonel George A. Drew predicted at the board of trade club last evening.


George Alexander Drew: There was one in 1921. Get that.


Brooke Claxton: Then on page 88 of Hansard appears a statement made by the leader of the opposition, as reported in the Halifax Herald of April 25, 1941:
Describing Canada's "over-government" as the "most colossal and incompetent system in the world" Colonel Drew said, "I defy anyone that has any personal contact with our system of government in Canada-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Brooke Claxton: Wait and say "hear, hear" at the end.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Such colossal government.


Brooke Claxton: To continue:
-to say that it is not impeding us from doing many things that should be done to increase Canada's strength in her war effort." Colonel Drew related what he termed some of the disadvantages of the present system, recounting duplication of services and other features he said were detrimental to efficient national administration.
"What we need greatly is to look at government from a business viewpoint," he said, paralleling the methods that a private business with a head office and nine branches would employ to promote more efficiency.
Preservation of a nation's integrity must come from a strong centralization feeling, Colonel Drew continued.
May I conclude this diversion-


Gordon Knapman Fraser: You have not a strong government now.


Brooke Claxton: -by quoting again the concluding words of that report in which he said:
Preservation of a nation's integrity must come from a strong centralization feeling . . .
That is the Halifax Herald of April 25, 1941. He said, at the dominion-provincial conference of 1946:
Decentralization of services provides the best assurance that the flexibility, vigour and efficiency of public administration will be preserved.
Now I should like to quote what the Ontario submissions said on the subject of health insurance. I should like to ask hon. members, the house, the country and the electors to whom he has just made his appeal-


Gordon Graydon: You are getting close to home now.


Brooke Claxton: -what they think of the two statements-one made by him as the leader of the provincial government in 1946, appearing at page 247 of the proceedings, and the

National Health Insurance one he has just made tonight. He said this, and this is all that is said on health in this submission:
The dominion proposals under this heading in regard to benefits to be extended, the costs involved and the present limitations of hospital and personnel facilities of the provinces have been given careful consideration. It has become obvious from an examination of the proposals themselves and particularly from the deliberations of the economic committee that this subject requires a great deal of further study and preparation of essential facts.
A statement with which I completely agree. No other suggestion was made.
The Ontario government recommends that this should be undertaken at once. This whole question could well be one of the first subjects referred to the dominion-provincial co-ordinating committee.


George Alexander Drew: That is what I just said.


Brooke Claxton: To continue:
While the dominion government has suggested that it intends to finance its contribution to health insurance by a social security tax, it proposes that the provinces finance their share of the cost of health insurance by the collection of a fee or tax to be paid by every person over sixteen years of age.
Here we have emerging for the first time the poll tax red herring.
This, as has already been pointed out, is in effect a poll tax which is not related to earning capacity or to whether or not the taxpayer is employed. The provinces would experience the utmost difficulty in underwriting health insurance services financed by such an unsatisfactory form of taxation.
That is as far as I have been able to find tonight, and I give no assurance to the house that that is all there is in this volume on the subject. But that is what was said by the representatives of the province of Ontario at that session.
But then I would put before hon. members the fact that during the course of the discussions in the economic committee we explored, as I say, every aspect of every subject under consideration. Then at the end of it some questions were put to the dominion on April 25, 1946, by representatives of the provinces and not one of them dealt-and I think I am right; I have checked them over as well as I could in the time at my disposal here-with health insurance at all. I suggest that at no stage was there any indication that all the provinces were in favour of health insurance. I suggest-and again it is subject to possible correction because I have been checking through the record again only tonight-that one province indicated in the clearest possible way that it was opposed to any idea of health insurance. I refer to the observations on behalf of the province of Quebec which appear at page 349 of the record. I am quite prepared to read them at length-and I refer hon. members to them-either in the translation or in the original French. But I do say that I have read them, and my recollection is clear that


at no stage of any proceeding of the dominion-provincial conference did the province of Quebec indicate that it was in favour of health insurance. I must say that at the economic committee its minister of health and deputy minister of health expressed the utmost interest in some possible development along the lines of health grants. But at no stage was there any indication that the province of Quebec would be willing on any terms to accept health insurance. That statement is borne out by the reference I have just made to page 349, at which the Quebec brief appears.
Now, sir, we have had some discussion already this session about the dominion-provincial conference. It seems to me that it is wearing rather heavily on the conscience of one of the hon. members. I myself do not propose to go over the ground covered so ably in the fine speech by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson). I do not propose to go over the ground covered by this volume which I hold in my hand, but I say, sir, that it shows who broke up that conference.
In conclusion, sir, I would say that if we were able to get agreement with the province of Ontario on the subject of physical fitness it was because the leader of the opposition is no longer premier of Ontario.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John Ewen Sinclair: The other leader over there wants to speak.


George Alexander Drew: I wanted to tell the minister who has just spoken-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The leader of the opposition knows perfectly well that he cannot speak twice in this debate.


Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinton):: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad that the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) has spoken in this debate. In his remarks he drew attention to the proceedings of the dominion-provincial conference; but in the reading of those proceedings he was very selective. But that is the habit of certain members of the ministry. We have known it to happen before, because in his deliberate attempt tonight tc distort the position taken by my leader-


Brooke Claxton: Mr. Speaker, I have been in this house-


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The minister is speaking on a question of privilege, is he?


Brooke Claxton: On a point of order.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Give us the point of order.


Thomas Reid: You have risen on them often enough.


Brooke Claxton: It is astounding the way the opposition will prevent the business of this house from being carried on in an orderly fashion.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: What is the point of order?


Brooke Claxton: I have been in this house eight years-


Some hon. Members:: Order. Sit down.


Joseph Henry Harris: Mr. Speaker-


Brooke Claxton: I have-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Is the minister rising on a question of privilege? If so, I would ask him to state it.


Brooke Claxton: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is not in order to say that an hon. member has deliberately distorted anything.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would suggest that the hon. member withdraw the word "distorted."


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw the word "deliberately" and I shall proceed to read

*


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sure the hon. member realizes that he should not use that expression and that he will withdraw it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I make this observation. I copied the example of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) who has used that expression several times in the house this session. Mr. Speaker, I do not want the three minutes that are left taken up on the point of order.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I asked the hon. member to withdraw the words he used. .


Donald Methuen Fleming: What words?


Mr. Speaker:: That the minister distorted the text.


Donald Methuen Fleming: All right. I withdraw the words "distorted the text." I may say that he very carefully refrained from reading that portion of the text which really is an answer to him and it is found on page 248 of the proceedings of the dominion-provincial conference.
National Health Insurance


Mr. Hartt:: I rise on a point of order.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The minister read a portion of the text and he said this was not there. This is the report.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Maurice Hartt: I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: I asked the hon. member to resume his seat. I would ask hon. members to remember that when the Speaker rises they should resume their seats.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Fleming moves the
adjournment of the debate.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, it is not ten-thirty yet. These are the words that the minister did not read:
It is also apparent that the dominion's program is dependent upon the hospitals and trained medical, dental and nursing personnel available in the provinces. In Ontario, present facilities are taxed to capacity.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It is ten-thirty.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, it is not ten-thirty.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Fleming moves the adjournment of the debate.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not adjourn the debate. You have no right to say that I adjourn the debate. The words of the text are as follows:
The province of Ontario has already taken action on the above and is prepared to collaborate with the other provinces and the dominion in the furthering of these objects.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member does not resume his seat he knows what I will have to do.


Donald Methuen Fleming: If you say it is ten-thirty, sir, I say it is 10.29.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Mr. Garson:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Fleming moves that this debate be now adjourned. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Mr. Casselman:: Who makes the rules?


Mr. Speaker:: Carried.


Donald Methuen Fleming: We are denied the right to speak here. With great respect, sir, I draw your attention to the fact that it is not ten-thirty yet. I have the right to read an essential part of the text.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would ask the hon. member to resume his seat. Mr. Fleming has moved that this debate be now adjourned.

Business of the House


Donald Methuen Fleming: With great respect, I have not moved the adjournment of the debate. It is 10.29.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then I move it.


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Knowles moves that this debate be now adjourned.
Motion agreed to and the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Si. Laurent:: Mr. Speaker, earlier in the evening I had understood that it was the desire of hon. members that we continue with government notices of motion and government orders tomorrow and that I would have the consent of the house to revert to motions at this time and make that motion.
Judging from the temper of the house I do not know whether there is anything that can be unanimous at this moment, but if it is possible I would move that on Wednesday,
April 6 instant, government orders have precedence over all business except questions and notices of motion for production of papers.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
George Alexander Drew: I understood that the house had adjourned.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. gentlemen know that the Speaker never puts a motion that the house be adjourned. A motion has been put that the debate be adjourned.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That was my motion.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Tomorrow the intention will be to move again that the Speaker leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of supply to consider further supplementary estimates.
At ten-thirty the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to the order of the house passed on March 14, 1949.

Wednesday, April 8, 1949