1953-05-01

Mr. D. F. Brown (Essex West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the second report in French and in English of the special committee on the criminal law.
The Clerk Assistant:
The special committee appointed to consider Bill No. 93 (letter O of the Senate), intituled: "An act respecting the criminal law", and all matters pertaining thereto, begs leave to present the following as its second report-


Some hon. Members:: Dispense.


Mr. Drew:: No; I wish it read. Perhaps
it might help if just before it is read I ask this question. Is it a unanimous report?


Mr. Speaker:: The report is presented; I
think it should be read.


Mr. Abbott:: The report is the report of the committee.
The Clerk Assistant:
Pursuant to the order of reference of twenty-third January 1953 whereby Bill No. 93 (Letter O of the Senate), intituled: "An act respecting the criminal law", was referred to it your committee has carefully considered the said bill and has agreed to report same with the following amendments, namely:
Clause 2, paragraph (10). Delete paragraph (10) and substitute the following:
"Court of criminal jurisdiction."
(10) "court of criminal jurisdiction" means
(a)	a court of general or quarter sessions of the peace, when presided over by a superior court judge or a county or district court judge, or in the cities of Montreal and Quebec, by a municipal judge of the city, as the case may be, or a judge of the sessions of the peace,
(b)	a magistrate or judge acting under part XVI, and
(c)	in the province of New Brunswick, the county court;"
Clause 8. Delete the figure "(1)" where it appears in line 35 on page 9.
Delete subclauses (2), (3) and (4) and substitute the following:
"Appeal.
9. (1) Where a court, judge, justice or magistrate summarily convicts a person for a contempt of court and imposes punishment in respect thereof, that person may, with leave of the court of appeal or a judge thereof, appeal to the court of appeal
(a)	from the conviction, or
(b)	against the punishment imposed.
Part XVIII applies.
(2) For the purposes of an appeal under subsection (1) the provisions of part XVIII apply, mutatis mutandis "
Clause 9. Renumber as clause 10.
Clause 10. Renumber as clause 11.
Clause 11. Delete clause 11 of the Bill as it appears in lines 25 to 28 on page 10.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, may I interrupt?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


George Alexander Drew: Oh, I am quite agreeable that this be read. But I would point out that we are only on the second page-


An hon. Member:: You asked for it.


George Alexander Drew: We are only on the second page of this extended report which hon. members have only now received, since the reading of this document was begun. It was not in our hands at the time it was presented to the house.
In view of this, I hope hon. members will realize the extent of the problem that is involved, and that they will decide whether they want the reading of it or not.


Douglas Charles Abbott: You asked for it.


George Alexander Drew: I suggest that the reading, then, be proceeded with, so that hon. members may realize the extent of the job that must now be done, and I hope plans will be made appropriately for a sufficient period of time for that job.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Thank you, kind sir.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand from the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition that he is not insisting upon further reading of the report.


George Alexander Drew: Hon. members are.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, but if hon. members in the house wish to have it read, he would not object. Is it the wish of the house that we dispense with the reading of the report at this rime?


Some hon. Members:: Dispense.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed.



PRIVATE BILL


Mr. Irvin Sluder (for Mr. Baler) moved: the first reading of Bill No. 364, to incorporate Canadian Co-operative Credit Society Limited.
Motion' agreed to and bill read the first time.
4642	HOUSE OF
Co-operative Credit Society


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the wish of the house that the bill be read the second time later this day?


George Alexander Drew: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Next sitting of the house. [Later:]


Irvin William Studer: On a question of privilege I
beg the indulgence of the house to consider second reading this day of the co-operative credit society bill which was read the first time this day. I would like to make a very short statement.
This bill is the first of its kind in Canada and it provides for the incorporation of the Canadian Co-operative Credit Society Limited. This company is being incorporated under the Co-operative Credit Associations Act, just passed by this house. It is being sponsored by the provincial credit societies of seven provinces, as well as certain large mterprovincial co-operatives. It will have a capital of one million dollars, and will not commence business until $250,000 is subscribed and $100,000 paid up. In all other respects the company will be governed by the Co-operative Credit Associations Act.
This is a private bill and it otherwise would have to be put over until next Tuesday-and it would then have to go to the committee. In view of the shortness of time the sponsors are hoping that the house will agree to the procedure of having the bill read the second time this day.


George Alexander Drew: I understand that there is no objection to proceeding with this bill as suggested, but in view of the fact that a number of members are interested in its contents and share the desire that it be dealt with, I would suggest that a definite time be set for the consideration of the bill.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is a private bill, so let it
be five o'clock.


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: Yes, five o'clock.


George Alexander Drew: Could it be agreed that the bill be dealt with at five o'clock so that members who are in committees will know when it will come up?


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the bill
entitled "An act to incorporate Canadian Co-operative Credit Society Limited" be called for second reading at five o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1940, to provide for the payment of unemployment insurance benefits to insured persons who, while otherwise unemployed and entitled to benefit, become incapacitated for work by reason of illness or injury.
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.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce a question arising out of the financial need of producers, with respect to the sale of additional quantities of grain. Can the minister say when the prevailing 15-bushel quota on wheat and coarse grains will be increased, and to what extent the quota will be increased before the end of the present crop year?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the 15-bushel quota is now the basic quota, and that supplementary quotas are authorized as the movement of wheat will make possible. The movement of wheat is at a higher rate, so far as movement east is concerned, than ever before in the experience of moving wheat. I am hopeful that supplementary quotas will be increased as the situation warrants.


Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to ask a further question. Can the minister give us any idea at all of what the supplementary quotas may be?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I cannot do that, no.


Hazen Robert Argue: And this further supplementary question:	Is it the intention of the department and the minister to have supplementary quotas even throughout the west during the present crop year, or will we wind up this crop year with different quotas prevailing at different points?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is the purpose of the transport controller to see that all parts of western Canada obtain relief in a uniform process.



REFERENCE TO PRESENCE OF MEMBER IN GALLERY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. A. Cruickshank (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I notice that the next premier of British Columbia, Mr. Laing, is in the gallery.



NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Defence with reference to the press report that on his return from Paris he stated that Canada's commitments under NATO have not been altered, but that Canada has joined with other NATO partners in a three-year agreement about building airfields, fuel lines, and other parts of what is called the infrastructure of the western defence system. Can the minister advise the house of the exact situation?


Hon. Brooke Claxton (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Greenwood was good enough to give me notice of his question. It is really in two parts. The first refers to my statement that Canada's commitments under NATO have not been altered. Canada's military commitments continue as they have been disclosed to this house and to the country repeatedly. We have fulfilled our undertaking to supply an army brigade group, with the committal of the 27th infantry brigade to the integrated force, in November of 1951.
With regard to the air force, in addition to the wing of three squadrons in Great Britain, we have committed another wing of three squadrons located at Grostenquin in France as from November, 1952. Another wing at Zweibrucken was committed last Sunday, in a ceremony there and a third wing in Europe will be taking its place later this year at Baden-Sollingen. So the strength of the R.C.A.F. in Europe as part of the integrated force will be increased by 200 per cent this year.
Inquiries of the Ministry
The navy position is as described in the white paper and in the debate on the estimates.
With regard to the infrastructure, the position was stated in an official press communique authorized to be issued by the North Atlantic council at its meeting in Paris held on Thursday, April 23. That was, I believe, reported in the Canadian press on the following day. I have seen the Canadian Press dispatch dated from Paris, April 24, which was printed extensively in the Canadian press. The position is as stated in the press communique and reported in the press that the countries have agreed on a three-year program, and Canada's share of that program will be 7.13 per cent.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: May I ask a
supplementary question?


Brooke Claxton: Subject to the money being voted by parliament.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I was going to ask that question. The report by Secretary Dulles is that the additional expenditure will be $770 million. The minister has said that our share of that is 7 per cent. What I am still puzzled about is how that squares with the minister's statement that our commitments have not been altered. Did the minister mean that it is not a commitment until the House of Commons votes it? Nevertheless it would still be something to which we would be at least morally committed to some extent.


Brooke Claxton: I think the hon. member is quite right. The government has indicated its intention to ask for this money. If it does not ask for it, then we will not be living up to the commitment of the government. It is the only way we can make international agreements. In the statement I made I was referring particularly to military commitments, to which the member of the press who spoke to me had reference. Infrastructure is a matter that is now dealt with by the Minister of Finance.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Does not the minister think that when making these statements it would be better to make an overall statement? I think the statement that he made is subject to misunderstanding.


Brooke Claxton: The matter was dealt with adequately in the press release and reported in the Canadian press. Supplementary to that, having regard to what I had said about military commitments, I made the statement I did and it is completely correct.

Inquiries of the Ministry TRADE



IMPORTATION OF IRON CASTINGS FROM JAPAN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. W. Noseworthy (York South):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is it a fact that several tons of iron castings have arrived in British Columbia from Japan and are selling at 25 per cent below the price of similar Canadian-made castings? Will the minister indicate what our trade policy is to be with regard to future importations in the same category.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have no knowledge of iron castings arriving in Vancouver. I shall make inquiry and reply at another sitting.



IRRIGATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister as he may not be present this morning when the agriculture estimates are up. I should like to ask him, in view of his telegram of April 29 to the premier of Saskatchewan in regard to the South Saskatchewan river dam and irrigation project, whether or not, if the government of Saskatchewan limits the expenditures required to be made by the dominion government to whatever limitation the Prime Minister has in mind, the government intends to go ahead. If so, in view of that telegram, what is the limitation of expenditure that the government is prepared to accept and undertake in order to go ahead with this?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the limitation of
expenditure has not been considered in precise figures. This is a very large undertaking which would provide for the generation of power and for the possibility of irrigation that would affect, I think, only two-fifths of one per cent of the agricultural lands of Saskatchewan. In view of the relatively small area that would be affected, the capital cost appears to be very substantial.
The dam would provide a reservoir which would have the twofold purpose of providing water for the development of power and for irrigation. It is something that has to be examined in relation to the benefits that would result from the joint expenditure. This would be an undertaking in which the two governments would be co-operating, but


nevertheless it has to be an undertaking that reasonable men can regard as a proper investment of public funds.
The estimates made by the P.F.R.A. and those contained in the report of the royal commission are so divergent that what we had in mind Was that there should be some effort made to get firm commitments from reliable contractors as to what they would be prepared to do this for. If it were going to cost the amount reported by the royal commission, I think even the hon. member would find it difficult to satisfy himself that it was a wise investment. There are assertions that those estimates are extravagant-I do not know. There are assertions that the estimates made by the P.F.R.A. engineers are altogether insufficient-I do not know whether that is so.
This is a matter where the two governments would be involved. Those governments represent the Canadian people and they have to remember their responsibility to the Canadian people. It is necessary to consider what the total cost of this would be; what power would be developed and what it would be worth when compared with power that could be produced by other methods; what prospects there would be of having this irrigation water used in a really beneficial way.
There is no doubt that irrigation can create a situation where much smaller areas are sufficient to use in a practical and useful way much more labour than is required on similar areas for other forms of agricultural pursuits. Is it likely that this two-fifths of one per cent of the arable land of the province would with irrigation become such that the occupants would want to change to that kind of farming? Neither the government of Saskatchewan nor the government of Canada wants to erect a pyramid in Saskatchewan. If there is an investment made there they want to be satisfied that most people will regard it as a reasonable thing to do for furthering the economic development of that area. The costs are an important factor.
What I had particularly in mind was that there must not be left any impression that the federal government by contributing to this project was subsidizing the development of power. We do not do that in any province; it has not been our policy to assist the provinces in the development of power. There is a divergency of view as to what proportion of the cost of creating that reservoir should be attributed to power development in order to avoid creating the feeling that there was a subsidy to power included in it.

I do not think that it would be fair for us to take the position that the premier of Saskatchewan had assumed we were taking and say, "We will not give any further consideration to this project until you make a definite proposal." We have stated what we think are the principles involved in the proposal and we think that that is something which representatives of the two governments should sit down and discuss. Then we would probably attempt to ascertain if it would be possible to get firm commitments from reliable contractors so that there would be a ceiling on any commitment that the federal government made with respect to its contribution to the project. We do not want to make an open-ended commitment even on a percentage basis because there are such wide discrepancies in the estimates that are made as to what this would cost. I cannot be any more precise than that. We do not want to turn our backs on it but we do say there are certain principles that would have to be implemented in any proposal that we could consider. We are prepared to discuss the whole situation to see if, including these principles in a proposal, it is possible to make this something that will look like a reasonable thing to undertake in the Canadian economy.


John George Diefenbaker: I want to thank the Prime Minister for that statement. He has spoken about an open-ended commitment. This would seem to be a commitment open at both ends. May I ask the Prime Minister to what extent, having regard to what the government now knows, the government would be prepared to go in accepting responsibility for expenditure? In other words, what limitation does the government have as to the extent to which it will go in a financial commitment with reference to the matters to be discussed between the provincial government and the federal government? Second, are contractors being asked at the present time for firm commitments to determine how much they are prepared to do the construction work for?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, there has been no invitation to tender and there will not be any invitation to tender until there has been a discussion and a clearing up of the situation as the result of the discussion between the two governments. The hon. gentleman says:	What limit would the federal government put upon its contribution? I cannot give him that in figures, but I can tell him that it would be along the lines that have been followed in the other major irrigation projects. The only part the federal government would be prepared to consider would
Inquiries of the Ministry be that which related to getting the water there as in the St. Mary and other projects, it being left to the provincial authorities and the irrigation districts to take the water from the reservoir and get it to the lands on which it was to be used. Those are the guiding principles but it is not possible to translate them into actual figures at the present time.


Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question based on the desirability of the construction of the project beginning this year. By what method, if that is possible, could additional moneys be obtained by the federal government for construction this year? In the details of the estimates there is only an amount totalling $500,000, and I believe the Prime Minister would agree that if construction were to start this year it would take some millions of dollars.


Mr. Si. Laurent:: I do not for a moment envisage a situation where actual construction could be commenced this year. I think that if the two governments agreed that they were going to ask for tenders they would have to provide something for the expenses that would be incurred by contractors making those tenders if after they were submitted it was decided that they were of such an amount that contracts could not be let. You could not expect contractors to make tenders unless they were going to be reimbursed in some way for their work in preparing tenders, or were entitled to expect that one of the tenderers would get a contract, that there had been a firm decision in advance of tenders being submitted that the work would be proceeded with.
What I envisage is that there would have to be tenders or some other way of placing a ceiling upon the federal commitment. If the province of Saskatchewan were in a position to say:	Well, whatever the cost may
be we want it proceeded with and your commitment will be limited to so much, that would be one situation, but I do not anticipate that that is probable. The other would be to make some arrangement whereby serious tenderers could be invited to make their best bids with the prospect that they would not be doing so at a loss if their bids were found to be of such an amount that the project could not be proceeded with now.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that this is a matter of general concern and that discussion of it was deferred while we were waiting for the report of the royal commission, can the Prime Minister tell us whether the government has considered the
4646	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry royal commission report, whether it is prepared to accept the recommendations contained therein, and if not, whether it is making other inquiries to determine whether it should be accepted?


Mr, St. Laurent:: The government has no alternative but to accept the report submitted by the royal commissioners. That is the report that they made. Whether or not that report convinces each member of the government that an undertaking of that magnitude would involve the costs that the report envisages is quite another question. There are many who feel that the estimates contained therein are altogether too high. There are many who feel that the estimates of the P.F.R.A. engineers, with a slight increase, are much more apt to be accurate. But there is such a wide difference there that no one can say that the opinions that have been expressed as to what the cost would be are absolutely accurate.
No one can disregard the fact that the commissioners, who were men of experience, have investigated and have come to the conclusions expressed in their report. The government of Saskatchewan says:	We do
not accept that. There are others besides the government of Saskatchewan who say: We do not accept that; we think that the estimates are quite extravagant. I do not know. I do not think it would be prudent for any government, federal or provincial, to go into the matter until some further way is found of ascertaining just what is going to be involved. It may be that the most practical way would be to devise a scheme whereby serious contractors would be invited to make firm bids under some kind of arrangement whereby, if their bids were such that none of them could be accepted, they would get some compensation for the expenses they had incurred in making those firm bids.


John George Diefenbaker: There is one further question I had intended to ask the Prime Minister. Does he expect to advertise for tenders from contractors in order to ascertain what the costs will be before deciding whether or not to go ahead with the project?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The Prime Minister does not intend to call for tenders, but the Prime Minister feels that tenders should be called for if there is no other way of placing a ceiling upon what would oe the commitment of the federal government if it entered into the implementation of the project.


John George Diefenbaker: In order to determine
whether to go ahead.
[Mr. Drew.)


Jean-Paul Stephen St-Laurent: Whether or not to go
ahead.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, this is not in the nature of a debate-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Stuart (Charlotte):: I am glad to know that.


George Alexander Drew: -but after all when a matter of this importance comes forward I think hon. members are entitled to know as clearly as possible what the situation is. As I understand the answer that has just been given by the Prime Minister, it is that in his opinion it would be wise to call for firm tenders so that, as a result of those firm tenders, some estimate might be made of the cost; and this would not be regarded as a step indicating a decision to proceed but rather as a means of obtaining information. Is that correct?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The hon. gentleman is
quite right. It would be regarded as a means of obtaining information because, for my part, I could not undertake at this time to recommend the amount of expenditure which the royal commission felt would be required to carry out the project.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Joseph William Noseworthy: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Harris). In view of the publicity given by press and radio to the exclusion by the minister of Mrs. Monica Felton, will the minister make a statement to the house relative to the matter?


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I received
notice of this question from my hon. friend after I entered the chamber. The answer to the question is that I will make a statement at some future date when I have received a full report.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Dickey) tabled an answer to a question which I had placed on the order paper asking for information concerning

orders which had been placed for shaving brushes since January 1, 1952. The answer shows a total of $70,662 but, on checking the statements which have been issued by the department giving lists of Canadian firms which have received defence orders, I find that for the period from February 16 to February 28 of this year there was an additional order given to Rubberset Company Limited in the amount of $51,625 which would make a total of $122,287.
I wonder if the parliamentary assistant could bring in a supplementary return which would complete the answer to my original question.


Mr. J. H. Dickey (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Defence Production):: Mr. Speaker, I made inquiries in our statistics branch about this matter and I am advised that, in the answer to the hon. member's question, inadvertently the figures given were for the period up to the end of 1952. The additional information is as follows: Rubber-set Company Limited, 59,000 units-brushes- to a value of $51,625; and additional contract to Rubberset Company Limited for 7,500 brushes at a value of $6,562.



ST. LAWRENCE WATERWAY INQUIRY AS TO CHANGE IN GOVERNMENT POLICY FOLLOWING MINISTERIAL COMMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister? In view of the absence of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) and the Minister of Resources and Development (Mr. Winters), both of whom are reported to have made statements on the St. Lawrence seaway development yesterday, can the Prime Minister say whether there are any changes in government policy with respect to the development of that project which should be communicated to the house? The Prime Minister knows that the Minister of Transport made a statement to the effect that the project might be proceeded with partly by the United States and partly by Canada. The Minister of Resources and Development, on the other hand, said if the United States would just get out of the way Canada would go it alone.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: There has been no change in nolicy. It has been the policy of the government, ever since the legislation was introduced into parliament here, to proceed alone if there is not a new arrangement arrived at for carrying it out as a joint undertaking. My understanding is that tne Minister of
Inquiries of the Ministry Transport has declared:	"If you cannot
make arrangements with us nothing will prevent you, if the power development proceeds, from providing a canal on your own side of the boundary. We have undertaken to provide one on our side. If we can agree to co-operate on one canal so much the better; but there is nothing now that would prevent the start of work except the designation of a United States agency to join with the hydro commission of Ontario in proceeding with the power development."


James MacKerras Macdonnell: May I ask a
supplementary question? Would not the Prime Minister consider that if the present proposal, namely to have two canals, were to enter the picture that would so greatly alter the decision that was made by us that it would involve reconsideration?


Mr.   Si. Laureni@: I am not sure that is so. I have been told by competent experts that, just as two canals are required at Sault Ste! Marie, the traffic is apt to be such that it will not be long before two canals are required in the international section of the St. Lawrence.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I would not undertake to offer an opinion on that; but my question to the Prime Minister, 'as a lawyer, was whether he thought that what was decided in this house was a canal on the basis of its being a sole canal rather than a canal which might be built in conjunction with another.


Mr.   Si. Laureni@: I do not think any
thought was given at that time to the possibility of there being a second canal, and parliament authorized the St. Lawrence authority to proceed either alone or jointly with the United States authorities in providing a seaway. If there were other arrangements made with the United States authorities those arrangements would naturally be brought before parliament for its consideration.


Mr. Adamson:: Has the Prime Minister
considered stating a deadline beyond which the patience of Canada will not be extended in this matter?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, Mr. Speaker. I
think this is something which is bound to be done and we want it done just as early as possible-and we are exerting every effort to have it done just as early as possible.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: It does require that there be a United States agency to provide their part of the dam from the American boundary

Inquiries of the Ministry to the middle of the stream which is essential to the carrying out of the project.



ELECTRICAL INTERFERENCE WITH RECEPTION AT PORT CHURCHILL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Dinsdale) asked whether the Department of Transport had received any complaints regarding interference with radio reception at port Churchill and, if so, what steps were being taken to remedy the situation. I have made inquiries and I find that the only complaint received was received some time ago from the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ward). Inquiries were made and it has been established that the interference is due not to the military establishment but to conditions in the local townsite. It is hoped that suppressors will be available in a short time to eliminate the interference.



VACANCY

Mr. Speaker:: Before the orders of the day are proceeded with, I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the resignation of Arthur Laing, Esquire, as member for the electoral district of Vancouver South.
Accordingly I have issued my warrant to the chief electoral officer to make out a new writ of election for the said electoral district.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Alexander Drew: Before the orders of the day are called, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister if there is any further legislation to be introduced beyond that which was introduced this morning in the amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Not that I know of, Mr. Speaker, except of course the supply bills and such bills as might come from the recommendations of committees. I do not know of any other legislation.


George Alexander Drew: What I specifically refer to is whether or not it is intended to proceed with the report we had presented this morning. I would point out that at the time it arose not one of us knew the length of it or


the extent of it, and when it became apparent it was as long as it was we knew then the form of the recommendations. What it is important to know is whether or not there is any thought of introducing the amendments to the Criminal Code at this session.


Jean-Paul Stephen St-Laurent: They are now before the house, Mr. Speaker. The question would be, is there any intention of proceeding with the Criminal Code and these recommended amendments. There has been a large amount of work done, I understand in a very cooperative and helpful fashion, by >the members of this committee representing all groups in this house. This is a most important piece of legislation. It is not a piece of legislation about which there could or should be any diverging views from the standpoint of the political policies of any of the parties in the house. I do not think it is the kind of legislation that should be enacted on majority votes, or that should be pressed as something about which there was a political controversy. I think it would be unfortunate if our Criminal Code came to be regarded as something that had been enacted as the result of majority votes on matters that were the subject of political controversy.
I think everyone having anything to do with the preparation and enactment of the Criminal Code would feel that this was a major service to the Canadian nation generally, and one upon which there may be diverging views with respect to certain points, but not views that were inspired by any partisan political considerations. If when the matter is called it should appear that there may be a divergence of views that would be apt to give the impression that there was a political controversy about this bill, it should not be proceeded with now.' On the other hand I think it would be only fair to the members of the house who have put in so much work in this committee to have the matter come before the house instead of being left over, unless there are serious reasons for doing so.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I subscribe to the convictions expressed by the Prime Minister that, in a measure of this kind, which constitutes the essential framework of our society so far as the more serious aspects of the conduct of our people may be concerned, whatever differences of opinion there may be should not be differences of political points of view but rather differences as to the way in which this could best be done. That was amply illustrated, and illustrated in a very refreshing manner during the course of the sittings of this committee. It was very interesting to hear appeals to tradition from those

who may have been regarded as the least likely, from a doctrinal point of view, to suggest that idea. It would be extremely interesting to hear the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) say that, in matters of this kind, he is a conservative.
The fact remains, however, that it is desirable, with such extensive changes and where there is not only the desire to do something but there are also legal considerations of the possible consequences of changes in wording and departures from established legal procedures, that we should have ample time to consider the matter. No one is more interested than I am to see certain amendments made. I have been pressing, for instance, for a much wider provision in the Criminal Code to deal with communism in this country. It is certain that that, in itself, would raise a very extensive discussion. It is quite certain that there would be an extensive discussion concerning certain procedure connected with some aspects of our criminal law, as indicated by the discussion in the committee. A number of recommendations that were made by the committee were the result of majority votes. My information is that those who voted against the adoption of those particular amendments in the committee have reserved their own opinions and reserved also the right to raise these same objections in the House of Commons, where they felt that perhaps their views might receive a different consideration.
Only last night, for instance, there was an extensive discussion concerning the extremely difficult problem of lotteries, and the preposterous situation that now results under the laws we have. This calls for consideration by those who do not like to see on the statute books any laws which are openly broken day by day, and which remain there as an encouragement to a state of mind which might more easily lead to breaking other laws.
We are ready to proceed. We are anxious to have a number of these things dealt with. We wish to leave no doubt, however, that there will be an extensive discussion of a number of these subjects. I have only indicated a few.
From the reading of only one page of the 26 pages of this report, hon. members know the extent of the changes that are proposed, and how confusing some of the wording will be, as well as the consideration that would be required. We are certainly ready to proceed, but if we are going to proceed with this bill, then let us abandon these very exhausting hours that have been instituted for the purpose of expediting the termination of the session. It is quite clear that this is going to call for an extended debate. We are ready,
Business of the House
and we are anxious to deal with it. But if we do so, then let us plan the sittings of this house in a way that recognizes the fact that this is going to introduce an extended debate which would, of course, immediately remove the reasons for the hours that we are now sitting.


Mr. Angus Maclnnis (Vancouver East):: May
I say a word on this subject which perhaps the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) would not like to say. I had the honour of being a member of this committee, and in view of the importance of the work of that committee I think it was really an honour for a member to be on that committee. I must say that I was never on a committee where political lines were less drawn than on this committee. I believe that is as it should be. The Criminal Code is not a matter of government policy. The code belongs to the people of this country, regardless of which party happens to be governing the country at any particular time. Whatever government that may be, I am sure it would like to have a Criminal Code that would punish the offender and give protection to everyone who is entitled to it.
I am surprised at the apparent opposition to the introduction of the report this morning. The question was asked whether it was a unanimous report. That question never arises, to my knowledge, in regard to the report of a committee to this house. It is the report of the committee. It was perfectly clear to all members of the committee that when the bill came back to the house they, were free to object to any clauses that were passed and to which they had objected in committee. They were not to restrict themselves in any way, as becomes the right of a member in any debate in the house.
I agree with many of the things that the Leader of the Opposition has said, as, for instance, that this is an immense measure and would require the most careful consideration of the house. I was a member of the committee. I have an interest in the report. It is now out of the hands of the committee and in the lap of the government. They will have to deal with it in relation to the time that is left before the adjournment of the house.
I hope that the work done by this committee will not be lost if a new bill has to be introduced next year. In that regard I would just like to leave this suggestion. In the reprinting of the bill I believe that all these amendments should be incorporated so that hon. members will have them before them when they make a further study of the bill.


George Alexander Drew: I want to remove any uncertainty that may be left on the record by the statement of the hon. member who has just

Business of the House
spoken. I certainly was raising no objection to the report, 1 did not have the report before me. I did not know exactly what the extent of it was-


Angus MacInnis: No one ever does have the report before him when it is presented to the house.


George Alexander Drew: -neither did other hon. members. I knew it was going to be an extensive report; I believed it was important that hon. members should realize that. When it became available it was clear that hon. members were going to know that it was an extensive report covering a wide field.
I simply want to add to what has been said by the hon. member and by the Prime Minister that hon. members have reason for satisfaction in regard to the manner in which members of every party displayed their wholehearted co-operation in seeking to achieve the very desirable result of a code that would avoid any division of opinion on what might be regarded as a political basis.
As the hon. member who has just spoken himself indicated, it is the belief that there will be extensive discussion. I am not objecting

and I wish no doubt left about that- I am not objecting to the introduction of the bill. I wish it merely understood that it is clear from what has already been said that if the bill is introduced and proceeded with there is going to be an extended debate, because those who have raised objections could not in conscience remain silent about those objections when this bill comes before the house.
I would also point out that there are things not included in this bill which a number of hon. members who did not sit on the committee think should go in there. I am merely saying now that if it is intended to proceed with the bill and have the advantage of all that has been done, then we should revise our plans for the sitting of the house, because it is quite clear that any plans that have been made for these past couple of weeks are quite unrealistic in relation to the debate which will take place in regard to this extremely important measure.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: I quite realize that we are on the orders of the day and not in a debate, but since this debate has been going on for quite a while I should like to put in my two cents' worth before the Minister of Justice speaks. I should like to tell the minister, through you, sir, that what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) and the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) have said is perfectly true. The debate on this bill is going to be extended. There is a great deal of interest

in it. As far as I can see there are only two possible ways of dealing with it. One would be to clear the decks for a full-dress debate that may extend over quite a period of time. If we get into that kind of debate let us go on with it and give everybody a chance here to say what he has to say, and give full consideration to the bill that will be before us.
As the Leader of the Opposition has said, there will be many different matters that have not been included in the amendments. There are also a number of things which other hon. members doubtless would want to bring up in connection with the bill. We certainly cannot give the kind of consideration that we ought to give to this legislation if we are to be rushed. We now have three sessions a day, and some committees are sitting. We have to consider all this against the background of knowledge that we have to deal with other legislation that will come in from other committees. The only way we could deal with this would be to follow some such suggestion as that made by the hon. member for Vancouver East, which is to go as far as we can with it now, but consolidate the changes that have been made by the committee into a reprint and have it held over for another year so that we can give it the most thorough consideration. I thought I should say that before the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) spoke.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not want to curtail discussion, but the Leader of the Opposition has spoken and the leaders of the other two parties have spoken. I do not think I should allow any further extended discussion at this time.


Joseph William Noseworthy: As a member of the committee I want to ask a question of the government. Is the government prepared to sit for two or three weeks to debate this bill, if it is brought in?


Mr. Fleming:: May I ask a question of the Prime Minister? I am not advocating the course that I ask a question about, but if there is a time limit with respect to departure for the coronation, and if the government thinks for any reason that this bill should be enacted at the present session, is it considering calling parliament back after the coronation?


Mr.   Si. Laureni@: No consideration whatever has been given to that possible suggestion. In view of the fact that several hon. members will be leaving for the coronation at a date that is not very distant, if there was going to be the kind of discussion that has been suggested as probable this morning I do not think it would be in the public interest to

have it at this time. If there is to be that kind of debate it should take place when all members of parliament would be available to discharge their responsibilities as such in that debate.


George Alexander Drew: May I simply say that the remarks which the Prime Minister has just made are in keeping with the whole approach to this measure, because it would be most improper if a measure of such vital importance to Canadians were debated at a time when members are tired and working long hours. The only purpose of the question was to find out just what the plans were in regard to this legislation.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: It was understood that when the report was brought in it would be referred to the committee of the whole, and if it appeared from the deliberations of the committee of the whole that there was not an almost unanimous desire to have it put through in the form in which it had come from the select committee, then the progress reported by the chairman would probably have to be that further progress be deferred until another session.

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



DEPARTMENT OP AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
Special-
45.	Major irrigation and reclamation projects in the prairie provinces, $7,893,420.
Mr. Gardiner:: Mr. Chairman, before proceeding with further discussion of the item, I should like to place on the record, the statement for which the hon. member for Lake Centre asked yesterday. 1 refer to a statement showing the balance of trade in agricultural products as between Canada andi the United States.
I should add that the heading of the table is scarcely correct, because it is not a Corn-
Supply-Agriculture
plete record of the trade in agricultural products between Canada and the United States, and I wish to make that point clear on Hansard.


John George Diefenbaker: Does it apportion so much to bacon and so much to ham, and the like?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes. The information is given in both dollars and quantities. Then I have added, as well, a statement I believe the committee would like to have concerning the value of imports and exports of agricultural products as between Canada and other parts of the commonwealth. I do wish to repeat however that this is not a complete statement of the balance of trade in agricultural products in that it does not contain cotton, does not contain citrus fruits, and so on, which we get in very considerable quantities from the United States. Therefore it is not fair to say that the table shows the complete balance of trade in agricultural products.


John George Diefenbaker: One question: It includes all products with the exception of citrus fruits, does it?


James Garfield Gardiner: It gives information concerning wheat, oats, barley, cattle, beef and veal, bacon and ham, cheese, skimmed milk powder, eggs, apples, and both table and seed potatoes.
In connection with the wheat item I would point out that the figures run as high as 44 million bushels. In reference to the remark I made last night, the embargo applies only to wheat for human consumption. In recent years, when we have had frozen wheat, a considerable amount of feed wheat has gone across to the United States. With those explanations I would ask for permission to put these tables on Hansard.


The Chairman:: Is it agreed that these tables be printed in Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


James Garfield Gardiner: 

CANADA - XJ.S.A.

[Stage Direction]
Balance of Trade in Agricultural Products
Quantities:
-	Unit	1949	1950	1951	1952	1953- Jan. and Feb.	1953- Jan.From Canada	Into Canada	From Canada	Into Canada	From Canada	Into Canada	From Canada	Into Canada	From Canada	Into CanadaTotal-Agricultural Products	$ million	258	209	302	263	382	321	303	269	Wheat	1,000 bu	8,072	7	14,951	0	37,917	6	44,082	4	1,520	0Oats	1,000 bu.	18,489	309	16,297	263	48,826	1	72,824	0	3,746	0Barley	1,000 bu.	13,661	11,901	11,913	IS 1«6	'441	Cattle	1,000 hd.	417	1*	457	1*	9,37	1*	Beef and veal, fresh	1,000 1b.	94,870	80	81,805	97	91 749	943	1 940	Bacon and hams	1,0001b.	5	0	5,282	i	3,500	1,315	2] 560	116	463	0Cheese	1,000 1b.	1,868	342	3,023	525	2,726	758	1,546	562	200	19Skimmed milk powder	1,000 lb.	5,664	1,053	2,916	844	203	2,632	12,031	138	7	6Eggs, shell	1,000 doz.	1,923	22	4,578	44	4,687	1,768	7,156	205	1,196	6Apples, fresh	1,000 bu.	1,638	186	2,361	104	1,953	281	1,486	351	331	11Potatoes, table	1,000 bu.	1,841	542	2,597	1,612	1,390	1,156	398	3,628	447	6Potatoes, seed	1,000 bu.	7,096	3	3,881	13	3,062	11	1,284	64	958	
0=less than one-half unit used. * Pure-bred only.
4652	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Supply-Agriculture
68108-294|

[Stage Direction]
Balance of Trade in Agricultural Products
Values:
-	1949	1950	1951	1952	1953 Jan. and Feb.	1953 JanuaryFrom Canada	Into Canada	From Canada	Into Canada	From Canada	Into Canada	From Canada	Into Canada	From Canada	Into Canadamillion dollars	258-3	208-9	302-0	262-5	382-3	321-5	302-6	268-6	Wheat	17-0	0	28-5	0	65-0	0	72-5	0	2-9	0Oats	15-1	*2	15-0	[DOT]2	48-8	0	61-0	0	3-5	021-0	19-4	17-5	27-3	[DOT]6	060-7	[DOT]4f	78-5	[DOT]4f	62-6	* 7f	4-0	[DOT]5|	028-3	[DOT]1	32-9	[DOT]1	49-8	[DOT]6	1-9	[DOT]5	0Bacon & hams	[DOT]2	0	3-4	[DOT]i	2-6	[DOT]5	2-6	[DOT]i	*4	0Cheese	*8	[DOT]2	1-2	[DOT]3	1-2	*4	1-5	[DOT]6	[DOT]1	0Skimmed milk powder	[DOT]6	[DOT]1	[DOT]3	[DOT]1	0	[DOT]2	1-3	0	0	0Eggs, shell	1-0	[DOT]1	2-1	[DOT]2	2-3	1-0	2-9	[DOT]7	[DOT]5	0Apples, fresh	3-7	*4	5-3	[DOT]3	4-8	[DOT]6	4-7	*9	10	0Potatoes, table	1-6	[DOT]9	2-0	2-2	M	2-1	1-0	8-8	[DOT]9	07-8	0	4-0	0	3-0	0	3-5	*2	2-1	
>
><
[Stage Direction]
cn
[Stage Direction]
0 = less than $50,000.
* Includes all important agricultural commodities produced in either country, and foods and industrial raw materials derived from these agricultural products, t Pure-bred only.
CT>
Supply-Agriculture
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Agriculture
CANADA-AUSTRALIA Value of Imports into Canada
-	1949	1950	1951	1952$	$	S	$Total Imports	27,429,000	32,803,000	46,228,000	20,319,001Farm Products	24,791,000	30,308,000	43,508,000	18,628,001Currants, dried	478,015	699,685	594,022	692,72;Raisins	3,197,766	4,092,595	3,175,093	4,254,681Canned Peaches and Apricots. 	292,010	406,688	528,308	270,341Canned Pineapple	2,039,128	1,522,070	1,077,185	226,24;Sugar	8,486,971	10,966,777	14,129,862	4,409,24!Canned Beef	23,338	1,959,228	845,94(Edible Gelatine	150,243	186,685	158,457	178,72;Sausage Casings	432,202	435,896	797,721	451,69!Wool	8,964,175	10,843,336	19,112,269	6,373,39!174,529	224,475
CANADA-NEW ZEALAND Value of Imports into Canada
-	1949	1950	1951	1952$	$	$	$Total Imports	8,910,000	11,855,000	30,107,000	14,231,OOCFarm Products	8,796,000	11,791,000	29,999,000	14,162,00C81,672	69,641	103,196Sheep skins, raw	325,289	275,071	200,575	44,7451,649	226,487	168,5223,173,164	2,484,4241,556,738	1,671,881	1,652,881368,001	2,351Sausage Casings	998,296	2,114,981	3,770,631	3,029,95CWool, raw	6,274,807	6,863,473	20,105,386	6,213,785
I should like to make another statement in reply to a question asked last night by the hon. member for Selkirk concerning the proposed dam on Plum creek-I believe that is the proper name, instead of Plum Coulee- on southeast 6-2-4 west one.
The application was first made in 1936 for a dam at this site and surveys and plans 
were completed in 1939; but nothing further was done about it because of the war. It was again brought up in 1950 and a further examination made. However, a decision has not been reached to build the dam, in view of the high cost in relation to the quantity of water which would be stored.

It is considered there is considerable merit a this project as there are a number of armers in this area, which is suitable for he growing of canning crops, and it is close a two canneries. In the circumstances, a urther study is going to be made this year a determine whether alternative methods an be devised for the construction of satis-actory works. One of the main problems 3 the difficult nature of the materials for onstruction and it is proposed to have definite oil mechanic studies made this year.
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I under-tand the item now before the committee has o do with irrigation projects. I wish to ay a few words, particularly in view of the ery frank answers given this morning by he Prime Minister to questions asked him vhen the orders of the day were called.
Certainly now no one can be under any lisapprehension that there is any possibility- ny probability-of this great project being iroceeded with in the immediate future, if t all. I know it will come as a very great hock to the people of Saskatchewan to learn hat, after all the years of advocacy of this iroject by the Minister of Agriculture and by ither members in the House of Commons, vithout regard to party, Saskatchewan finds tself now in a position where everything s up in the air, and there is almost no irospect of anything being done to proceed vith this project at all.
As one looks back over the years I am ure it will be in the memories of hon. mem->ers that this subject has been discussed iver and over again. I think one of the nost revealing of the discussions on the ubject was on October 13 and 14 of 1949, is set out in the debates for that year.
Certainly the question of cost had been dearly established in the mind of the Minister if Agriculture, for on that date, as reported it page 772 of Hansard, he said this:
Coming back to this question of whether the South Saskatchewan river project should be built vith the assistance of the provincial government, nay I say that, when the present government of Saskatchewan took over, the revenues of the irovince were about $32 million. According to the tatement made a few moments ago those revenues ire now about $53 million.
And following an intervention in the debate jy another hon. member the minister pro-:ceded as follows:
If the South Saskatchewan river project was milt under conditions that existed some three or our years ago it would cost in the neighbourhood if $60 million.
And then Hansard records that the debate :ontinued in this way:


Mr. Wright:: What would it cost today?


James Garfield Gardiner: If it had to be built under conditions
Supply-Agriculture
as they are today that amount would be increased by perhaps $10 million or maybe a little more. But it would be absolutely impossible to construct the South Saskatchewan river project in less than ten years. The total expenditure required would be averaged out over that period of time at somewhere between $6 million and $8 million per year.
The information left with the house and country was that the engineers, experienced as they were with P.F.R.A., had no doubt whatever that the total cost of the project would not be over $100 million. That it was to be a federal project was put before the committee on that occasion by the hon. member for Regina. After an interruption by the hon. member for Moose Jaw, the hon. member for Regina City is reported as saying, and I quote from page 794 of Hansard of October 14, 1949:
I have heard the hon. minister and other people discuss these irrigation matters in western Canada for a number of years. I heard the hon. minister discuss it during the last election, and I also went out and discussed it. It was always our understanding that the main projects, such as the dam at Elbow, would be purely federal projects-the hon. minister never tried to create any other impression-
All through the years-


James Garfield Gardiner: My memory of that statement is that the hon. member is not reading it all because the reason the hon. member for Regina City rose was to prove the very opposite.


John George Diefenbaker: I am reading what you said.


James Garfield Gardiner: I said more than that.


John George Diefenbaker: We will go on from there:


Mr. Thatcher:: The minister certainly did last night.


Mr. McCusker:: Only in the hon. member's mind. The hon. member is a little confused about it. We were getting along quite well last night until he put his foot into it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Address the Chair.


Emmett Andrew McCusker: The minister has been quite clear in stating that when the dam is completed it is the responsibility of the provincial government to provide for the distribution of water.
I have looked into this matter very thoroughly because the constituency which I represent is seriously concerned about water.
He made it very clear that there never was any question whatever-


James Garfield Gardiner: Since we are having this a matter of record may I say that the matter under discussion was a situation put up by some members of the opposition to the effect that the federal government had undertaken to do the whole project, not only the dam but everything else, and pay for it. What the hon. member for Regina City was attempting to prove was that they never said any such thing.

Supply-Agriculture


John George Diefenbaker: The minister can revise his own words as to what he said and recall the memory of the house, as is frequently the case as exigencies change what is required, but those are the words of the hon. member for Regina City. I suggest that power is necessarily the responsibility of the federal government. That was the understanding because the principal use of the power will be to provide for the distribution of irrigation waters.
In 1953, after all the promises that have been made, we finally find ourselves in the position where on the eve of an election- certainly the words of the Prime Minister a few moments ago with regard to the criminal law amendments being allowed to go over to another session indicate more clearly than has been indicated yet that the election is close at hand-a new proposition is set out in the letter of the Minister of Agriculture to the premier of Saskatchewan. But the people of Saskatchewan are not going to be bamboozled into believing that they are going to secure this dam out of the kind of correspondence that has passed between the Minister of Agriculture and the government of Saskatchewan. There is not a line or word in the carefully-worded letter, to be found on page 4444 of Hansard of April 27, written by the Minister of Agriculture, that indicates an undertaking to do anything in connection with the construction of the dam. There is not one solitary thing.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is not a single word in it that differs from what the Prime Minister said this morning, not one.


John George Diefenbaker: That clarifies the situation. I am glad the minister accepts it. The Prime Minister's statement this morning means, in so far as the expectation of building the dam is concerned, that there is no possibility of its being built.


James Garfield Gardiner: It only means-


John George Diefenbaker: The minister can make his speech. I have the floor. I did not interrupt the minister. The Prime Minister's statement this morning was clear and unequivocal. It was this:	We do not know what
the cost is going to be; we have not accepted the findings of the royal commission; we have no evidence yet as to whether those findings are correct; we do not know exactly the course we are going to follow; we have in mind the possibility of asking various reputable companies to give estimates as to what the cost will be; by a comparison of those estimates we can arrive finally at a conclusion as to what the cost will in fact be as a basic ceiling.


Mr. Murray (Cariboo):: Is not that a wise thing to do?


John George Diefenbaker: My hon. friend was not here when the promises were made through the years for the building of this dam. This is a course that can have only one result, to tide over the government during the coming months by advertising for tenders as though it were intended to go ahead. The Prime Minister made it clear this morning that as yet the government had not determined what its ceiling on expenditure would be. He said that it would be impossible to make that determination until he was in position to know what the maximum expenditure would be.
If there was any intention to go ahead it could have been stated in the clearest possible terms that the government was not prepared to go beyond $100 million, or $75 million, or whatever the amount might be. But there is no such promise whatever. The use of the expression "open-ended proposal" applies to the situation here. All we have is an indication that what the government has in mind is to ask various responsible contractors to make an estimate.
But before they can do that they will have to have plans and drawings which would be a lengthy proposition. Then having submitted those plans- to the contractors, it would take months before they could make an estimate. During that interval no doubt there would be a continuation of the investigation that is being made by P.F.R.A. It is passing strange that in his statement the Prime Minister should admit that as yet nothing has been done to ascertain whether or not the figures in the report of the royal commission as to the cost are in line and that the government cannot understand the great divergence between the estimates of the royal commission and those of the P.F.R.A. engineers, and for that reason requires further information.
Personally I think that there should have been a vote provided to cover at least one year's construction. Instead of that, it is apparent that what is going to take place this year will be simply a continuation of what has been taking place in larger or smaller measure from year to year, namely, an expenditure with a view to investigating the potentialities and possibilities of the dam. That is made clear by the letter of the Minister of Agriculture. It is a letter with reference to the interview of almost three years ago. It is dated April 24, 1953 and reads as follows:
Dear Premier Douglas:
My files Indicate that following the receipt of a report from our engineers to the effect that it is possible to construct a dam on the South Saskatche-

wan river at Coteau creek I asked for and had an interview with your government on June 24, 1950.
It was my opinion that because the resources were under the control of the province this information should be made known officially to your government.
We appointed a committee of top officials and engineers associated with the Department of Agriculture to compile the information. Before this report was made public, I again reported to the provincial government on February 2, 1951, indicating that the committee agreed with our engineers that a dam could be built creating a reservoir and that the direct results from such a construction could be irrigation and power generation.
I indicated that the estimated cost of the project would be approximately $101 million on a basis of 1950 costs, divided as follows: $68 million for the dam, $25 million for irrigation and $8 million for power installation. My memory is that you contended that the federal government had left the impression that this was to be a federal undertaking financed by Ottawa. I pointed out that it had been nothing more than a proposal to assist in rehabilitating the drought area and that the only large projects which had been undertaken up to that time, namely, the St. Mary's and Bow River projects, were purely irrigation and the responsibility for financing them was three-way-the federal government stored or made available the water, the province distributed the water over the area and the farmers formed irrigation districts under provincial legislation to distribute the water to the land and administer the districts.
Some question has been raised as to whether or not the provincial government was prepared to accept that. I find it strange-


James Garfield Gardiner: There is no question in my mind that the provincial government was prepared to accept that.


John George Diefenbaker: All right, they are prepared to accept that.


James Garfield Gardiner: The provincial government, but not this government.


John George Diefenbaker: In January of this year a press report appeared in the Regina Leader-Post dealing with what Premier Douglas had said. It is as follows:
Premier T. C. Douglas has reaffirmed the willingness of the province to pay its share of the cost of the South Saskatchewan river project regardless of the unfavourable findings of the royal commission. The premier's statement was contained in a letter to Prime Minister Louis St. Laurent, made in Regina Wednesday.
In the letter he said the province was willing to pay its share of the costs and was preparing a brief setting forth its objections to the findings of the royal commission.
Then the text of the letter is given and it reads in part as follows:
In order that there may be no misunderstanding on anyone's part, may I refer you to my letter to the Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner of Feb. 19, 1951, copy of which I am enclosing. At that time the Saskatchewan government expressed its faith in the soundness of the South Saskatchewan river project and declared its willingness to meet its share of the costs.
Supply-Agriculture
We now find ourselves, however, faced with a new proposition in the letter of April 24, 1953, in these words:
-the federal government is prepared to consider a definite proposal from the provincial government for co-operation in the project and I am authorized by my colleagues to discuss such a proposal with you once the question of water rights has been settled among the three prairie provinces and agreement reached that the water would be available for the project.
The securing of agreement among the provinces through the water board cannot but postpone action indefinitely.


James Garfield Gardiner: One day.


John George Diefenbaker: Nothing is to be done. The proposal of the provincial government is not to be considered until the water board has made its decision in agreement with the provinces. All these things add up to postponement of action. The Minister of Agriculture said in his letter:
Any proposal put forward by the province should make it clear what contribution to the cost of the dam itself the province is prepared to make to remove any element of federal subsidy for the production of power since power development could obviously not be subsidized in one province unless the federal authorities were prepared to provide similar subsidies in all provinces . . .
The Prime Minister certainly clarified the atmosphere today. Regardless of what the province may say, nowhere is there any undertaking by the federal government as to what liability it is prepared to accept. Nowhere is there a scintilla of evidence or a suggestion by the Prime Minister that the federal government would go ahead, because when asked a very simple question as to the number of dollars of expenditure to which the federal government would limit its responsibility the Prime Minister said: Of course, we cannot assume to state any such figure. In other words, the whole proposition is up in the air today as never before. The concluding words of the Minister of Agriculture in his letter are also very significant. He said:
Any proposal would, of course, have to include some satisfactory means of determining in advance what the total cost of the project would be, and what the federal share of the cost would be.
What does that mean? "Any proposal" refers to any proposal made by the provincial government. Does that mean that the provincial government has to determine what the cost will be? I point out that the letter says:
Any proposal would, of course, have to include some satisfactory means of determining in advance what the total cost of the project would be . . .
Today the Prime Minister says, not by way of conclusive finality but certainly by way of prescient suggestion, that it might be a good

Supply-Agriculture
thing to get in touch with contractors and have them determine the top and bottom levels. In this regard the letter says:
This would be essential so that there was no open-ended commitment which might result in the final costs being far greater than anything either government would regard as reasonable.
That is not necessarily so. There is another simple way. The dominion government could say to the provincial government: We will go ahead with this but we will limit our expenditure to so much money, and if more than that is spent the province of Saskatchewan will be responsible for the excess. That is the only way, and that is why I asked the Prime Minister the simple question today: What is the maximum amount of liability that the dominion government will accept? It could be determined very quickly by the dominion government saying to the province of Saskatchewan: We are prepared to go ahead but if we go ahead and the development requires an expenditure on the part of the dominion government of more than $100 million or $68 million or whatever the figure may ibe, then you will understand that it is your responsibility to cover any excess.
But instead of that we have this open-ended commitment, a beautiful description of the situation. No matter what the province maiy do, the other end is still open for the government to say that it is not responsible in any way for proceeding with the project. Such a system is not satisfactory. It is vague and uncertain. It provides for no promise of completion of the project in any way in the assignable future, or even of the commencement.
I brought this matter up in February and endeavoured to discuss it under irrigation but without success. It was brought up then by way of an 'amendment -and was discussed fully at the time. Some papers did not agree with my stand. I have no Objection to that. One of them was the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix, which said:	Give the government a chance
because after aill the session has just nicely started, and with the promises that have been made we have no fear as to the intention of the government to go ahead. They said that, in spite of the fact that the Prime Minister throughout the years has certainly gone no farther than to tell the people of Saskatoon on one occasion about the great potentialities inherent in the proposal to build this dam and1, on the other occasion, of the danger that Saskatoon might be drowned out in the event that the dam did not hold.

On April 1, 1952, the Prime Minister spoke in Regina and there is this report by the Canadian Press:
Prime Minister St. Laurent has been told that the engineering phases of the South Saskatchewan river dam involve "a number of very disturbing features and obvious risks."
Opposition Leader Walter Tucker Tuesday quoted this passage in the Saskatchewan legislature during discussion of a resolution urging quick construction of the dam and irrigation project.
I may be wrong-because the Prime Minister was not in Regina at that time. This was a quotation by Mr. Tucker to the provincial legislature of a statement which the Prime Minister had made. You will notice that Mr. Tucker was pressing for construction and completion of the project. The passage was from a letter written by Mr. G. A. Gaherty to Mr. St. Laurent. Mr. St. Laurent spoke on the extreme high cost of the project and the question of whether the benefits could be more quickly realized in other ways and at less cost to the country. The report continues:
It would seem that the need for utilizing the water of the South Saskatchewan river will increase steadily in the years to come.
Then Mr. Tucker placed responsibility for delay on the provincial government by reason of the fact that there had been a report given by Cass-Beggs. Today the Prime Minister went further along that line than he has ever gone before. He said that after all only one and one-half per cent of the arable land of Saskatchewan would be affected by this project. The quotation of that small percentage indicated a very strong doubt in the mind of the Prime Minister, an almost irrefutable doubt, that the expenditure of the moneys that would have to be expended in this connection would be justified as a national undertaking.
That figure does not tell the picture, Mr. Chairman. One and one-half per cent may be the proper percentage of the province, but there is an area in central Saskatchewan representing five, six or seven thousand acres that will be completely changed. It will blossom as it has never done before except in years when there was rainfall. In addition there will be the start of industrialization of the province through the power development which will be necessary in order to distribute the water-and that will mean a new day for our province.
I said a moment ago that some papers disagreed with me for bringing this matter before the house in February. They said that we should give the government a chance, that it was early in the session. One of those papers was the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix. That paper ran an editorial on April 29, the first

editorial on the subject of the exchange of letters between the Minister of Agriculture and the premier of Saskatchewan. The editorial is most revealing.
Mr. Gardiner's suggestion for a new deal on the South Saskatchewan river dam cannot be taken seriously. He has been making speeches about the dam throughout the country ever since 1946. It is altogether too late now for him to discover that Saskatchewan ought to be paying part of the cost of the dam so "that there shall be no element of federal subsidy for the production of power." The production of power was an integral part of the scheme all along. And it was agreed in letters exchanged between Mr. Gardiner and Mr. Douglas that the province should be responsible for the works connected with the power development. Further, it was agreed on the basis of estimates supplied by Mr. Gardiner's own department how these costs should be shared in general terms. Moreover, the terms were suggested by Mr. Gardiner himself and accepted by the province. This, we thought, was settled. Even the royal commission which otherwise showed itself unfriendly toward the project, did not seriously raise the issue of federal participation in the power development. For Mr. Gardiner to raise this and some of the other questions he put in his letter to Mr. Douglas is too obviously a political dodge to cut any ice with the people of Saskatchewan.
May I point out, sir, that is an editorial in a paper which almost consistently supports this government.
Saskatchewan does not expect any preferential treatment in the matter of power. But we do expect at least as good terms as the federal government will offer any other province.
A little later there appears this:
The South Saskatchewan project is primarily a water conservation development to provide irrigation for a dry area in central Saskatchewan. The prime purpose of the dam is to make this water, which is now going to waste, available for irrigation. The irrigation scheme must have first call on the water thus stored and power must be a secondary consideration. Moreover, a substantial block of the power produced at the site will be used by the irrigation scheme itself to pump water to land not reached by gravity. By what yardstick is Mr. Gardiner and the federal government to measure the acceptability of a provincial offer to participate in financing the whole scheme?
That editorial in the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix the day before yesterday is the epitome of the attitude taken by both the Leader of the Opposition and myself-and by members of the opposition party to the left in the last few days. It represents the attitude of the people of the province of Saskatchewan without regard to party consideration. The editorial proceeds:
Mr. Gardiner lays down as another condition which the province must meet the stipulation that the provincial proposal must include some satisfactory means of "determining in advance what the total cost would be and . . . the federal share." At first glance, this appears to put on the province the responsibility for doing much of the engineering work leading to the preparation of detailed estimates. But his later remarks about the undesirability of entering an "open-end" agreement
Supply-Agriculture
with the province suggests a basic change in the federal government's policy.
Those are not the views of a partisan; they are the considered views of a paper that, in season and out of season, supports this government-and above everything else supports the need of this dam, so necessary in Saskatchewan. It does on to say:
It has been the government's policy, as in the case of the St. Mary's dam, to rely upon its own engineers' estimates of cost and to assume itself the risk that they may be too low. If Mr. Gardiner is now suggesting that conservation and water development work is to proceed on the basis of a fixed federal contribution, we think a good deal of the necessary work in Canada will be left untouched. The provinces cannot assume these risks half as well as the federal government.
Finally, as I am not excerpting anything, I will read the next paragraph although it does not cover the point of my argument:
Mr. Gardiner has also asked for an outline of the way in which the province proposes to develop the irrigation district once the main dam is complete. This, we have suggested on several occasions, is a reasonable demand upon the province. We urged the province to lay these plans before the royal commission at its Saskatchewan sitting last fall. But the province has not gone beyond the general statement that it is prepared to finance the irrigation works and help the farmers get their land ready. This is not good enough by any means. The province should make its plans now for the full development of the project and announce the stages by which its part would be carried out. We have thought all along this was an essential preliminary to getting federal assistance and we still think so. The provincial government should not hesitate to draft and announce these plans. Its own people are as anxious to know what is involved as the federal government is.
That is the reason I suggested a moment ago that, instead of all this tinkering, all the postponing and monkeying with the project, all the Prime Minister would have to do, if the people of Saskatchewan are to accept it as a fact that the government is going ahead, would be simply to say, We are going to restrict our liability to a certain number of millions of dollars. If the project is proceeded with and the province is prepared to proceed with irrigation and power development, and the cost goes beyond the amount set, that must be assumed by the province.
This editorial continues:
Mr. Gardiner cannot escape announcing a federal policy for the South Saskatchewan river by raising additional questions.
That is the fundamental point I endeavoured to make the other day. When one reads the history of what has taken place, and the discussions during the period I have been in the house, one sees that it has been marked by a series of roadblocks erected on every occasion when the previous one, which was believed to be the last, had been successfully removed. This is another roadblock. The

Supply-Agriculture
Star-Phoenix calls it the raising of additional questions. Then, the final paragraph of the editorial reads:
The reception which the people of Saskatchewan gave to the report of the royal commission should have been enough to tip him off-
That refers to the Minister of Agriculture. -that the people of this province are in earnest about getting some irrigation development started long enough before the next drought to do some good. Moreover the Saskatchewan River Development Association is not leading a delegation to Ottawa this week to be confronted with a new set of conundrums designed to get Mr. Gardiner or the federal government off the hook. We want to know what the federal government proposes to do about the Outlook dam. And we are not inclined to accept more questions as a substitute for action.
Mr. Chairman, that editorial summarizes in full detail the attitude of the people of Saskatchewan. We have waited, as we have had to meet successive roadblocks, and we have removed them. At one time responsibility for irrigation generally and the responsibility for the project was accepted by the dominion government. Later on a question arose as to the responsibility of the province with respect to irrigation, and that was accepted. Then, the question of power came up and it was stated the province should accept the responsibility. Again, that responsibility was accepted. Now, we find that we are back where we started. We have had the P.F.R.A.; we have had a royal commission; we have had water boards; we have had investigations continuing from year to year; and now we are back to the letter of April 24, 1953, which seems to directly suggest, for that is the only interpretation which can be placed upon it, that the provincial government should submit a proposal now in regard to costs.
The letter states:
Any proposal would, of course, have to Include some satisfactory means of determining in advance what the total cost of the project would be, and what the federal share of the cost would be.
Mr. Chairman, it is disillusioning to find that after these years of expectation the people of Saskatchewan are to be met with another postponement, with another alibi, with another proposition which, as the Star-Phoenix says, is new and is unjustified. These words of the Star-Phoenix represent the attitude, as I see it, of the people of Saskatchewan-disappointed, disillusioned and denied that to which they are entitled. The editorial says:
Mr. Gardiner-
I am not casting the blame on him, but he is mentioned as representing the government.
-cannot escape announcing a federal policy for the South Saskatchewan river by raising additional questions.
[Mr. Diefenbaker.l
We do not want action postponed by a new set of conundrums designed to get the government of Canada off the hook.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, it is almost one o'clock so I am not going to make a speech. I simply want to say that there is nothing new in what the hon. member has said. There was nothing new in what the Prime Minister said this morning. He simply repeated what was in the letter and what was in the announced policy of the government in the statement I made last Monday night. I am not going to attempt to review it again to answer the hon. member. I am going to say this, that if anyone will go back and read the whole of the debate to which the hon. member for Lake Centre referred, it will be found that we were discussing exactly the question which he says was never raised before.


Hazen Robert Argue: The announcement the Prime Minister made this morning was that there was not going to be any construction this year.


James Garfield Gardiner: He did not say that. He said what any sensible person would conclude, that in a country like ours out in Saskatchewan you probably could not get a crew moving on a job, no matter how you tried to do so, starting at this time. He did not say that there would be no contracts let or nothing done that would indicate the job was going ahead.


John George Diefenbaker: That is exactly what he did say.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. As it is one o'clock I leave the chair.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.


Hazen Robert Argue: I have a few remarks to make before this item passes. I agree with what has been said this morning as to the great disappointment that will be felt by all people in Saskatchewan over the statement of the Prime Minister, particularly that part in which he said that no matter what steps may be taken this year, in any event construction will not begin.
We know from past experience that we are likely to get more in the way of progressive legislation in the year before an election than for the next three years after an election.


Mr. Smith (Moose Mountain):: That is the way they do it in Saskatchewan.


Hazen Robert Argue: I am not saying that is or is not the way they do it in Saskatchewan, but we know from experience that that is the

way it is done here. But apparently on the South Saskatchewan project the expenditure is being done in that way, and we are going to get nothing in the way of construction even this year.
I asked last night how the minister could expect to build the project, or commence to build it, with items in the estimates as small as $636,000. I see from looking over the estimates that I exaggerated the amount that is there that could be used on the South Saskatchewan river development project, because the amount is only $500,000. The Minister of Finance then said that the total item amounted to $7,893,000. But that total item for major irrigation projects is divided as follows:	Bow River irrigation project,
$4,297,000; St. Mary irrigation project, $1,640,000; South Saskatchewan river development, $500,000; Buffalo Pound lake reservoir, $360,000; engineering services for major irrigation and conservation projects, $1,096,000; total, $7,893,000. That is why I asked the Prime Minister this morning what steps the government could take to obtain additional money for construction, because the $500,000 in the estimates certainly was not a sum of money that could be used in any way for construction. To that question the Prime Minister replied that he did not envisage a situation where actual construction could be commenced this year. A little later he said that the best thing that could happen under the so-called proposals he made to Saskatchewan is that final tenders might be called for, and the item in the estimates was for that purpose.
After turning down one possible arrangement, the other would be to make some provision whereby serious tenderers could be invited to make their best bids, with the prospect that they would not be doing so at a loss if their bid were found to be of such an amount that the project could not be proceeded with now. In other words, the proposal to the Saskatchewan government is first of all to ask that government to take steps to prevent an open-ended expenditure by the federal government.
You are asking the provincial government of Saskatchewan for the first time since this project was started to pay part of the construction of the dam and now the Prime Minister says: if we get some kind of an arrangement with the Saskatchewan government we will call for tenders; we will look at the tenders that are submitted and if they are too high we shall have a little money to pay them for the expenses they have incurred' in submitting tenders. In other words, this is a proposal to Saskatchewan, and if Saskatchewan accepts what is apparently implied in 68108-295i
Supply-Agriculture
the proposal, and the terrible financial burden of a huge proportion of the expenditures involved, even then there is no guarantee that construction will begin. All that the province has held out to it is the possibility that tenders will be called for, and if the amount of those tenders is too high, then the Prime Minister will have some money to pay the people submitting the tenders to cover expenses that they have incurred,
I do admire the Prime Minister for making the statement in the way that he did, because he certainly made it in such a manner that it cannot be misunderstood. I do not expect we shall have the government going out to Saskatchewan holding out the possibility that construction may begin this year because, according to the Prime Minister, construction is out of the question.
The Saskatchewan government has been prepared-and I believe still is-to accept its fair share of the cost. It is willing to undertake all the expenditures necessary for the distribution of the water; it is willing to undertake all the expenditures necessary for levelling the land; it is willing to undertake all expenses necessary for the installation of hydroelectric equipment. Even after Saskatchewan has taken this position and has agreed to undertake this large responsibility in order that the project might be commenced and completed, the federal government is now attempting to unload a further large share of the cost without even a guarantee that if the Saskatchewan government accepts the much larger expenses the federal government will go ahead with the project.
I should like to see this government make a concrete proposal to the province of Saskatchewan. A proposal that is concrete sets out the amount of construction that the federal government is prepared to undertake and the amount of 'costs that the federal government is prepared to bear. All this last proposal to the Saskatchewan government is in my opinion is a way of postponing the issue until after the election is held. There is no commitment in it that the dam will be built. The government is reneging on previous understandings, and is now unloading on the province part of the cost of construction of the dam. And even if Saskatchewan would agree to bear a much larger proportion of the cost, there is still no undertaking by the federal government that it will make definite expenditures on this project.
I was disappointed this morning to hear the Prime Minister say, in effect, "Well, after all, according to my estimate this would irrigate only two-fifths of one per cent of the land in Saskatchewan." He seemed to infer

Supply-Agriculture
from that that the project was not of such great importance, after all.
And just on that point I should like to quote Dr. John A. Widtsoe, irrigation commissioner on the royal commission which inquired into the project. He had this to say about the value of irrigation, as set out in an article appearing in The Improvement Era for February of 1953:
The dream of making Saskatchewan a great grain-producing province, growing grain by dry farming, is not a sound dream. It is not sound scientifically; it is not sound economically. A great commonwealth cannot be built on dry farming. You might also write that down in your books-it cannot be done. For Saskatchewan to grow to its destined proportions-I use the word destined deliberately-it must use the water that flows through it to fertilize the soil. That can be done. You have more water in one stream in Saskatchewan than we have in all the streams in my state of Utah if brought together in one stream. Yet we have been able to build a state, and a great state, out of that water.
I say that even if the Prime Minister's figures are correct, and the project would irrigate only two-fifths of one per cent of the land in Saskatchewan, nevertheless according to Dr. Widtsoe it would have the result of building a great province out of the water used in that project.
I feel that at this stage of the session, in the light of the announcement made by the Prime Minister, little can be gained by delaying the passage of this estimate. However, I did wish to rise at this time to say that the people of Saskatchewan will be extremely disappointed. That disappointment was indicated by the editorial in the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix placed on Hansard this morning. Irrespective of their political beliefs, the people of Saskatchewan want this project; and I believe if the Minister of Finance would bring in a further supplementary estimate making provision for the beginning of construction this year, he would be making a move which would show the government's proposal really means that the dam is going to be built. And I suggest further that if such a supplementary estimate were brought down it would pass unanimously.
I do not think hon. members are opposed to the project. I think any reservation with respect to it is held by only a few members in the cabinet. In my view that reservation cannot be justified. I do not think the amount of money involved is the deciding factor, because we are all supporting the St. Lawrence seaway development. We understand there has been some difficulty in making a proper agreement with the United States and, as reported in the Ottawa Citizen of this morning, the Minister of Transport has stated that if the United States government

does not care to join in a project, then the federal government of this country is willing to undertake not only a project of its own, but a project lying right alongside that of the United States seaway.
So it is not a question of money when it comes to the St. Lawrence seaway. The government is prepared to advance $300 million for that purpose-despite the fact that another deep seaway might be built right alongside the Canadian project. I wish the government would apply that same line of reasoning in connection with the construction of the South Saskatchewan river project. We believe it is a good one; we believe that, for the people of western Canada, it has the same importance as the St. Lawrence seaway to the people of eastern Canada.
The government should not allow the report of a royal commission to stand in its way. The Saskatchewan government is prepared, and for some time has been prepared, to undertake its share of the cost. I would like to see the government of Canada, even at this late stage in the session, bring forward an item sufficiently large to cover any construction which might be undertaken this year. And I believe such an item, accompanied by an agreement, would pass the House of Commons unanimously;


George Matheson Murray: Mr. Chairman,
coming as I do from British Columbia, I am familiar with the development of hydroelectric power on a very wide scale under varying circumstances. In a mountainous region we have tumbling rivers and mighty waterfalls on every hand. We have great water storages already established by nature. I therefore realize the very great problem which confronts the people of Saskatchewan, living as they do in a great tableland, in harnessing such water powers as may be available on the South Saskatchewan river.
We Canadians who live outside Saskatchewan expect to pay part of the cost of this power development and, therefore, we are deeply concerned in the progress of this project. It has taken some years to establish certain engineering data and it will take some further time before it can be reasonably expected to launch this great public work. Some of the speeches I have heard in the house come from hon. members who are most impatient, and who insist that the people of Canada give them a blank cheque at once to go on with this work. In my own province we have learned to be patient in the planning and building of great dams and great hydroelectric projects.
In the Bridge river country we opened recently a new hydroelectric project which

provides the city of Vancouver with most of its power and light. The transmission line in this instance is 120 miles long. Here the water falls some 1,200 feet in a distance of three miles, or about three times higher than Niagara. It took exactly forty years before this project became a reality, from the time the first move was made towards its development. I personally knew Captain Jeffrey Downton, the surveyor who first established its possibilities. Do we expect the government of Canada to move any faster than private capitalists upon such a project?
I was present at the opening of the famous Boulder dam on the Colorado river. It was completed by the United States government after many years of study on the part of that government, and the four states of Nevada, Arizona, California and New Mexico which were concerned in water rights on the Colorado river.
We have the great hydroelectric project in the province of Ontario, which was brought into being following long years of study, research and organization.
In any major operation of this kind, any place in America, it is very unusual for any government or any private group of bankers or industrialists to proceed without the fullest exploration of all phases of the undertaking.
I may say that I support wholeheartedly the proposal to develop the South Saskatchewan river, but I am certainly more interested in a project of equal magnitude which would provide railway service to some thousands of settlers in the Peace river country, who are now handicapped for lack of that service. This is not the time or place to launch a plea for modern rail service for the whole Peace river country including a direct outlet to Pacific ports, but that project has been put before the Prime Minister and the cabinet with some vigour. It is time to say to the people of Saskatchewan not to be weary in well-doing and not to expect the Prime Minister of Canada to issue a blank cheque tomorrow afternoon for the Saskatchewan dam or any other undertaking which has been so loudly supported as a short cut to everlasting prosperity for those immediately concerned.


Percy Ellis Wright: Mr. Chairman, to listen to the hon. member who has just resumed his seat would make one believe that this is a new project which had just been thought of in the last four or five years. Surveys with regard to this project have been going on for a great many years. It is not a new project at all, it is something on which the dominon government has already spent $3 million in surveys and the obtaining of estimates. I
Supply-Agriculture
do not intend to pursue that angle of the matter any further. I was greatly disappointed in two statements made this morning by the Prime Minister and I am certain the people of Saskatchewan will be equally disappointed. He indicated that this was rather a small matter as far as Saskatchewan was concerned because only two-fifths of one per cent of the agricultural land in the province was involved. That is an indication that the government does not believe that this project is important as far as the economy of Saskatchewan is concerned. That is not correct; it is an important project as far as Saskatchewan is concerned.
We have had drought in that province and it has cost the provincial and dominion governments millions of dollars to ship feed into the province. This was necessary because of the conditions created by the drought. This project would solve that problem at least in part in providing extra reserves of feed in case of drought. We have not had a drought for the last few years, but it will occur again. It has occurred in the past and will recur. This is an important project as far as the economy of Saskatchewan is concerned.
I was also disappointed in the statement by the Prime Minister in which he indicated that apparently he wants Saskatchewan to take the risk that may be involved in any increase in cost over a fixed amount which the dominion government will be prepared to pay. We know that in the last ten years construction costs in Canada have doubled. That was not due to any action by the government of Saskatchewan, it was due to dominion government policy. This government removed controls and at the present time they are increasing interest rates. Those increased costs are the result of policies followed by the federal government.
Is it fair to ask the province of Saskatchewan to assume the risk of any additional cost. It is admitted that this project will take ten years to complete; but how can we know what the costs will be during the last five years of construction? The dominion government controls these costs and they should take the risk of any increase. Those are the two points which I wished to make with respect to this particular matter.
There is another matter about which I should like to get some information from the minister. I indicated last night that I intended to ask some questions with regard to the Pasquia project in northwestern Manitoba being developed under P.F.R.A. I would like to know the cost of this project and the amount spent last year. Will the project be completed this year? What is the agreement with the government of Manitoba with

Supply-Agriculture
respect to the division of costs? What is the agreement between the government of Manitoba and P.F.R.A. with regard to the settling of settlers on this new development?


James Garfield Gardiner: The question asked by the hon. member for Melfort concerns his section of the province of Saskatchewan.


Percy Ellis Wright: I was not talking about Saskatchewan. I was talking about the Manitoba section, which is already under construction.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am quite certain that when the hon. member knows what has happened in Manitoba he will expect exactly the same thing to be done in Saskatchewan. That is why I say it concerns his section of Saskatchewan. The proposal in Manitoba is that we do some diking of the Saskatchewan river to keep water off lands which are being settled. The Manitoba government will be selling this land to settlers who will be brought in.
The Manitoba government have agreed to take some settlers that we will assign from lands that are being evacuated in parts of the drought area. There is no definite undertaking that they will take them all, but they will take some. They have also undertaken to place some returned soldiers. There are quite a number of people already settled on the Manitoba section of the delta.
Under the agreement the greater part of the cost will be paid back to the Manitoba .government through the sale of land. Land is actually sold to these farmers and the agreement stipulates the maximum and minimum prices. The farmers are to pay back a considerable part of the money, and then the greater part of what the federal government pays out is to be returned by the province.
The work will be done by contractors, but the tenders will be called for and the work laid out by P.F.R.A. engineers. We will have charge of the carrying through of the project, but the placing of settlers will be under the Manitoba government as well as the collection of money from the settlers. That government now has the set-up to do that under their settlement plan.


Percy Ellis Wright: Has the minister a copy of the agreement which he could table?


James Garfield Gardiner: I have not it here with me and I must say that I am speaking largely from memory. I can have it tabled before the afternoon is out.


Percy Ellis Wright: I should like to see a copy tabled. Are the settlers now on this land to pay anything extra as a result of the diking being done, or will they receive this benefit free of cost?


James Garfield Gardiner: The people who are on the land have an agreement with the Manitoba

government. The Manitoba government sold them the land and they will have to pay the amounts which have been arranged for between them and the government under the deals they have made. I am not in a position at the moment to give the exact details, but I think they will all be covered in the agreement.


Emmett Andrew McCusker: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words on this item because reference was made to a statement which I had made in 1949 and I should like to clarify it. It will be remembered that on October 13, 1949, as reported on page 761 of Hansard, I outlined the plight in which cities like Regina and Moose Jaw found themselves on account of a water shortage. I gave some of the historical background and indicated that when the agreement was made with the Canadian Pacific to build through western Canada they had agreed to follow the line of fresh water. But they were diverted from their original intentions and built their line through the southern part of Saskatchewan, leaving water at Brandon and going straight to Medicine Hat before they came to water again. As a consequence of that breach of contract cities and other places like Regina, Moose Jaw, Swift Current, Gull Lake and Maple Creek which were in between found themselves actually short of water. I tried to impress on parliament when I spoke that the federal government had some responsibility to the people who had settled there because the railways had been allowed to depart from the original contract.
At that time I was having a discussion in Regina with the city, provincial and federal governments with respect to the responsibility for extending assistance to the city in building its water supply system. I had difficulty at first. The provincial government stated that it was the responsibility of the federal government. The federal government pointed out that it was a municipal responsibility, that when a municipality was unable to carry out its own responsibilities it should appeal to the provincial government, and if the provincial government was unable to complete the project it could call upon the federal government. After several attempts I finally succeeded in bringing the three governments together. I think we had two conferences. Nothing came of the first one. All parties stood pat, refusing to accept any responsibility.
After further discussions I succeeded in getting the federal government to promise that it would keep water in Buffalo Pound lake in the Qu'Appelle valley in perpetuity for Regina and Moose Jaw. What that involved remains to be seen. If we build the Saskatchewan river dam in the years to

come, the water will flow there naturally. If it is not built, the federal government has the responsibility of building pumping stations on the Saskatchewan river and keeping a level of water in Buffalo Pound lake and the Saskatchewan valley sufficient to supply the needs of Regina and Moose Jaw, and also stock watering and irrigation projects farther down the Qu'Appelle valley. This will be an expensive undertaking.
I am pleased to say that as a result of that undertaking the city of Regina has gone ahead with the work. There is a dam at Buffalo Pound lake where a considerable body of water is impounded. A power station and a pumping station have been built in the valley to pump water up to the refining beds and works about five miles inland from Buffalo Pound lake. From there Moose Jaw will build a pipe line and obtain its water supply. At the present time we are trying to build a 36-inch pipe line from the site of the filtration beds to Regina city, a distance of thirty-six miles. Hon. members may have noticed that on account of steel being in short supply- I do not want to cast any reflection on the company-it was decided to build the line with another type of pipe, and this has led to great disappointments. At present the project is delayed slightly on that account.
But the most important thing is that within the next year we will have an adequate water supply in Regina. I had indicated that it was the responsibility of the government to assist us with this project because through the oversight of earlier governments the C.P.R. had been allowed to build so far south. At that time I also emphasized the importance of irrigation to the central dry part of Saskatchewan. I do not blame the Prime Minister for saying that just 250,000 acres will be affected. He cannot be an authority on everything. But we who live in western Canada know that the creation of a reservoir in the centre of Saskatchewan of the size and nature that is contemplated and the irrigation of half a million acres of land will improve the agricultural and grazing possibilities of many millions of acres of land. It will permit the production of fodder on which we can winter our stock, and the stock can spend the spring and summer on dry pastures. It will change the nature of agriculture in that part of the country.
I hear many people talk about a great industrial development in that part of the country. Personally I cannot see it. To have industrial development you must have markets. We have a small population. I am not sure what industries can be established there that will thrive. Certainly any of the industries that the C.C.F. government has tried to bring to Saskatchewan to date
Supp ly-A griculture
have proved to be dismal failures. The last one, the woollen mills in Moose Jaw, failed the other day. I do not want this to be a political discussion. Coming from Saskatchewan, I certainly am pressing for the federal government to assume a great part of the cost. I know what the people there have gone through in past years. The wealth of Saskatchewan, compared with that of other parts of the country, is very small. In fact it seems to me that we create wealth to build big insurance offices, banks and so on in eastern Canada. Be that as it may, I think I should clarify something at this point. At that time I was pressing, as were other members, to have the federal government assume as much responsibility as I could get it to take. After the debate had gone on for some time, the Minister of Agriculture had this to say, as found at page 770 of Hansard for October 13, 1949:
What we say in regard to that is this, that the provincial government ought to share some of the capital cost, which reduces the total cost per acre from some $40 or $50 down to the $10 that the farmer can pay, and that no part of that money ought to be collected back from the farmer. We say the federal government should put up something and the provincial government should put up something: and whatever that amount is, it should be charged up to the capital cost which the farmer is not going to be required to pay, in order that his costs may be reduced down to the $10.
My personal opinion about that is that when you take all the works for which we are responsible, including the original dam, we would be assuming far more than our total responsibility, whatever that responsibility might be based upon, whether it is a legal responsibility or a national responsibility. We would not be very far from the mark if the provincial government became responsible for half of the cost and the federal government became responsible for the other half.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Does the minister suggest that for the South Saskatchewan project, also?


James Garfield Gardiner: I have told my hon. friend that whatever we finally decide with the Alberta government as being the principle to be applied will be applied to all of them.
I think the Minister of Agriculture made his position quite clear then. I do not say it filled me with enthusiasm because I wanted to get more for Saskatchewan. I was quoted this morning as having said that I was under the impression that the federal government was going to build the dam and that the distribution of water was going to be the responsibility of the provincial government. I do not think I made any reference to where the responsibility for power should lie. I only wish to say one other thing. I am as anxious to see the dam constructed as anyone is. I know its national value. I know that the economic value of such a project will be enjoyed not only by the people of Saskatchewan but by the people of Canada as a whole.

Supply-Agriculture
I doubt if we have the finances in Saskatchewan at present to permit us to go ahead and complete the entire project, but I am not going to be unduly critical. I can see the point of view of the Prime Minister and people in eastern Canada when they say, especially in view of the royal commission report, that the project has to be closely studied. I can see that they do not wish to embark on some project that involves producing power free for one province when they may be called upon to do the same for others. Therefore I can see why they hesitate. These people are sincere in their desire to obtain the best deal they can get on such a project, and when we find the government sympathetic towards it, when we find all members of the house, including those from Quebec and Ontario, sincerely sympathetic towards the project, I do not think we will help it very much if we try to make it a political football.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, I said before lunch that I did! not want to make any more speeches on this project during this session if I could help it. However, I would just like to suggest to members of the committee, no matter what part of Canada they icome from, that they should get a copy of the report on prairie farm rehabilitation and related activities for 1951-1952. It is the last annual report, it has been tabled in the house, and it is available to everyone. When you have it I would ask you to turn to page 14 and, on the page opposite, you will find a map of the three western provinces. On that map there is drawn what is known as the Palliser triangle or the P.F.R.A. area. One of the things that have caused people to want to take another look at the matter after having read the report of the commission is that the report says there ought to be a survey made of that area. The map shows a dot for every one of the small water projects which are already there, and there are 38,000 of them shown. Forty-eight thousand are now completed but there were 38,000 up to the time of this report. Those water projects are spotted on the map, which is so completely covered that there is hardly any more room for dots. You must remember that we have lined up for a time ahead 1,500 more projects per year, in order to fill in some of the areas where there are no dots.
My argument in connection with that phase is that we have had a pretty complete survey of that area. Our engineers have walked over every farm and have made a survey. I think it is a stronger position for those of us who come from western Canada to say that somebody, it does not matter whether it is
[Mr. McCusker.l
an incoming government, an outgoing government, the present government or any government, should do this job. The surveys are pretty well completed and everything we need in the way of information is there, and I suggest that a study of the map I have referred to will convince a lot of people. There is another document which I think that every member should get-and I was sorry that more did not get it. When we came to the end of giving relief because of the drought, as head of the department I took the responsibility of recommending to the government that we hire a man to write a report. We employed a man who is known to everyone in western Canada-Dr. Stapieford. He had been the principal of Regina College and he had been associated with some of the work. He wrote a report and I have piles of copies down in the department and I wish that members would come and get them; because after reading that report they would know a lot more about this project than they do now.
When people have said to me that the report of the commission indicates that this whole project is just on the fringe of drought, that this lake that we are proposing to put in is just on the fringe of relief, I have asked them to turn to pages 28, 29, 30, 31 and so on of the report which show maps of the areas where we had to pay relief.


John George Diefenbaker: Too bad the Prime Minister has not seen it.


James Garfield Gardiner: The Prime Minister has seen it and he has gone over it carefully. That is one of the reasons why he said what he did say to you this morning.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, I see.


James Garfield Gardiner: If hon. members can see this map from where they sit they will notice that the dam is right in the middle of the dark area-the proposed dam; it is not there yet. The lake that would be put there would be right in the middle of the area. The report says that it is on the fringe, and I can understand people coming to a certain conclusion when the facts are not known about it. I would like every member to get a copy of the report and they will see where relief which cost us $186 million was required. That is more than twice the amount which those of us who know this project think the lake is going to cost. When one takes a look at all of the facts he can more easily be convinced than by simply arguing over what I said or what somebody else said a long time ago. I feel very satisfied with myself because I have had more to do with getting everybody

thinking about the project than has any other one person.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not suppose that I am going to be around until everyone is benefiting by the project, but as long as I am around I am going to keep right on talking favourably of it and not trying to introduce ideas that will slow up its arrival. Simply accusing me of slowing it up will in fact have that effect, because there has been no one trying to speed it up more than I have. People who go around saying that the Minister of Agriculture is trying to slow the thing down, and who try to convince a lot of people out in western Canada that the Minister of Agriculture would be less likely to support it, are not helping to promote the project. Anyone who says that I am trying to slow it down just does not know anything about my thinking or my activities either-or they are just trying to picture my attitude to help them when running their election. I am not going to say anything more about it and I am going to rely upon the people of Saskatchewan to realize that what the hon. member for Regina City read a moment ago represents the situation as I have stated it all the way through.
One more thing should be said at the moment in view of the discussion this morning. It is all very well to take the Star-Phoenix and read an editorial from it, and my hon. friend was trying to infer from the reading of it that the editorial writer was some friend of the Liberal party or myself. Well, my hon. friend knows that the editor of the Star-Phoenix is not a friend of his party or of our party either. The previous editor of the Star-Phoenix died two or three months ago. The editorials that had been written up to that time were written by a very able and competent editorial writer who had a certain point of view that was described this morning. However, the gentleman who is writing the editorials now is not that man. I am not going to say anything critical of the man who wrote the editorial this week other than to point out that it was not the man who previously wrote the editorials. He is a new man and his point of view will no doubt be answered by some other people; and for the time being that is all I want to say about that matter.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Mr. Chairman, I have refrained from taking any part in this debate because I felt that it would have been over long before this. The remarks made a short time ago by the hon. member for Cariboo have made me believe that I, coming from the east coast, should say a few words.
Supply-Agriculture
I have been here as a member for eight years and in that time there has never been a project of a national character of any kind which has come before this house that I did not support; and I am prepared to support other projects of a national character when I am convinced that they are economically sound.
I believe that the people of this country will be convinced that in the statement which the Prime Minister made this morning he was most frank and honest.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Many people might have expected, when the questions were being asked this morning, that the Prime Minister might have risen and tried to play some politics over this project-as has been done since last November. I believe that when people in the country read his remarks they will be convinced that he replied with what he believed to be honest facts that he had before him, and in no way can there be any suggestion about his playing politics.


James Garfield Gardiner: I would like to ask my hon. friend if he would not add that the conclusion he would draw from hearing the Prime Minister speak on this subject today, or on any occasion when he has spoken of it, is that he has been trying to leave the impression that he is very friendly to it.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I can endorse that statement wholeheartedly. On every occasion upon which I have heard him speak of the project, he has taken that stand, that if the cost of this project was in line with the benefits that may accrue, he was prepared to support it. In his statement this morning he said that we must realize that it is the moneys of the people of Canada that must be provided to take care of the cost of this project. He must be convinced that it is the right thing to do before he can endorse it.
Now, I would be prepared to endorse it when I am convinced that it is the proper thing to do. Statements have been put on the record which would indicate that there have been promises made in other parts of Canada by members of this House of Commons. These promises might be helpful at election time. They are, however, somewhat in the same position as the dog who was reaching for the shadow and lost the bone; they might be more harmful in other parts of Canada. There is little doubt in my mind that there will be quotations from this debate at election time in the maritime provinces. I am quite sure that there will be. In other words, people would indicate, and they would have the facts before them, that we in this House of Commons were ready to go ahead with this project without all the information

Supply-Agriculture
that might be necessary before a start could be made. I believe such a statement was made by the hon. member for Assiniboia, that if we were all convinced it was a sound investment we would all endorse it.
The same hon. member suggested a short time ago that a further amount should be provided in the supplementary estimates to get this project under way immediately. I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that I could not endorse that. I have read the report of the South Saskatchewan commission, and from the information I have been able to obtain from other sources I could not support this project now. In advocating that there should be an amount put in the supplementary estimates now to get this project going just as soon as possible, the hon. member fails to understand the position in which he is placing other members of the House of Commons from other parts of this country.
Before I take my seat, I want to say again that I believe the statement made this morning by the Prime Minister was the statement of an honest and sincere man. The people of this country will weigh that statement very carefully. I am sure they will endorse the stand he has taken and will be prepared to wait until all the necessary information is available before a decision is made. I do believe that when that time comes, if it is decided that we should go ahead with the project, it will have the support of the maritime members, the western members and the members from central Canada.


James Garfield Gardiner: May I lay on the table the documents that were requested by the member for Melfort? I am suggesting that we put in the order in council as well as the agreement. I cannot place these documents on the table until the Speaker is in the chair, but in any case I shall send them over and the hon. member can look at them and see that they are placed on the table.


John George Diefenbaker: What is the nature of the documents?


James Garfield Gardiner: I want to add this, and I do not do so in any political sense whatever. I have been in political life for 40 years, and I have been working with a lot of people in that time. I want to say to the members of this house and to the people of Canada in general, and the western people in particular, that I have never worked with anyone in whom I would have greater faith, if we presented our case in a suitable manner, than the Prime Minister. I know he would be friendly and helpful to it. I do not want anyone to think that any discussions I have had with him have left any other impression with me than that if we ever had anyone at the head of the government who would be 
friendly to a proposal of that kind, it is the present Prime Minister. If we put our case properly, and if we have as good a case as some people think we have or even as good a case as I think we have, I do not think we need to be making all these pessimistic prophecies concerning what is going to happen to it in the future.


Mr. Knight:: I think, Mr. Chairman, that everything has been said about this dam that possibly could be said. It is for that reason that 1 shall occupy only a moment or two in endorsing what has been said by my colleagues the hon. member for Melfort and the hon. member for Assiniboia. I would say that the new and significant thing that has taken place today has been the statement by the Prime Minister. I agree with one hon. member who has said it was an honest, forthright statement, and as such I welcome it. But it means that we in Saskatchewan now know, as from this morning, that we are to be disappointed in connection with the matter of construction for this year.
I have lived, of course, in the city of Saskatoon for some time. I am not, in the ordinary sense, a rural member although I have a good deal of rural territory in my constituency, which I am told I am to lose in this redistribution. I need not point out to hon. members in this house that any city in western Canada is dependent for its prosperity upon the prosperity of all those rural workers and farmers who are contiguous to it. I believe, therefore, it is very much my business, as the representative of the centre of a great farming community, to say my few words here today in support of what has already been said for the building of this dam.
I was going to say a word about the minister's last statement concerning his 40 years in politics. I was going perhaps to comment upon what history will say about the effect of that intervention of the minister upon the politics of Saskatchewan, but I think I shall leave them for a future occasion. I want to say that I am very disappointed that nothing will be done this year, according to the Prime Minister's statement, and I take it at its face value. With that, sir, I shall leave it for this time.


Percy Ellis Wright: I do not want to allow this item to pass without paying a compliment to the work of P.F.R.A. in Saskatchewan. I believe that they have done excellent work in that province over the past few years. We may have disagreed about some minor details, but certainly the over-all work done by P.F.R.A. has been of immense benefit to the Palliser triangle and even outside the

Palliser triangle. That this work has been of benefit is indicated by the fact that all parts of western Canada are endeavouring to have the P.F.R.A. extended. I represent an area of the province which has never benefited from P.F.R.A. to any great extent. Over the years I have had numbers of letters from municipalities and individuals asking that their particular area be included in the P.F.R.A. area.
I have in my hand the submission to the government by the farmers' unions of western Canada. In that they state:
We would also urge favourable consideration by this government in extending the benefits of P.F.R.A. to other prairie areas, including the Peace river block.
I think that not only should the P.F.R.A. be extended to the rest of the prairie provinces, but perhaps it should be extended to the whole of Canada. The conservation program that has been carried out by P.F.R.A. in the area in which it has operated is something that could be duplicated-perhaps not in exactly the same manner because it has operated in the drought area-in the rest of Canada. What consideration is the government giving to extending the P.F.R.A. to other areas in the dominion?


James Garfield Gardiner: Before answering the last question I want to thank the hon. member for the finest eulogy that I have ever had since I have been in public life. I have been administering P.F.R.A. and selecting the staffs now for 17 years, and there is not a single policy that they have followed that I did not either originate or pass upon by putting my signature to the suggestions of my officials. Therefore, I take it that an expression of appreciation of the kind that we have just heard, from the source from which it has come, is one of those things which one appreciates as he goes through public life. I want to express my appreciation of those remarks, more particularly since they will be on Hansard.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And they will be on every telephone pole.


James Garfield Gardiner: Having said that, I would say to him that P.F.R.A. was set up as a program to rehabilitate the area known as the Palliser triangle, the area that I was indicating on the map a few moments ago. As has been stated, a good job has been done there by my officials, and people outside think that we ought to extend it to other parts of western Canada at least, and some people believe it ought to be extended to all of Canada. Again I would not have any objection to that. Back in 1943 a committee of the house sat on the matter, examined into it and made a recommendation
Supply-Agriculture
that that be done. The main reason why it has not been done up to the present is that it was thought advisable to take all the money that we could obtain for the time being and deal with the problem which we started out to deal with. I am sure that as soon as we can get through dealing with the South Saskatchewan river dam and have it at the stage one way or other where we can say it is going to be done or it is not, and so soon as we add to that the consideration of the Red Deer project, which is another that is very close to the hearts of quite a few members sitting on the other side as well as some sitting on this side of the house, when we have dealt with these- these are the last two large projects that have been passed upon by P.F.R.A. engineers-when we get to that point, I have no doubt that consideration will be given to the question as to whether we are to extend the act into further activities elsewhere; but for the time being it is not the intention of the government to put through legislation extending it.


Percy Ellis Wright: I hesitate to rise again, but I think the answer given by the Minister of Agriculture is very typical. He takes all the praise to himself that I was giving to the officials who had carried out the program.


James Garfield Gardiner: You did not know whom you were praising.


Percy Ellis Wright: I can assure him that I was praising the officials who carried out the conservation program. With respect to the policy of P.F.R.A., I want to say this. I am one who does not believe in not giving credit where credit is due.


Emmett Andrew McCusker: Don't take it back.


Percy Ellis Wright: That is exactly what I was doing; I was giving credit to the officials for the way in which this program was carried out.


John George Diefenbaker: I am not going to enter into this competition for credit, although P.F.R.A. was set up by the Bennett government. But as between the minister and the hon. member for Melfort, that question has been determined. I should like to ask the minister one question which has to do with the expenditures under P.F.R.A., in connection with investigational work, and so forth, on the South Saskatchewan project back in 1949, and I want to have the record brought up to date. In 1949 a question was asked in the house as follows, as reported at page 826 of Hansard:
What amount of money was spent prior to March 31, 1948, by P.F.R.A. in connection with investigational work on the South Saskatchewan project?
What amount of money was spent from April 1, 1948, to March 31, 1949, . . .

Supply-Agriculture
What amount has been spent or is actually committed to be spent April 1, 1949, to September 30, 1949 . . .
So that the record will be complete, the answer as to the amount of money spent prior to March 31, 1948, in connection with the work is $296,447.87. The amount spent between April 1, 1948, and March 31, 1949, was $143,212.76; the amount spent between April 1, 1949, and September 30, 1949, was $634,308.25.
What has been spent each year since, including 1949 to date, on this project?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am sorry I am not able to give it year by year. The total amount spent on the South Saskatchewan river project from 1935 to 1951 is $1,733,318; and from 1951 to 1952 the total is $510,144. The grand total is $2,243,462. But in view of the discussion that took place this morning I should point out that in the Hansard which'-*


John George Diefenbaker: The minister did not give the amount for 1952-53.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is 1951.


John George Diefenbaker: What was the expenditure for 1952-53?


James Garfield Gardiner: The treasury figures are not out yet for that but it is estimated at half a million dollars. The total figures are not out.


John George Diefenbaker: That would be from April 1-


James Garfield Gardiner: The amount set out last year for this particular project was $1 million, but we did not spend $1 million on the project last year. I was going to point out-


John George Diefenbaker: Does that mean that in the last year, April 1952 to April 1953, the estimated amount to be spent was $500,000?


James Garfield Gardiner: The estimate was $1 million.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister said it would be around $500,000.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, it would be somewhere in the neighbourhood of half of what was voted last year. When this discussion started first, back in 1949, in the debate that was put on the record this morning we find the following: It starts out as a quotation of the estimate itself, that is the major irrigation and water conservation projects in the prairie provinces consisting of $7,500,000.


John George Diefenbaker: What page?


James Garfield Gardiner: It appears on page 761 of Hansard of October 13, 1949. The item was divided in this way:
St. Mary Irrigation project, $2,900,000.
Bow River irrigation project, conditional upon satisfactory agreements with the province of Alberta

and others, $2 million. South Saskatchewan river irrigation project:
And I would call attention to the description from here on.
Engineering surveys, land use and economic surveys and other investigational work, $2 million.
That is, we were definitely told in that vote that this was purely an investigational work, and that there could not be under that vote anything in the nature of construction work, or even preparation for construction. We were told that definitely, in the way it was drafted.
Then it goes on to make another item for surveys and engineering which had to do with the Red Deer diversion. But it was surveys and engineering, and nothing more. In the item this year the South Saskatchewan, as it was last year, is put in along with the Bow River and the St. Mary dam, in the same wording and under the same classification. And there is construction being carried on under those classifications.
And that is just exactly why it was said by the Minister of Finance last night, by myself and by the Prime Minister again this morning, that he is not saying definitely that nothing is going to be done that may lead up to construction. Neither am I. The wording of the item itself makes that a possibility. But he did say, and quite truthfully-as he is always truthful when he speaks either in the House of Commons or anywhere else- that it is rather difficult to conceive of circumstances, in view of all the facts, under which there could be any construction this year. And everyone has said that during all the time it has been discussed.


John George Diefenbaker: There is one other matter in connection with expenditures about which I should like to ask the minister. In a return brought down the other day in connection with expenditures made for what was described as counsel in connection with the South Saskatchewan river project, or counsel of the royal commission, there was an item of $35,000 to the Mannix company: What was the nature of the work done by the Mannix company for the royal commission?


James Garfield Gardiner: The work done by the Mannix company was the figuring out of the whole cost as it was written into the report. That is, they set it all up. Some suggestion was made by the member for Lake Centre a moment ago that it would be difficult to make a tender, because of certain things not having been done. Mannix and company set down that information now available, and really made out what to all intents and purposes would be a tender.


Mr. Ward:: Mr. Chairman, I would be less than generous if I did not say a word of commendation of the work carried on under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act in the constituency I represent. I want to say here and now, in rebuttal of what was said a moment ago by the Iron, member for Mel-fort, that the work in the Dauphin district, where there has been rehabilitated by P.F.R.A. about a quarter of a million acres, was done for less than a million dollars.
If the report is correct, that in connection with the South Saskatchewan project only about a quarter of a million acres could be irrigated within the next twenty years, even with the construction of a dam, I would point out that the work done in the Dauphin district cost about one per cent of what it is reported would be the cost of doing the same kind of work in connection with the Saskatchewan river dam.
I am not condemning the project at all; but it does seem to me that in the light of the 38,000 or more projects which have already been completed under the act, and at a cost much less than the estimated cost of the South Saskatchewan project, the right thing to do would be to proceed with smaller projects, such as the one at Dauphin and at Pasquia Flats in northwestern Manitoba. Projects of that kind would cost only a fraction of the reported cost of the Saskatchewan dam.
I would hope eventually that the dam on the Saskatchewan river would be completed. I must say I was most impressed by the statement made this morning by the Prime Minister. It was logical, fair and friendly, and I could not conceive how any hon. member could criticize it. What more could he say? He did not say it would not be built, nor did he say that it would be built immediately. The hon. member for Assini-boia made the comment-and I was tempted to reply to him-that the Prime Minister had said it would not be built. What he did say was that he would not promise it could be built immediately-at least, that was my understanding of his statement.
May I say a word of commendation of what the Minister of Agriculture did for us. It will be agreed that he has excellent officials in his department, particularly those who are connected with P.F.R.A. I have known and met them, and I have worked with them. They are excellent men; but I wonder who selected them. Who appointed them? Of course it was the Minister of Agriculture.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Where does the civil service commission come in?


William John Ward: He has used good judgment in selecting his staff. I wish for a moment to
Supply-Agriculture
detail an experience we had in our district. In 1947 we suffered from a disastrous flooding condition. The Dauphin valley runs between two ranges of mountains, each about 100 miles in length. In that year there were heavy rains in June; on one night there was about nine inches of rain in the- mountain area. The result was a serious condition of flooding.
I got in touch with Ottawa, by telephone, and spoke to the Minister of Agriculture, inviting him to come to Dauphin. I knew I was asking him to make a great sacrifice, realizing that it would involve the greater part of a week of his time. However, he did come, and I remember distinctly he told a delegation representing some ten or twelve municipalities that there was not a word in the act which said that moneys could be paid out under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act for crop losses through flooding, but he said it would apply in that case. The following year $200,000 was made available to begin work on rehabilitation by way of diking and further dredging of these rivers.
As my last word I would say that we would be well advised to proceed with smaller projects, those which would cost only a small fraction of this project on the South Saskatchewan river. I believe much greater good would follow from this procedure.
I want the Minister of Agriculture and the officials in his department to know how much we appreciate what they did in our district.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
46.	Prairie Farm Assistance Act administration. $450,000.
Mr. Hansell:: I indicated to the minister on an earlier occasion that I would have something to say concerning prairie farm assistance. In line with the compliments that have been passed around in the last few minutes, I should like to thank the minister for his personal interest in attending to several cases I sent to him. I hope he does not use that little compliment in the election campaign against me, but I am sure he will not run in Macleod anyway. I appreciate the work of any minister who will take an interest in individual cases and try to do the best he can to solve things for you. However, I do not think that ministers can take very much credit for all the technical things that may have to be worked out by their officials.
I remember when I was a boy my father bought me an old plug pony of which I was very proud except that its hoofs were pretty well flattened out and I did not like that at all. I went to a blacksmith shop and asked the blacksmith if I could take some
4672	HOUSE OF
Supply-Agriculture
old horseshoes from the scrap pile outside. He told me to help myself. I picked out four horseshoes which I thought would fit the old plug, borrowed some nails from the blacksmith, and went home and tried to put those old shoes on the horse.
My father came along and asked me what I was doing and I told him that I was trying to fix up the hoofs a little bit. He looked at me and he said, "You will never do anything there; you cannot do it that way." I told him that I thought I could. That afternoon my mother took me out in the country and it was dark when we got back. The next morning I went to the pasture to get my old pony and was greatly surprised to see it had brand new shoes on its hoofs, all polished up. By Jove, I thought, that was fine and lovely. I brought the old plug up and was admiring it when my father came along and said, "By Jove, son, I never thought you could do it." Of course, it was not I who had done it, neither is it the minister who gets on a grader or looks through the spyglass of an instrument. What he does perhaps is just to get on the telephone. But I appreciate the cases that the minister has taken up for me.
I should like to ask two questions. They are quite different but I do not want to have to rise twice in my place. One or two farmers in my constituency have suggested that perhaps the P.F.A.A. might be used to institute some plan of hail insurance for farmers on an individual basis. I am quite cognizant of the fact that this act would operate where an area met the qualifications for assistance. Hail insurance companies do not base their hail insurance on an area; they insure individual farms.
A suggestion was made to me that some farmers might not be adverse to paying another one-half of one per cent on their grain sales to have such a measure. I am not advocating it; I am not saying whether it should or should not be done. But some farmers have approached me and suggested that there might be some plan worked out to insure individual farmers against losses from hail.
I suppose it would have to be the equivalent of a compulsory bail insurance plan, and that is why I say that I do not particularly favour it nor am I against it. All I am saying is that some farmers have come to me and asked if something of the kind could not be worked out. I should like to get the minister's reaction. I should like to ask him if any survey has been made-he has been talking about other types of surveys lately- among the farm population to find out whether they would be agreeable to such a


plan. If there is a general feeling among farmers and farm unions that something like that should be done, then I think the government should give some consideration to at least looking over the situation and getting statistics to see whether or not it would be beneficial to the majority of farmers.
I should like to deal now with another matter which comes under this item which has to do with prairie farm assistance. I have brought one or two cases to the attention of the minister and I believe they are under consideration. I am not going to mention them in particular, but they are farmers who have occupations other than that of farming. Because they have other occupations they have been denied benefits under P.F.A.A., even though their crop yields qualified them for benefits.
I am aware that the cases I brought forward have been dealt with carefully. I have no criticism to make of the consideration that has been given to cases I have brought before the minister or the officials. I do not know of any case that has been dealt with unfairly. I think the officials looked at those cases and attempted to reach as fair a decision as they could within the provisions of the act. I believe they went as far as their responsibilities would1 permit them to go. In fact, on one or two occasions I think they attempted to see if they could not work some farmer into the act. As I say, I am not critical of that at all.
But there are cases where farmers are denied benefits because they are in receipt of some other income which is legitimately earned from an occupation other than farming. Perhaps I might mention one case and I hope it will not prejudice it. I use it only as an illustration. A young school teacher got married and decided to go into farming. He and his wife bought a farm and as they had not the cash to pay for it they assumed a mortgage. They bought machinery for which they went into debt. Of course anyone doing this is always taking a sort of gambling chance on whether he is going to get a crop, what his yield will be, whether he will be hailed out, whether the grasshoppers will come along, whether frost will ruin his crop, and so on.
In the course of time this school teacher reached the point where he could not see how he could pull through and pay all his debts. So he got a job teaching school and taught for a while, but he still ran the farm. He did not have someone else come in to run it. He worked as best he could af ter school hours. He was there Friday night and he worked on Saturday. His wife worked. She drove tractors and did all she possibly could.

What happened? At the end of the crop year they were flooded out and did not get a crop. As a result they came within the act so far as yield was concerned and were entitled to prairie farm assistance. The case is now before the board of referees, or whatever it is called. The reason that assistance was not paid to him as it was to others was that he had some other income. I hope it will be paid to this young man. I only give this case as an illustration. There may be hundreds of similar cases. As a matter of fact I have another case but it does not involve a school teacher.
I do not want to prejudice any case, but I would urge that in deciding all these matters those in authority, whether it be the original officials handling prairie farm assistance or the board of referees, should be very liberal in their interpretation of that part of the act and do all they can to give assistance where assistance is needed, not merely because these people come within the act by reason of yield but also because they may be in very straitened circumstances.
In the case I have mentioned it is easy to suppose that the young gentleman regarded the employment he took as temporary, and that he expects to eventually build up his farm and make a good farm out of it. Perhaps he may acquire a little more acreage, and it may be that his ambition is to be a good farmer. In such cases I think those in authority should give the widest possible interpretation to the act. I should like the minister to express his views on these two points.


James Garfield Gardiner: On the first point, having to do with hail insurance, the question involved was decided back in 1910 when hail insurance was proposed in western Canada. Representations were made that such insurance should be provided by the federal government. It was determined then, as it would be now, that insurance is a provincial and not a federal matter. Three different commissions were set up, one in each of the prairie provinces, to deal with the question of hail insurance. The whole question of insurance is involved in that one decision. If we had attempted to put on insurance of any kind it would have been declared ultra vires and we could not have carried on with it.
When we started to set up a scheme of prairie farm assistance we had to devise a plan which was not insurance. The only way we could make sure that it was not insurance was to collect the money necessary to carry on the scheme in some other way than charging fees to individuals. Therefore we set up the present system. We did that after having advocated some crop insurance scheme for 50 years without being able to devise anything that would suit or that could be carried on
Supply-Agriculture
by the provinces by way of insurance. The loss that occurred when the whole crop of a province was wiped out was such that the province did not have anything to pay anything with. Therefore, whatever the plan was, it had to cover a much wider area, so the plan was made national in scope and was applied in the way in which it now operates. It could not possibly be insurance because we could not do that under a national plan. We do not want to get involved in trying to establish hail insurance under this plan because it would probably put us in the position where the scheme itself would be declared ultra vires.
As to the other question, we have threshed that out in at least a thousand cases ever since the plan was set up in 1939. In every one of them we have had to come to the conclusion that we would again destroy the plan if we were to say that a person who is running an elevator, for example, who is spending practically his full time running an elevator and has his family on a farm, were to be given what to all intents and purposes is government assistance in order to carry on his farm. We just do not feel that is involved in this plan. Whether it is a school teacher, a man who runs a store, a station agent, as many of these people are who make claims, or an elevator operator who perhaps lives on his farm but goes into town to operate the elevator or only goes over to a railway siding to operate the elevator, we say the fact that he is drawing money in that way puts him in the position of the man in Montreal who helps to pay.
It is all very well to say that he pays into it because he grows a little grain, and that he should have a chance to draw out because he produces grain, but the fellow in Montreal also pays in and does not get the chance to draw anything out. He pays in because it has been adopted as a national scheme to take care of people in very difficult circumstances as the result of a lost crop. It is assumed that the school teacher in the district who is being paid by the very people who have lost crops, or the elevator operator who is being paid out of handling whatever grain there is, is in the same position as these other people throughout the country.


Ernest George Hansell: I am not saying that the general idea should be completely done away with and that everyone should get the benefit of the act whether or not he works. I am not suggesting that. I am suggesting that cases perhaps could be judged on the basis of a means test of some kind. I think there is a little difference between a man who may have an interest in a farm but lives in Montreal, draws a yearly salary and never goes to his farm-
4674	HOUSE OF
Supply-Agriculture


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. member misunderstood my reference to the man who lives in Montreal. Every taxpayer in Canada pays into the fund. It does not matter where he lives. The man living in Ottawa has to pay into the fund even though he does not have a farm.


Ernest George Hansell: That is in the consolidated revenue fund, but I think the general idea is that prairie farm assistance comes out of the 1 per cent collected. Be that as it may, my point was that perhaps these cases could be judged more or less on the basis of a means test. A man who runs an elevator, taking the illustration the minister used, has more or less a full-time job which is a little different from the man who actually is a farmer but takes a little temporary work, even though it may involve several months of the year. Perhaps that is the way decisions are made. I do not know. I am only urging that the act be interpreted in the widest possible sense.


Mr. Fair:: Would the minister be good enough to place on Hansard, as he has done in former years, a table showing the number of claims, the acreage and the amounts paid out up to date? That was done last year and I know it was also done in several other years.


James Garfield Gardiner: The table is as follows:
Payments Under Prairie Farm Assistance Act for 1952 Crop Year to March 31, 1953
Number of Number of
Province	Amount Townships Awards
Saskatchewan.. $ 758,752.00	189	3,684Manitoba	
180,051.75	44	1,135Alberta	
447,357.25	180	3,388British Columbia	16,211.25	10	203Total	
$1,402,372.25	423	8,410


Robert Fair: Thank you.


Mr. Shaw:: There are one or two matters which I should like to bring to the attention of the minister. It is my understanding that under the P.F.A. Act, where wheat is grown in a district, wheat is used in order to determine the eligibility of a given area. The farmers in the particular section of Alberta which I happen to represent cannot understand that. There is little wheat grown in the area, and farmers feel that the department is not justified under the act in using wheat to determine eligibility. It is substantially a coarse grains area, barley being the principal grain grown. The feeling everywhere in the area is that it is a complete injustice to use wheat to determine eligibility. I have talked to certain inspectors and they have expressed the same view to me. These


inspectors have indicated to me that it is beyond their comprehension why wheat is used in that particular area to determine eligibility. After I have brought another matter forward the minister might like to comment on that problem.
The other matter I have to raise concerns the P.F.A.A. and I realize, as we have been told often enough, that it was not designed as an insurance scheme. I have not recognized it as such. When the act was first brought in the government had in mind crop losses resulting from drought. Later the provisions were extended so that hail could come under the act. In the Red Deer area we have not suffered as a consequence of loss by drought but in 1951, for example, we did lose very heavily as a consequence of hail.
It is the general feeling among farmers there that the regulations with respect to eligibility of an area, and the determination of whether or not a township is covered for drought, do not make too much sense as applied to hail. Generally speaking, drought hits and harms an entire area. With hail it is a case of hop, skip and jump. I have seen some most fantastic patterns. For example, we had 12 sections in the south end of a township which were hailed out 100 per cent. Those in sections 1 to 11 were paid, yet the three farms in the twelfth section were completely excluded from the act. The reason was that the authorities were able to develop some kind of an ineligible block extending from the north which took in that one section.
These farmers feel, as they have said to me during the course of our discussions, that probably the time has arrived when some consideration could be given to a change in the regulations as they apply to hail. I realize and I repeat that this is not an insurance scheme, but these farmers say that if the department were to decrease the area or size of the block under which P.F.A.A. might be paid they would be willing to pay considerably more than the present levy. That would not be a change in the principle of the act. Whether they pay 1 per cent, 2 per cent or 3 per cent the size of the payment does not change the principle underlying the act, and a degree of fairness might be brought into P.F.A.A. as it applies to hail.
Losses are not going to happen very often to the extent that they occurred in 1951. Very few dollars have come out of P.F.A.A. into the area that I have in mind with the exception of the year 1951, when devastating hailstorms struck the area. I do not know what the department may feel able to do, but I do think that consideration should be given to allowing barley to be used to determine the

eligibility in that mixed farming area and, secondly, I think there ought to be some consideration given to the idea of decreasing the size of the block on which payments may be made as a result of loss by hail.


Robert Fair: I wonder if the minister has figures showing the amounts collected in 1951 and 1952 as the result of the 1 per cent levy on grain cheques?


James Garfield Gardiner: For what years?


Robert Fair: 1951 and 1952.


James Garfield Gardiner: In 1950-51 the total collected was $7,334,059.06. In 1951-52 the total was $8,967,076.24. I might say that the total amount collected since the act was passed is $69,325,954.54 and the total amount of payments over that period of time is $143,327,607.65. The payments for 1950 were $10,485,000 and for 1951 they were $4,505,000. Payments are not complete for 1952.


Robert Fair: Thank you.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
47,	Land protection, reclamation and development in British Columbia under such terms and conditions as may be approved by the governor in council, $110,000.
Mr. Pearkes:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to address a few comments on this item because irrigation has become an important farm factor on Vancouver island. I make no apologies for speaking at this time because provision of adequate supplies of water is just as essential to the farmers on Vancouver island as to the farmers in any other part of the country. The southern portion of the island in particular is very dry and while the average rainfall in Saanich peninsula is about 30 inches during the year, 75 per cent of that rainfall occurs in the six-month period from October to March. Rainfall for the months of April to September in 1951, for example, was 4-63 inches. During the summer season evaporation is heavy, averaging 22 [DOT] 04 inches of water from a free water surface. Furthermore, the rock surface is very close to the top of the soil. Those figures alone indicate the need for irrigation and soil moisture.
Competent authority has estimated that some 20,000 acres of arable land in the Saanich peninsula would lend themselves to irrigation. Unfortunately the supply of water for irrigation in that area is not plentiful. We have no rivers and few lakes in the area that could be used for irrigation purposes. However, in recent years many growers have constructed dugouts, dammed small creeks and dug wells for irrigation purposes. In such cases the water thus conserved has been used for the irrigation of high-priced crops having low water requirement.
Supply-Agriculture
Where water has been made available for irrigation, a great variety of crops have been grown. These range from pastures to vegetable crops, potatoes, tree and small fruits, bulbs, vegetable and flower seed crops. Experience has indicated that with irrigation the increase in production varies from 25 per cent to 100 per cent.
I should like to give a few examples of the difference between crops grown on irrigated and non-irrigated land. These figures were obtained from a report by the dominion experimental station at Saanichton, on irrigation experiments conducted in 1951. On irrigated land, loganberries yielded 6,640 pounds per acre, whereas on non-irrigated land they yielded only 2,232 pounds. On irrigated land raspberries yielded 7-09 tons per acre, whereas on non-irrigated land no marketable yield was obtained. On irrigated land potatoes yielded 19-5 tons per acre, and on non-irrigated land only 4-7 tons. Bulbs, such a daffodils, on irrigated land yielded 50,820 bulbs per acre, whereas on non-irrigated land only 19,965 bulbs per acre were harvested. Gladioli, on irrigated land, yielded 133,856 grade 1 flowers per acre, and on non-irrigated land only 12,705 flowers per acre.
I think those few examples will show how beneficial irrigation can be to the growers on the Saanich peninsula. The total yield is merely a guide to the merits of irrigation, but if the grade and quality of the products are also taken into consideration one sees how very important it is that adequate supplies of water be made available. If the water is correctly applied, as was the case in the tests which were carried out at the experimental farm, the amount of water which should be applied to the growing crops at various times averages from about 4 inches for early maturing crops such as over-wintered vegetable crops and bulbs, to the much larger quantity of about 15 inches for pasture land.
While there is very little fresh water available for irrigation purposes on the Saanich peninsula, that peninsula is practically surrounded by salt water. I feel that if plants could talk they would quote the ancient mariner who said:
Water, water, everywhere,
Nor any drop to drink.
Untreated sea water, of course, is unfit for irrigation purposes because it contains a higher percentage of salt than the plant life can handle. But the salt can be removed from sea water by various methods of distillation. I believe the most modern method is one of vapour compression distillation, developed by

Supply-Agriculture
the Cleaver-Brooks Company of Milwaukee. This is a system of evaporation by thermocompression distillation equipment, and it has many advantages, both practical and economical, as compared with the older method. The theory is based on the fact that evaporation and condensation are, of course, reversible processes. Vapour can be produced from a specific amount of water by adding heat. This package of heat is known as "the latent heat of evaporation". Likewise, when heat is removed from the vapour the process of condensation is established again and the vapour once more becomes water.
Now, since the distillation of sea water is a world-wide problem, hundreds of installations, with units ranging in capacity from 85 to 2,100 gallons per hour, are today producing fresh water from brackish or sea water. They are located on ocean islands, airfields, oil fields, canneries and municipalities throughout the world, wherever there is a lack of pure water for drinking and domestic purposes. The initial investment cost for large units is high, but the operating cost is not very great. The figures I have show that operating costs run from $1.50 to $2 for each 1,000 gallons produced.
So far as I know the production of water for irrigation purposes from the distillation of sea water has not yet been attempted, although investigations and inquiries have been made. However, should a method be developed that would prove feasible, the resultant reclamation of insular and coastal land would undoubtedly be of considerable economic importance. I would therefore ask the minister whether any experiments have been carried out by the scientists of his department, or whether any request has been made of the scientists at the national research council to study this problem. I believe it is a problem which is capable of solution, and for which I am confident a solution will be found before many years have passed. I would hope that Canada would be able to play a leading part in the solution of this problem, and thus make the vast amount of salt water available for irrigation purposes in these coastal regions in which there is no adequate supply of fresh water.
The farmers of Saanich peninsula do need assistance in this matter. I believe that if experiments could be followed out, the solution might well be within sight. I am not going to project my thoughts too far into the future, but it might be that atomic energy would be able to supply the heat element which would be required for the evaporation and condensation of salt water in order to remove the salt.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, I should like to thank the hon. member for the trouble he has taken in bringing together the thoughts of a great many with regard to this matter of converting salt water into something that could be utilized both for human consumption and for the irrigation of lands along the coast line. I think it is true that practically every country that has been a seafaring country or which borders upon the sea has been experimenting for a long time. We have had the advantage of all publications in connection with it, and our people have been working on it; but I would expect that if a solution is found, while we may be lucky enough to find it, it is more apt to be found in some of the places where they have been concentrating on the question.
With respect to the other matter of irrigating that particular section of the Saanich, as the hon. member pointed out, we have an illustration station there. Some very valuable work is being done on it. One of the most valuable is the demonstrations that are given of the possibilities of sprinkler irrigation, and the people around there are taking it up as far as possible. I understand that the amount of fresh water available is rather limited, and probably one of the high costs is getting it from where it is to where people want to use it; but to the extent they can do that, they do benefit from the experiments that we are carrying on at the experimental station there.
I can assure the hon. member that everything we can do will be done, and all the help we can give will be given in connection with it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
49.	Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Act, $2,492,285.
Percy Ellis Wright: I believe that valuable reclamation work is being done in some of these marshlands. I received a letter from the maritimes just recently in which it was indicated that a number of the dikes that had been constructed had been washed out. Is there anything to that? How much damage has been done, or has any damage been done by the tides to the dikes that have been constructed down there?


James Garfield Gardiner: None of them has been washed out. My information is that these new dikes built by the new methods-perhaps that is a better way of putting it-have stood up much better than we had ever expected, and better than those that had been built a considerable time ago. But of course one could not say that any structures that are near the sea do not suffer any damage from any storm or any extra high tide that comes in, and the tides are very high down there. These storms and high tides are likely to

do damage that was not expected, but there has not been any washing out of the dikes.


Percy Ellis Wright: How much money has been spent on repairing in the last year?


James Garfield Gardiner: I cannot get the figures broken down in the way the question was asked, but the grand total that has been spent is $4,142,975. The nearest approach I can get to what the hon. member asked is that in Nova Scotia $1,429,505 has been spent in the four years, in New Brunswick $1,111,530 and in Prince Edward Island, $19,440. There is only one comparatively small project there. These are the expenditures made.


Percy Ellis Wright: These are the expenditures, but surely that amount was not spent for repairs and maintenance. What I ask is what has been spent on repairs and maintenance?


James Garfield Gardiner: That is all. These lands were all diked by the French or the British away back a hundred years ago, and the dikes have stood up until very recently. They are built back a certain distance from the sea. The sea has gradually worked underneath them, undermined them in some places, and they have fallen into the sea. We are reconstructing those dikes and opening up that land again.


Percy Ellis Wright: What I was trying to get at was the amount that had been spent on repairs and maintenance of the new construction that has taken place over the last few years.


James Garfield Gardiner: Scarcely anything has been spent on them yet. We have done the same thing the original builders did. We have gone back rods from the sea, and we have put up new dikes. Perhaps some day the water will get up close to them and undermine them, too, but it is not going to happen for some considerable time. The amount of damage that has been done has been comparatively small.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
50.	Assiniboine	river-dyking	and cut-off
Mr. Sinnoti:: Can the minister give us a progress report as to when tenders will be called on this job?


Mr. Bryce:: I want to say that I do appreciate the minister being able to get an extra appropriation for this work. When it was first suggested that this be taken away from the Department of Public Works and put under the P.F.R.A., I agreed with it. The results are good, because we have had some work done and we are going to get some more work done this year. A tribute should be paid to the three municipalities concerned and the P.F.R.A. engineers who have been able to co-operate. Instead of quarrelling
Supply-Agriculture
among themselves they have been able to do a wonderful job. The three municipalities got together and then met with the engineers, and decided what work would be done that would be agreeable to the three municipalities.
Again I want to say how pleased I am that extra money is being allocated for this work, and I hope the minister will be able to carry the work on because it is really something that is needed on the Assiniboine river.


Mr. Dinsdale:: I should like to ask one or two questions on this item, particularly with reference to the report on conservation and flood control on the Assiniboine river which was submitted to the department in December, 1952. This report deals particularly with the problem of flooding in the city of Winnipeg. The investigation arose as a result of the disastrous flooding of 1950 in the city of Winnipeg, which as all hon. members know was declared a national emergency. As the minister well knows, the Assiniboine river enters into this problem because it is one of the main tributaries of the Red river.
In conjunction with the diking and flood control on the Assiniboine river, we have the problem of flooding between Millwood and Brandon. This particular subject was discussed at some length in the report to which I have already referred. Can the minister make any comment on the present thinking of the government in regard to that particular problem?
May I revert once again to the other matter which is covered particularly by the estimate indicated on page 7. Last year we had a discussion on the diking operations taking place in the Portage area. This year the amount is being doubled, from $50,000 to $100,000. I am wondering whether that is to apply exclusively to that area, or whether the sum of money will be available for the broader problem of flooding on the Assiniboine river.
Then a final question. The proposition was put forward in the conservation and flood control report to the effect that the cut-off at Portage should be combined with the Russell reservoir project. It is intimated that if the Russell reservoir project were proceeded with, it would decrease by at least 10 per cent the danger of flooding in the area between Millwood and Brandon. It is further indicated in the report that one project without the other is useless. It has to be a combined effort, that is, both the Portage cutoff and the Russell reservoir. I am interested in discovering just how far the government has gone in its work and thinking along these lines.

Supply-Agriculture


James Garfield Gardiner: I hold in my hand a report which has not yet been distributed, but it does cover the point just mentioned by the hon. member. I think the best advice I could give him would be to get a copy of the report as soon as it is available, and I am sure that in it he will find answers to everything he has just mentioned. I must say that I have not yet had the opportunity to read it. This investigation was carried on by our people. There has been a survey of the whole Assiniboine river area, beginning up in Saskatchewan and coming right down to the Red river. It is all set out in this volume, which will be available shortly.
Then, on the other question, as the hon. member knows, at the time of the last serious flooding in Brandon I was invited to go out there and look over the market gardens on the north side of the river. I did so. We are just as much interested in those as we are in the problems down around Portage. As I have said on previous occasions, the objective has been to make the Assiniboine river operations just as important as those we have had on the Souris river, or on any of the other rivers, and to carry on those operations all the way from the source of the river right down its whole distance to the Red river.
In three or four municipalities down around Portage we have done work which has resulted in diking and the cutting off of curves in the river in order to allow the water to get away more rapidly than it otherwise would. And at other places upstream we have put in dams in order to prevent the water from coming down as rapidly as it would otherwise. I can assure the hon. member that we are going right ahead with that kind of work, and I would hope that in the years ahead the government will be able to accomplish even more than it has up to now in connection with that activity.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I would conclude from the minister's remarks that this report will be tabled shortly; is that correct?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not so sure whether it will be in shape to be tabled before the session closes. It is a report which we must turn over to the Department of Resources and Development, and they will handle it. Our P.F.R.A. people have done the job for that department, because it is partly related to the problem they have down at Winnipeg in connection with the flooding situation.


Mr. MacLean (Queens):: I have one general question to ask. In view of legislation which has been before the house concerning water conservation, and which was sponsored by the Department of Resources and Development, I am wondering what liaison there

will be where these two interests might overlap, or where action might be taken to the same end.


James Garfield Gardiner: Does the hon. member mean as between the Department of Resources and Development and the Department of Agriculture?


John Angus MacLean: Yes, on the matter of water conservation.


James Garfield Gardiner: The difference between the two is this; and I think I could give a better illustration by going out to my own province, where I know the situation better. A suggestion has been made to put a weir in the Saskatchewan river so that it would be of some assistance in the neighbourhood of Prince Albert. The putting of a weir in there would have no relationship to agriculture whatsoever. It would provide landing places for aircraft from the north country, so that they might land in the water.
Facilities would be provided at Prince Albert similar to those at Saskatoon. However, the work at Saskatoon might be said to have some bearing upon agriculture, while the other would not. P.F.R.A. or the Department of Agriculture would not undertake the one at Prince Albert, but we did have something to do with that at Saskatoon. The determining factor is that if there is promotion of agriculture or the conservation of soil, or related matters, it is presumed to be done by the Department of Agriculture either provincially or federally, or by the two in co-operation. But if it is purely a matter of putting up a dam to prevent the flooding of a city, as for example at the city of London, then it is done in co-operation between the provincial government and the federal Department of Resources and Development.


John Angus MacLean: There would seem to be some difficulty in some cases in distinguishing between the responsibilities of the respective departments of government. As the minister knows, the flooding of a river is generally caused by the kind of land usage carried on in the watershed of that river. These are closely related subjects in nearly every case, I suggest.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is correct.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
SI.	To provide for administrative expenses, Agricultural Prices Support Act, 1944, $98,592.
Percy Ellis Wright: This is the same item we have had each year since the support act became effective. I notice, however, in looking over the supplementary estimates for this year that there is no vote such as appeared in the supplementary estimates in the past number of years. The estimate in last year's

supplementaries, numbered 674, was as follows:
Amount required to recoup agricultural prices support account, to cover net operating losses of the agricultural prices support board during the fiscal year 1951-52.
Were there any losses during 1952-1953? If so, what method is the government using to recoup the fund? I notice there is no vote in this year's supplementary estimates.


James Garfield Gardiner: All the losses up to the end of March, or in the year preceding the end of March in any year, are voted under the further supplementary estimates at that time. The administrative vote, as it is set out here, is about the same every year; there is not much difference in that. We do not know in advance what losses will be taken. As has been said by hon. members on a number of occasions, they have been very small. We had $200 million to work with, and for a considerable number of years we had losses of only $10 million. Our experience this year will be quite different, largely because we had the foot-and-mouth disease and so on. Speaking just from memory, at one time we had $125 million out. Much of that is coming back from day to day, but we will have final losses running into some millions.


Percy Ellis Wright: How will the fund be recouped? For years it was recouped by means of a vote in the estimates.


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. member will recall that the Minister of Finance brought down an item of $32 million in the supplementary estimates. We might have some further losses later on.


Percy Ellis Wright: I still cannot understand why this does not appear as it has in other years, in the agriculture supplementary estimates. Since the act came into force there has been a vote in the supplementary estimates of the Department of Agriculture to recoup the fund. Has there been a change in policy? Why is there not an item in the supplementary estimates under the Department of Agriculture to take care of the recouping of this fund?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am informed that the anticipated losses for this year were covered by the vote in the supplementary estimates.


Percy Ellis Wright: Then the fund is being recouped by a vote in the supplementary estimates of the Department of Finance?


James Garfield Gardiner: Of the Department of Agriculture. They were brought down by the Minister of Finance, as I did not happen to be here at the time. The amount was $32,346,000.


Mr. Major:: Last year in our area the condensers were taking a large amount of the
Supply-Agriculture
milk produced but a situation has arisen, largely because of the embargo due to the foot-and-mouth disease, whereby large numbers of dairy cattle remain on the farm. I am afraid we are going to run into a surplus of milk in the cheese factories. Would it be possible to channel a certain amount of that milk into other production, such as butter? Has the prices support board considered purchasing cheese should we run into a surplus condition?


James Garfield Gardiner: The Ontario cheese producers have organized their activities under the agricultural co-operative marketing act, which was passed in 1939. Under that act we are prepared to guarantee up to 80 per cent of the average price for the three preceding years. The Ontario producers had that guarantee last year and I understand are putting forward a request for the same thing this year. Last year the provincial government added six cents. I have no information as to what they intend to do this year, but I think it can be taken for granted that we will pretty well stick to what was done last year. I think it would be a mistake to transfer from the act they are now under to the Agricultural Prices Support Act.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
52.	To provide for the furnishing of a room in the headquarters building of the food and agriculture organization, Rome, Italy, $10,000.
Mr. Coldwell:: Is the same thing being done here that is done in case of the Department of External Affairs? I suppose this $10,000 will be expended in the form of blocked currency of the country?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is our share. All the others are paying for it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Louis-René Beaudoin: Department of National Health and Welfare.


Mr. Martin:: I have a statement I wish to make, and I was just wondering what would be the best way to proceed as it is nearing five o'clock.


Louis-René Beaudoin: We cannot very well start to deal with private and public bills until five o clock sharp, as some hon. members may be in their rooms and want to come down at that time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think it is now five o'clock.
Progress reported.



PRAIRIE FARM REHABILITATION ACT


James Garfield Gardiner: May I ask that we revert to

Co-operative Credit Society motions in order that I may table an order in council which I could not table when you were not in the chair.


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed.


James Garfield Gardiner: This is order in council
P.C. 1953/2/571 of April 17, 1953, with agreement attached.



PRIVATE BILLS


Irvin William Studer: the second reading of Bill No. 364, to incorporate Canadian Co-operative Credit Society Limited.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, there is a question which arises here which I think should be settled while you are in the chair. This company is being incorporated pursuant to the terms of Bill No. 338 which has not yet been put through this house because there is an amendment to be considered which was made in the Senate. I understand that that bill will not come up until the beginning of the week.
Perhaps the minister will make a statement, because I think we should know what is the legal position and whether the final assent to both bills would wash out any irregularity. Just what is the situation? I think it should be put on the record that Bill No. 338 has still to be completed in this house.


Mr. Speaker:: I am indebted to the hon. member for Greenwood for bringing this matter to the attention of the house. I find that a bill went through the house under similar circumstances in 1949.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Pipe lines.


Mr. Speaker:: It was one of the pipe-line bills. The procedure is that the bill that is before the house at the present time does not receive third reading until the other bill to which the hon. member for Greenwood has referred has gone through the house. Therefore it appears to be quite regular to give this bill second reading today.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce.
Mr. Hughes Cleaver (Halfon):: Mr. Speaker, by leave of the house I move:
That in respect of Bill 364, letter F-12 of the Senate, intituled "An act to incorporate Canadian Co-operative Credit Society Limited", read the second time this day, standing order 105 respecting the posting of private bills be suspended.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: All the business under the heading "Public and private bills" having


been disposed of, the house will resume the business which was interrupted at five o'clock.

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



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE

[Stage Direction]
Department-
249. Departmental administration, $1,001,677.
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, at this time I wish to make a statement that was foreshadowed in the speech from the throne, and I now do so on the opening of the department's estimates.
The house knows the government's basic health objective, of course, to bring the best of health care within reach of every Canadian. A few days from now we will reach the fifth anniversary of the national health program, the symbol and centre of recent health progress in this country. When the late prime minister, the Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King, introduced this program in 1948, he placed it in proper perspective in relation to the government's larger and basic aim of securing for the people of Canada a national minimum of social security and human welfare. In so doing he pointed out that the new federal grants represented "first stages in the development of a comprehensive health insurance plan for all Canada".
Nothing could better mark the success of this program over its first five years than the government's decision, which I have the honour of announcing today, to move forward on three entirely new health fronts. The house will be asked to approve the addition of three important federal health grants to the ten already in existence.
These new grants will give invaluable aid to the provinces in providing: (1) better health care for mothers and children; (2) better health care for the disabled, and (3) better facilities and services to help doctors diagnose their patients' illnesses. This threefold federal program, when fully developed, will total almost $11 million each year.
These new grants take full account of the health surveys made by the provinces with federal aid. In developing them we have worked closely with provincial public health leaders, with representatives of the health professions and with the various voluntary associations. Meetings have already been held with senior health officials in the provinces so that no time will be lost in getting these new programs under way as soon as the necessary appropriations are approved by

parliament. As members of the house know, the provinces, after assessing their needs in each field covered by federal grants, submit projects which are then studied and, if acceptable, approved by the federal government.
But it is not just projects and administrative procedures that these new grants should bring to our minds. Rather our thoughts should be of births unmarred by the death of mother or child, of broken bodies brought back to useful activity, of countless Canadians helped in their fight for good health because, through the great techniques of modern medical
Year
1953-	1954	
1954-	1955	
1955- 1956	]	
1956-	1957	
1957-	1958	
Five-year Total	
I now turn to a more detailed review of each of these new grants, and first I shall deal with the child and maternal health grant. A grant of $2 million is proposed to help provide better health services for Canada's mothers and children. This grant, which will start this year at $500,000 and double next pear and the year after, will be distributed m the basis of a flat amount of $10,000 to sach province, with the balance divided among the provinces according to the num-ler of births and infant deaths.
At the present time the level of health services for mothers and children varies :onsiderably from province to province and ;ven within provinces. We want to see these :ssential services more uniformly developed across Canada. We want to make sure that, is far as possible, every Canadian mother :an have access to proper health care before, luring and after the birth of her child.
Each province has its own particular needs. Sach province will therefore have its own jarticular need for the kind of assistance vhich I am now proposing. One province nay develop better services for expectant nothers in special areas; another may employ nore child care experts in the provincial lealth department; a third may improve the equipment in hospital wards for children.
There is no exact formula for the use of hese federal funds, but without restricting heir use I could suggest by way of illustra-ion the sort of benefits that we believe will esult, namely, more clinics where mothers an get guidance on childbirth and infant care; nore follow-up home nursing visits; expanded ervices given by provincial divisions of child
Supply-Health and Welfare science, their doctors will be able to learn more about their illnesses.
In summary, over the next five years these three new grants-to give them their official names, child and maternal health, medical rehabilitation, and laboratory and radiological services-will make $42 million available for an expanded health program. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I should like to place on Hansard a table showing how this program, in terms of cost, will develop in the next five years. The table is as follows;
		Laboratory	
Child and		and Radio-	
Maternal	Rehabili-	logical ser-	Health	tat ion	vices	Total$ 500,000	$ 500,000	$4,300,000	$5,300,0001,000,000	1,000,000	5,100,000	7,100,0002,000,000	1,000,000	6,000,000	9,000,0002,000,000	1,000,000	6,800,000	9,800,0002,000,000	1,000,000	7,800,000	10,800,000$42,000,000
and maternal health; better educational services for expectant mothers; more medical research on pregnancy; improved equipment for maternity wards in hospitals; more services for mothers and children in hospital outpatient departments and community health centres.
In short, through this new grant more Canadian infants will be able to get a healthy start in life and more Canadian mothers will be able to bear children without danger to their own health. The vital significance of this grant is realized when we recall that this year's births will involve the life and health of 800,000 Canadian infants and their mothers.
Now, Mr. Chairman, while this is the first time a particular grant has been given for maternal and child health, substantial assistance in this field has already been provided through other sections of the federal health program. There can be no question that this federal aid over the past five years has been a factor in the decline in infant deaths in Canada from 16,333 in 1947 to 14,584 in 1951, a total saving of 10,000 infant lives in this period.
During the past eight years we have also done a great deal through family allowances to provide more equal opportunity for our children through their infancy and up through the years of childhood and adolescence. But despite our provisions for the health and wellbeing of our children, we find that the Canadian infant death rate is still too far above the level of certain other countries whose economic capacity and social development are, in other respects, no greater than our own! This new grant will help provide Canadian mothers and children with the health services

Supply-Health and Welfare of modern medical science. No proposal of this government, I know, could appeal more tellingly to the hearts and minds of the people of this country.
The second of the new health grants, the rehabilitation services grant, is intended to provide improved health services for our disabled citizens. In recent years the federal government has taken an increasing interest in the problem of the disabled. Our programs for disabled veterans rank with the best in the world. The Department of Labour, through the federal employment service, makes special efforts to place handicapped persons in useful, productive and satisfying employment. The national health program itself has benefited thousands of crippled children and those recovering from tuberculosis, mental illness, arthritis and polio. The hospital construction grant has helped to set up rehabilitation centres such as the western society for physical rehabilitation in Vancouver.
The purpose of this new grant is to fill the gaps in existing programs, to help develop suitable services for handicapped persons not already provided for by government or voluntary agencies. I have in mind such persons as those who have had legs or arms amputated, the paraplegics, victims of accidents for whom there is no other provision, and all those suffering from the many disabling conditions which can cripple the human body and so tragically restrict the creative capacity of the human spirit.
A special grant of this sort was proposed in February, 1952, by the newly-established national advisory committee on rehabilitation. This body, appointed by the federal government and representing all provincial governments, the medical and allied professions, the voluntary agencies, organized labour, management and the universities, was a direct outgrowth of a conference convened jointly the year before by my colleagues the ministers of labour and veterans affairs, and myself.
Disability, as we were reminded by the hon. member for Fort William who spoke on this subject a few months ago, is not a simple condition to be countered by any single program. There are many types of disability, and there are many aspects to the rehabilitation process if the disabled person is to be effectively led back to a useful and productive life. This grant will be for services that will help restore the health of the disabled person and reduce his disability to a minimum. These activities will be closely co-ordinated with the vocational training and special placement programs of the Department of Labour.
This grant for the disabled will total $1 million a year-for the first year it will be

one-half this amount. There will be $10,000 a year for each province, with the balance divided on the basis of population. Each project approved under this grant must fit into our over-all program to help our disabled citizens. Otherwise a haphazard pattern might develop, with a single service provided here, some equipment set up there, but no thought for our final objective which is to help as many disabled persons as possible take an active and satisfying part in the life of their community.
Funds available under this grant will be used for three main purposes: (1) for the training of professional rehabilitation workers; (2) for medical rehabilitation equipment; and (3) for rehabilitation health services. Training might be for any of the professional health and welfare workers who can help the disabled, including physicians, psychiatrists, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, social workers, nurses, remedial gymnasts and rehabilitation officers. Equipment could include electrotherapy apparatus, Hubbard baths, whirlpool baths, remedial gymnastic apparatus and other special equipment used to correct disabilities.
In the extension of services, this grant could help employ the necessary professional staff for hospitals and rehabilitation centres. It could also be used to finance surveys to seek out persons with disabilities, to set up units where crippled persons could get help with their appliances, and to set up other specialized clinics and units essential in any well-balanced program for the disabled.
While training and equipment projects can be financed entirely out of federal funds under this grant, the provinces must share equally in the cost of extending services. This grant is not intended to make rehabilitation a federal field of action, but rather to assist the provinces in meeting what is basically their responsibility. It will also give encouragement to the many voluntary agencies already doing splendid work in this field. I am aware that my mere recital cannot bring home immediately the significance of this grant, but all one has to do is visit any part of this country and learn of the work being done, and one will at once realize the significance of this grant in connection with that work.
I come now to the last, the largest and, in many ways, the most significant of the new grants here proposed, that for the extension of laboratory and radiological services. This grant will make possible better health care for Canadians by providing their physicians with better facilities and services to detect disease and ill health with consequential benefit and great service to the

people as a whole. Starting at 30 cents per capita, this grant will rise by 5 cents each year to a maximum of 50 cents per capita in the fifth and succeeding years. In general, the provinces will match dollar for dollar the federal funds made available. This grant will total approximately $4,300,000 this year, rising over the next five years to about $7,800,000. The per capita allotment will then remain unchanged, but the grant will, of course, continue to increase year by year as our population increases.
The importance of this new grant will at once be evident to every member of this house. It represents the fulfilment of an objective which the former prime minister in announcing this program placed before the house, and one which I have repeatedly placed before this house and the country during the past five years. This is what we had in mind, as I stated, when I made my first report on the national health program to the Canadian Medical Association shortly after it was announced. As I said then:
The black bag is still the symbol of the medical profession, but the discerning doctor must see himself and his services against the broad pattern of medical facilities that the Canadian community has developed to enable him to serve it better. The history of medicine reflects the growing dependence of the doctor on the health facilities available to him. To the simple relationship between doctor and patient have been added the diagnostic, hospital, laboratory and other facilities that have been developed to support the doctor in his work.
We must make sure now that our people in all parts of the country are not denied these diagnostic facilities, now not fully the case. Much has already been done, of course, under the hospital construction grant to develop more adequate hospital facilities and, under the other grants, to extend the diagnostic and laboratory facilities our doctors require to serve their patients effectively. This new grant, however, makes possible an expanded program for the setting up of modern diagnostic facilities, particularly in rural areas where they do not now exist, as well as in some other communities.
We have expanded the capacity of our hospitals; we now propose to give them more help in establishing X-ray and other diagnostic services under medically competent personnel. Health authorities recognize the importance of providing this specialized service to the medical practitioner so that he can better serve the people under his care. The health surveys made by the provinces, under the national health program and at federal expense entirely, indicate a fundamental need to extend diagnostic facilities and services so that people in all parts o Canada may have more ready access to the 68108-296
Supply-Health and Welfare high quality of medical care now generally available in our cities.
Since these specialized facilities are relatively expensive to establish and of a very technical nature, they cannot easily be provided by the practising physician himself. Through this grant it will be possible to set up services where needed in hospitals and health centres to meet the requirements of doctors and patients in the areas concerned. By improving the facilities now available to private practitioners for the diagnosis of illness outside of hospital, this grant is expected to reduce the need for additional hospital accommodation. By making laboratory and X-ray facilities and services more widely available, particularly in outlying areas, it will cut down the time and money spent in travelling to the larger medical centres.
Of particular importance will be the better distribution of medical personnel throughout Canada that should result from this grant. One of the major reasons more doctors do not settle in certain areas is that facilities are so frequently lacking for the practice of the kind of medicine they are taught in medical schools today. This problem can, in part, be solved by the judicious extension of laboratory, X-ray and other diagnostic facilities and services to supplement those already in existence in the smaller hospitals.
Finally, the grant should help facilitate the training of radiologists, more and more becoming an increasingly important factor in the great work that is being done by those who have to do with the health of our people. In this connection, the greatest care will be taken to ensure that the training provided is of the highest standard.
Provincial projects under this grant will be devoted primarily to the development of improved facilities in those areas that are not now adequately served. There is no thought of duplicating existing services if they are performing a useful and economical function. The services now provided by the major laboratories and in the larger hospitals and universities are second to none. Much splendid work is also being done by the various provincial diagnostic services. Through this new grant it is our hope to continue to encourage accuracy and quality in order that physicians, in all parts of Canada, may have complete confidence in the reports made to them.
As hon. members know, we have already given substantial assistance toward the provision of X-ray services through the cancer and tuberculosis control grants. Our purpose now is not, of course, to duplicate what has

Supply-Health and Welfare been, done but rather to extend facilities for the early diagnosis of fracture, of chest and abdominal ailments, and for other X-ray procedures required in the physician's work. In the laboratory field, encouragement will be given to the development of modern facilities staffed and supervised by specially trained workers capable of giving to all physicians and patients the kind of expert help they now receive in the leading hospitals in large urban centres. These laboratory services include such procedures as electrocardiograms, so necessary to modern heart investigation, and basal metabolism tests for glandular treatment.
Let me stress the importance in all these developments of maintaining the traditional doctor-patient relationship. There is no thought of regimentation or centralization of personal health services. We do not want to see in Canada any barrier imposed between doctor and patient, for that would lessen the doctor's effectiveness and the patient would inevitably suffer. The purpose of this grant is rather to strengthen the physician's hand, since he is most immediately responsible for the health of the patient. In that way we hope to bring greater and more direct assistance to the people themselves.
Now, the greatest care must be taken to see that nothing is permitted to lower the high standards of medical practice for which Canada has won world-wide recognition. We must remember that it is not the function of a public health service to carry out personal health services that are properly the responsibility of the private practising physician. This grant will enable the private physician to serve his patients better. I was told only this morning by a country doctor who lives some 600 miles away, who came down to see me and with whom I discussed some of the phases of this program without revealing government policy, that in his judgment this was the greatest step yet taken to assist those in outside areas in getting this kind of investigatory treatment and attention. I am sure that will be the verdict of this house, and I know it will be the verdict of this country. This grant will help to bring the latest techniques of medical science into the service of the whole Canadian people.
These three new grants that I have outlined are logical extensions of the national health program. They were decided upon only after the greatest consideration and in the light of our wide experience in bridging the gaps in Canada's health services. The house will be interested to learn that because of our remarkable progress in building new hospitals since 1948, we now find it possible

to embark on these programs without imposing a further burden on the taxpayer. We are now able to divert about half of the hospital construction grant to offset, in large part, the additional expenditures proposed, and yet keep toward the objective established for ourselves five years ago.
Many hon. members now present were in this house on that historic day, May 14, 1948, when the late prime minister announced the inauguration of Canada's national health program. Mr. King pointed out that besides being fundamental prerequisites of a nationwide system of health insurance, these substantial grants-undertaken at federal initiative and extending considerably beyond the 1945-46 proposals to the provinces- opened a new era in health for Canada. Let us see if his words on that date have been confirmed by experience in the intervening years.
During the first five years of this program the provinces have been able to expend $100 million or 60 per cent of the more than $165 million in federal funds made available to them for the following broad purposes: to survey their own health programs and future needs; to help overcome serious shortages in hospital accommodation; to raise the level of training of health workers and to encourage health research; to improve public health facilities and services in rural and urban Canada; and, finally, to intensify efforts to combat crippling conditions in children, venereal disease, mental illness, rheumatism and arthritis, tuberculosis and cancer.
The effect of this transfusion of federal funds into the bloodstream of provincial health services is literally incalculable and staggering in its results, as I propose now to show. Its influence has been felt throughout every part of Canada. I am sure every hon. member can testify from personal knowledge to the practical, tangible benefits which these federal health grants have brought to those he represents in this parliament, and I am conscious of the fact that in speaking of the health of the people, I am talking about something which, in the words of Benjamin Disraeli, the prime minister of Queen Victoria, represents the greatest asset of any nation.
If it were possible to trace its effect on individual Canadians over the past five years, it would be clear that the national health program has directly touched the lives of fully 75 per cent of our people and, more indirectly, of all Canadians.
The other day a member of this house asked me for some facts and figures on expenditures under this program. I gave

him this information, but what I perhaps should have told him was that the program's achievements cannot be measured in dollars and cents, impressive though these figures are, but in their effect on the health and well-being of our people. I only wish I could have taken him into the highways and byways of Canada and shown him at firsthand some of the inspiring new developments that are taking place because of this great federal program, that will stand as a monument to a great humanitarian prime minister, the late Mr. Mackenzie King.
Let me briefly indicate the scope of this outstanding social measure by listing some of the achievements made possible by federal expenditures under it. Through these federal grants 8,600,000 people, 60 per cent of our entire population, are now served by health units. I ask hon. members just to think of what that in itself means. Through these federal grants 2 million free chest X-ray examinations are given each year. Go into the office of any radiologist or any doctor, or ask any doctor of this house what these X-rays have shown not only by way of revealing tubercular conditions, positive and negative, but by way of revealing and checking other illnesses which would not have been known and which would never have been uncovered unless this service had been made possible by this program, in collaboration with the provincial governments.
Through these federal grants hospital facilities have been established for the first time in 144 communities across Canada; 5,000 health workers have been trained, and more than 4,600 have been added to hospital staffs and other health services. More than
1.200.000	children have benefited through improved health services. In place of 17, there are now 77 mental health clinics where
12.000	Canadians, many of them children, are receiving help. Through these grants 25,000 tuberculosis patients have been provided with streptomycin and other drugs free of charge, and 500,000 infants have been given B.C.G. protection against tuberculosis.
The reason we have provided these drugs free is not that we want to give anything for nothing. We give these drugs to patients in sanatoria in an effort to bring about a reduction in this dreaded disease. It is a costly drug, and only in that way could we have had a uniform practice; and the results, as I shall indicate, have been simply stupendous. Through these grants cancer diagnostic services have been provided to more than 100,000 persons. I am sure the committee will appreciate why I speak with fervour, conviction and with emphasis. I 68108-296i
Supply-Health and Welfare think it is something to be able to say that one is administering a program which has resulted in providing cancer diagnostic services to more than 100,000 people in Canada.
One of the most striking achievements has been the government's leadership in providing additional hospital accommodation, which has been increased by 46,000 beds since 1948, a rate of hospital building never before approached in our history. We have built through this assistance, and with provincial assistance and with voluntary effort primarily, in the past four and a half years one-third as many hospital beds as were in existence in Canada on May 14, 1948.
The new appropriation for hospital construction during 1953-54 amounting to $6,850,000 will be supplemented by a carryover, bringing the total amount available for the coming year to some $20 million. Over the next five years, total allocations will equal or exceed actual expenditures made under this grant since the beginning of the program.
When this program was announced we said we were going to try to see that
40,000	hospital beds were provided in Canada in a five-year period. We have exceeded that objective by over 6,000. When Mr. King announced the program he said that at the end of the first five years the program would be reviewed, and that is what we are doing now.
Another striking fact is that in the five-year period covered by the national health program, the death rate from tuberculosis has been cut almost in half. This achievement reflects an established trend reinforced with greatly increased case-finding programs and the use of new and beneficial drugs. The Canadian tuberculosis association informs us that the tuberculosis death rate for 1952 will be under 20 as compared to the rate of 24-5 for 1951.
In this connection, Dr. Louis Dublin, vicepresident of the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and one of the outstanding public health authorities on the North American continent, has this to say of Canada's achievement:
Progress in the fight on tuberculosis is the outstanding feature of the year's health record. The 1952 death rate from the disease is likely to break below 20 per 100,000 population, or a 10 per cent improvement over the previous minimum recorded in 1951. It is hard to realize that only five years ago the rate was double the 1952 estimated figure.
I am not saying that this tremendous achievement in the five years during which the national health program has been in existence is due entirely to this program, but undoubtedly it has been a stimulating factor

Supply-Health and Welfare in bringing about the great results that have been achieved.
I ask the house to consider for a moment the significance of the statement I have just read. What do the statistics mean in terms of lives actually saved? In 1947, the year before the national health program, deaths from tuberculosis in Canada totalled 5,449. Had the 1947 death rate continued into 1951, 6,076 persons would have fallen victim to this scourge, instead of which the actual number of deaths was 3,417. In other words, in 1951 because of the great improvement in our tuberculosis control and treatment measures, 2,659 Canadians escaped death from tuberculosis.
This magnificent achievement would not have been possible had it not been for the wholehearted collaboration of all who joined in the battle against this scourge, whether as federal, provincial or municipal health officers, or professional and voluntary health workers. It is through them that the federal tuberculosis control grant has made its significant contribution in bringing about this almost miraculous saving in human life. Consider just one phase of the federal program. More than $2 million has been made available for the purchase of streptomycin and other life-saving drugs so essential in the modern treatment of tuberculosis. Go and ask the director of any sanatorium today the significance of that.
We can truly be proud of our record but we do not intend to slacken our efforts. The fight must go on. Our objective for the years ahead must be to reduce the numbers of those contracting this disease as rapidly as we have reduced deaths from it. If I may repeat what I said in this house four years ago:
The objective of our tuberculosis program for the next generation is nothing less than the elimination of this disease as a major cause of death and illness among our population.
From what I have said of its success, and from their own personal experience, hon. members who supported the national health program in 1948 have reason to know how fully it has lived up to our high hopes. I am confident that we who are here today will hear similar reports in the years ahead to prove the wisdom of these further steps that we are taking in the development of this country's public health services to provide better health care for Canadian mothers and children, to help our disabled, and to enable our doctors to serve their patients more effectively, and thereby bring lasting benefits to the people as a whole.
These new grants constitute a further and finer stage in the development of Canada's national health program. They represent,

however, no departure from its established pattern. They are consistent with the spirit, the purpose and the objectives of the government's basic policy in the field of public health-stage by stage, to bring the best of health care within reach of every Canadian.
The successful administration of the new grants will call for co-operation and imaginative leadership from Canada's medical profession and from public health officials at every level of organization. Through its program and the extensions that I have set before the house today, the government is proud to have the honour of implementing new services that will enable Canada's health workers to maintain and add to their distinguished tradition. In this, in Pasteur's words, "by obeying the laws of humanity, they will be extending the frontiers of life."
This expanded program stands as a further testimony to this government's belief that in health, as in so many other fields, the public interest is best served by steady, responsible, forward-looking measures timed so that we can consolidate our gains as we go along. A very distinguished medical authority in the United States, Dr. J. H. Means, for many years professor of medicine at Harvard university, writing recently in the Atlantic Monthly, said this about the extension of Canada's federal health program as projected in the throne speech:
It appears that nation-wide searching for better ways to bring health to all the people, particularly with reference to the role of government therein, is far more in evidence in Canada than it is in our own country.
By any standard, Canada's public health achievements merit respect. But the orderly progress of our health plans seems all the more remarkable when considered against the sombre background of a world in turmoil. Concern for the health of the citizen is one of the surest marks of an enlightened society. We know that when the programs for our people are weighed before the world, there is convincing evidence of our genuine and humanitarian concern for the welfare of every Canadian.
It is in that spirit that these further advances are now made possible. As long as peace safeguards our progress, measures such as these are. symbols of that continuing and wholehearted collaboration between Canada's public and private health workers that, with the steady support of our people, is bringing us ever nearer our common objective, the highest possible standard of health for all Canadians.
Mr. Chairman, in our time Canadian governments and Canadian parliaments have enacted many historic and far-reaching pieces

4G87
of social legislation. But I believe that when other legislators, of other generations, look back across the panorama of these years, the national health program will stand enduringly as one of the finest monuments to the humanity of this house.


Mr. Blair:: Mr. Chairman, the minister has introduced new and additional grants in connection with the health program amounting to some $11 million. I remember very well in May, 1948, when the then prime minister introduced the other health grants, and I remember the reaction at that time, when we took the attitude that money spent for any purpose so far as health was concerned was money well spent. I have never felt in the House of Commons that we could get sufficient money to advance the projects we had in mind in order that disease and suffering might be cut down.
In May of 1948 we voted gladly for those grants, as we will for these. Three items in the grants the minister has introduced today are items we have suggested in some way or other in the house, although perhaps not just as he has put them down. We have felt, for instance, that in addition to a maternal health grant, something should be done to cut down the mortality rate from children's diseases, as well as the infant mortality rate. I can remember on several occasions criticizing the infant mortality percentage, and saying that something should be done about it. On those occasions I have compared our infant mortality rate with that in the United States. I have never been able to understand why our rate should be so much higher than that in the great country to the south of us.
The introduction today of this grant of $2 million will go a long way toward cutting down that mortality rate. With that grant, which I presume is confined to infants and would not apply to children of greater age, is coupled the fact that there will be a grant to cut down the rate of maternal mortality. We have had some experience with that in Ontario, and I can remember well the good that was done when that work was undertaken. During the time the present Leader of the Opposition was premier of Ontario, a series of grants was introduced under which every pregnant mother in the province was entitled to one free and complete examination. I felt that that went a long way to cut down both maternal and infant mortality. I have spoken in this house about the number of premature infants who died, and indicated that I thought the rate was unduly high. Grants of this kind, coupled with the work being done already in the provinces,
Supply-Health and Welfare will help considerably. I do not know how much work is being done in other provinces, but I am aware of the activities in Ontario. All this will help to cut down these rates.
Rehabilitation grants for people who have been crippled are something with which I fully agree. I have not time to fully cover all the minister's statement. I tried to follow him as he made it, but I should like to study it further. As we go along with the different items we will be asking questions of the minister.
Dealing again with what is done in my own province, I can say that money spent for purposes of this kind is money well spent. Some years ago Ontario initiated a plan under which any child that developed poliomyelitis was given free treatment. This saved many children from crippling. As physicians we did not have the ability or the means to adequately treat many of these polio cases. We did not understand the causes and we knew very little about the treatment.
Certain hospitals within the province were set up as treatment centres. When a child entered one of these centres he was under the care of doctors who knew as much as we could possibly know at that time about polio. Advanced treatment was given so far as physiotherapy was concerned, or even surgery. The province paid all bills while the child was under treatment with the exception of the transportation to the selected hospital centre.
I can remember very well patients who were given this treatment. I remember once a patient who received treatment at the Ottawa Civic Hospital and who now shows little or no signs of what in the old days would have been complete paralysis. As I say, money spent in this way is money well spent. Possibly because of my profession I cannot help but agree with this expenditure. I will always try to get all the money possible in the cause of public health, so long as it is properly and well expended.
I come now to the rehabilitation grants for invalids. Some time ago we had a debate in this house on pensions for disabled people. I have had some experience in the rehabilitation of disabled persons through watching the work done by service clubs throughout the country, who collect funds to be expended in this way. There are also other voluntary agencies carrying on this work. The results show that the money is exceptionally well spent.
A child may be crippled with no chance of anything being done under ordinary circumstances, but a service club may arrange

Supply-Health and Welfare to have the child taken to a hospital and given the best and most up to date orthopedic surgery. That child may be returned to his family as a useful member with little or no crippling. A grant for this purpose cannot be criticized, and I am sure the crippled children's society of Ontario and the service clubs will be glad that recognition is being given to the work that is being done in an attempt to rehabilitate people of this sort and allow them to take a useful place in society.
I was not completely convinced after the debate on pensions for disabled persons. I realize that we should be glad for what we are getting, but I still feel that something should be done for the person who does not respond to rehabilitation treatment. I think if the minister made a survey he would find some of these people in every area of Canada. It is rather difficult for their family and the municipality in which they live to deal with this matter. They are not eligible for pension and I make an appeal to the government to close this gap. Under existing legislation all they can look forward to at the present time if they are completely crippled is the time when they will be 65 years of age and be eligible for pension. I am glad that something is being done to rehabilitate people, but I submit that there should be an extension of pensions under the welfare branch of the minister's department to take care of this group.
The extension of laboratory and radiological service will be of great assistance. I am aware of the work being done by certain volunteer agencies in Ontario. I know of one service club which deals entirely with tuberculosis control work. They raise funds every year for this purpose, and if a person in the area cannot afford it, he is sent to a hospital where he gets a free X-ray.
Hon. members may be aware of the mass X-raying that has been carried out by the province of Ontario. I know what was done in my home town. Every person could go and have an X-ray taken. Industries were entitled to send all their employees. Fortunately the percentage of active cases of tuberculosis is becoming steadily less and less, but it is amazing the number of other conditions that are found when these X-rays are taken.
The extension of laboratory services is filling a long-felt want, because doctors will find this of marked benefit in the diagnosis of disease. When the minister mentioned electrocardiograms I could not help but think of the difficulty doctors in many outlying districts have in getting an electrocardiogram.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Would hon. members look at page 74 of the estimates, where they will find item No. 539 under the Department of Agriculture. This item deals with loans, investments and advances and was not before me when we were dealing with the agriculture estimates. We passed the supplementary estimates but item No. 539 was not called. Shall I call it now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
539. To authorize and provide for the operation of a revolving fund in accordance with the provisions of section 58 of the Financial Administration Act for the purpose of financing the purchase of stores for use in the construction, maintenance and operation of projects under the direction of the prairie farm rehabilitation administration; the amount to be charged to the revolving fund at any time not to exceed $200,000.
Item agreed to.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.

AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE Department-
249. Departmental administration, $1,001,677.
William Gourlay Blair: When the committee rose for dinner at six o'clock I was discussing the matter of diagnostic facilities under the increased grants. I think this is very important because diagnostic centres will bring the possibility of better diagnosis nearer to certain elements of the population, especially in rural districts. I think that is one good way of approaching this question. But there is also another matter which we must consider at the present time; that is our ageing population, and also the fact that it is inevitable that our aged people will die of some cause. Very often it will be a degenerative disease of some kind. It may be a cerebral accident or heart disease or it may be cancer, because according to our statistics better diagnosis may increase the number of cases of cancer. But these cases will occur in our aged population.
A diagnostic centre with X-ray facilities will enable doctors to make early diagnoses which is the main point in so far as cutting down the number of people who die of cancer is concerned. I am not sure what the statistics for last year show, but approximately 16,000 people in Canada die of cancer every year. Even with respect to our younger population there will be an opportunity in a diagnostic centre to make an early diagnosis in order

that some form of treatment known to us may cut down the mortality rate.
There is one other question that I want to bring up at the present time which has to do with the amount allotted for research. Having regard to causes of death in the Dominion of Canada, I should like to refer to the number of people who are dying from heart disease. I know there has been a discussion among medical men in the city of Toronto about the question of what can be done with respect to sudden deaths from coronary thrombosis. Certainly there is need for our research people to find out what is causing death by coronary sclerosis among many of our younger population. We sometimes expect our older people to die of a heart condition, but the sudden deaths of prominent businessmen in every walk of life seem to be becoming more common all the time. I hope some of the money that the minister has set aside for research will be devoted to that cause.
There is one other thing I must mention, although it does not apply to the health branch. Dealing with causes of death, we can list them something like this. If you look over the causes of death you will see that cardiovascular disease in some form seems to be the principal cause. Whether it is the heart or due to cerebral accident, that seems to be one of the principal causes. Next is cancer. If I may refer for a minute to another cause of death, I wonder if something could not be done with regard to the number of children who are burned to death during the winter months. Fatalities in northern Ontario a few days ago drew this matter to our attention. Several members of a family died in a fire. Then there is also the increasing number of deaths on our highways. This has nothing to do with the matter the minister has introduced today, but I think it is worthy of consideration by the house. When violent deaths in Canada reach fourth place on the list of causes of death, then it is time we should recognize that fact and see what we can do. It becomes an important matter when violent deaths take fourth place as a cause of death in Canada.
There is another matter that I wish to put before the committee, the question of hospitals, which also has something to do with the grants that were introduced this afternoon. I noticed that the minister listed as one of the most striking achievements of the government the providing of additional hospital accommodation. These were the words of the minister this afternoon:
One of the most striking achievements has been the government's leadership in providing additional hospital accommodation, which has been Increased by 46,000 beds since 1948, a rate of hospital building never before approached in our history.
Supply-Health and Welfare
The minister went on to state:
The new appropriation for hospital construction during 1953-54 amounting to $6,850,000 will be supplemented by a carryover bringing the total amount available for the coming year to some $20 million. Over the next five years total allocations will equal or exceed actual expenditures made under this grant since the beginning of the program.
Five years have elapsed since the health grants were introduced in May, 1948. I would take it from the minister's words that the same amount is going to be granted for hospital expansion in the coming five years as we have had in the past five years.
There is another matter I wish to bring to the attention of the committee. Sometimes the general public do not realize just what this means. I remember very well the day the prime minister brought in the health grants, in May, 1948. He stated definitely that the amount per bed to be given by the dominion would be $1,000 for acute cases and $1,500 for chronic cases, with matching grants from the provinces. Let us look at the position of any municipality contemplating a new hospital structure. Let us assume that they are going to build a 100-bed hospital. I am aware that the cost of construction varies in different districts. It may vary anywhere from $5,000 or $6,000 a bed in one hospital to $18,000 a bed, as happened in one case with which I am familiar.
Let us go part way and assume that hospital construction is going to cost $12,000 a bed, with the services which would have to be included in the cost. I am only taking $12,000 per bed in order to prove my point. If the federal government gives $1,000 a bed for a 100-bed hospital for acute cases-I am assuming all the beds are for acute cases, and they usually are-and the province gives $1,000, the amount received in grants by the municipality would be $200,000. It might be a comparatively small municipality which was contemplating a 100-bed addition, and it would be left with a cost of $1 million. In these days of high cost of living, high taxation and so on, municipalities find it difficult to finance hospitals. There is no doubt about that; and any municipality with an additional cost of $1 million is facing a financial problem. The allotment of money for necessary public utilities and that sort of thing, together with the obligation of the municipality toward the hospital, have a tendency to increase taxation. Also there would be a certain amount to be provided through voluntary work and, in these days, it is doubtful if the voluntary appeal can go very much farther. The amount people are asked to donate for such purposes has almost reached the limit.

Supply-Health and Welfare
I want to make this clear. Sometimes I have criticized the minister for the publicity -I call it publicity-put out by his department, when they make the statement that there is a federal grant for hospitals. We are very glad of the grants and I have approved of them; but every time I see one of those statements, and when I see the large headlines, I think of the amount of money the municipality and the taxpayers have to produce. I am bringing this to the attention of the minister, although I have spoken of it before, in order that we may be fair about this thing, and let us have honour where honour is due.
When the late Mr. King introduced these grants he was very clear in his statement. He said, "We will give $1,000 for acute beds, $1,500 for chronic beds and the remainder must be found from other sources". He was very plain. I suggest that in future when grants are announced the department or the minister should keep in mind the statement of the late prime minister when he said the remainder would have to be found from other sources.
I think the three grants announced today constitute a good approach to this question, and I approve of those grants. As I said before, I have always asked for and hoped that there would be additional money for health purposes. I do not think any member in this house can criticize any expenditures in that direction because death, disease, misery and suffering are things beyond this house for which we should raise money if we possibly can. Therefore I can only approve of the grants and say I think they are a step in the proper direction.
While I approve of the grants I want to make a comment on another question. It is the matter of the present position of hospitals as far as accommodation is concerned. Any person who has had any experience knows that hospital boards are having a great deal of difficulty trying to keep on the right side of the ledger. I pay tribute to the hospital boards that are working so hard in that endeavour. It is difficult to finance a hospital, keep the costs of private and semi-private accommodation down, and at the same time produce public ward accommodation at prices that can be met either by the person who pays for it or by the municipality. The situation nowadays is that the cost of public ward accommodation, with the other necessary services, is more than such accommodation should cost the people who are going into those wards. It is very difficult for them to pay, so there is usually a grant from the provincial government; but that grant, combined with the rate received by the hospital,
[Mr. Blair.l

does not begin to cover the expense of public ward accommodation. Therefore hospital boards are forced to raise the fees for semiprivate and private beds. Another sector of the population, therefore, is put in a rather difficult position. If a patient is critically ill the cost of hospital accommodation, of nursing services, of laboratory services, of X-rays and all the other services of the hospital is more than the ordinary man can stand. It is more than the man in the middle income tax brackets can afford. I have had experience with cases where a man with a sick wife or sick child has been faced with a hospital bill that was just simply beyond anything he could pay.
In addition there is the problem that even with the additional 40,000 beds which have been produced since the inauguration of the health grants, practically every hospital has a waiting list. There is a lack of accommodation for those who are chronically ill, and many of them are chronically ill simply on account of age. You will find them all through hospitals-, occupying beds for months and months. There is no other place for them, and they are taking up beds which normally should be occupied by acute cases. One wonders, when hospitals find it so difficult to find beds for acute cases, why there should not be beds for the chronically ill people elsewhere.
I am bringing the position of our elderly citizens to the attention of the department because we did not solve the condition that exists at the present time when we brought in old age pensions, a measure of which I highly approved. An elderly citizen cannot be accommodated anywhere but in a bed in a hospital which should be used for acute cases.
I note that the minister made a speech, in Montreal I think it was, in which he approved of the idea of people being cared for in their homes. I approve also if it could be done but, at the present time, there is very little opportunity to get help in the home. There is difficulty in getting trained nurses, and sometimes it is a bit more expensive to have the doctor make regular calls at the home, so patients are moved into hospitals. There is also the fact that new forms of treatment have made it necessary for many of these people to be moved into the hospital. So we have this group that we must take care of, people whose illnesses are long, people who suffer from these degenerative diseases over a long period of time.
The $1,500 per bed for chronic hospital patients has not covered the situation throughout the country. The minister would know that if he had people coming in, as most doctors do. What can be done with these

chronic cases? Where can we send them? The doctor knows that the situation in the hospital requires that beds be kept for acute cases, and he cannot find a place where these people can go. In the province of Ontario there are really only two convalescent hospitals. There are some convalescent homes springing up; every town has one or two, and they are doing good work; they are relieving hospitals.
I turn now to the question of mental hospitals. When people get old-and we may someday be among the group-they sometimes suffer from cerebral arteriosclerosis and become forgetful. Those people should not be put in mental hospitals; arrangements should be made in the future for a type of hospital that will take care of people who are chronically ill, who are ill by reason of their age, and for this class of people who may be considered forgetful. The mental hospitals are having a hard time to provide accommodation. The provinces are building mental hospitals as fast as they can but mental illness, unfortunately, is increasing and at the present time there is an acute shortage of beds for people who suffer from mental illness. It is a problem, but we have to face problems; that is why we are here.
The minister mentioned in his statement the matter of cutting down the mortality rates for certain diseases, and I pay tribute to those who are responsible. I want to pay full tribute in this regard to the marvellous job that has been done by the provinces, working with their own finances. I do not think the federal government can claim all the credit for cutting down the mortality rates in connection with a disease like tuberculosis. The grants have been a wonderful help, but something else has happened there. Even if the federal government does give a grant to aid in the provision of certain drugs when they are needed, it is the effects of these drugs that have been, in a large way, responsible for the cutting down of the incidence of tuberculosis. We can proceed, and with the help of the municipalities, the provinces and the grants from the federal government I believe we can go a long way further toward cutting down the mortality rate from tuberculosis. In time I believe this disease should be practically nonexistent within this country.
I leave this matter of hospitals with the minister and the committee, because I believe it is an acute problem. Under present conditions, even with the amount of new hospital construction and the repair and extension of existing institutions, I do not believe we can proceed as fast as the need arises. It is apparent that there is today this need for 68108-297
Supply-Health and Welfare accommodation for chronic patients and elderly patients. I do not believe the need of the elderly patients is entirely covered by the recent legislation providing pensions. It was excellent so far as it went, but it is rather difficult for that type of patient to obtain accommodation.
I have been faced with that problem. I am aware of exactly what is happening. As I stated a little while ago, these chronic cases are taking up beds in the hospitals, causing a shortage of beds for acute cases. This is a situation which one finds principally in the smaller centres, where they are finding it difficult to provide beds. We are on a sort of treadmill in that respect; we do not seem to be getting any place.
All I can say about it is that there is this constant demand. Many times in the course of a month I am asked where accommodation can be found for some elderly person, and not just accommodation by way of a place to live. These elderly people might be considered sick, and there is no place to send them. Sometimes these elderly people are sick by reason of their age. They require not only a place to live, but they require some form of nursing and some form of supervision. Due to the fact that there are more elderly people today, this is becoming a greater problem. I think we should consider this phase of the problem in the next step we take in trying to help our aged citizens.
I agree, sir, with the three grants that were brought in today, and I particularly like the last one. I think the establishment of diagnostic centres is one of the best things we could do. It is going to bring medical diagnosis nearer the people. With a disease like cancer, it is very important that we get an early diagnosis. I approve of the grants.
I do say to the committee that I believe we should do something further for these aged people, because they are becoming a problem and we should deal well with them. We should give them the sort of treatment that is necessary. The provision of beds for mental cases is something we must also keep before us. It is to be hoped that the diagnostic facilities provided by these grants for outpatients might relieve the mental hospitals. However, the matter of hospitalization is something that we must keep in front of us. Possibly the problem of accommodation for acute cases could be resolved if we had some place- to send the chronic cases. The matter of beds for people who are mentally ill, and the matter of early diagnosis in all of these cases is of the utmost importance.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, when the late Mr. King made his announcement concerning the health grants program in the

Supply-Health and Welfare House of Commons on May 14, 1948, we in this group immediately expressed our pleasure that this important step in connection with a national health program for Canada had been taken. Since the speech made this afternoon by the Minister of National Health and Welfare, I have been interested in re-reading what was said on that important occasion. Indeed, those of us who were here at the time well remember it. I find that my leader, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, concluded his words of welcome with respect to the announcement that had been made by the then prime minister by saying this, as found at page 3937 of Hansard for May 14, 1948:
-I am glad indeed that the Prime Minister, before he retires from the high office which he has indicated he is to relinquish within a short time, has placed before the House of Commons these proposals looking to measures of health insurance and social security which were foreshadowed when he was elected leader of the Liberal party in 1919 . . .
We have had to wait a long time, but I hope that the foundations now being laid will be regarded merely as such, and that, whoever succeeds the Prime Minister in the high office he now occupies- no matter from which quarter of the house his successor may come within the next two or three years-will build upon those foundations a great structure of social security and health insurance for the people of Canada.
Just as we welcomed the announcement of the health grants program in May, 1948, we welcome most heartily the announcement today that that program is to be extended by the addition of three new grants. I shall have something more to say about these specific grants as I go along, but I wish to indicate that, having done that, I shall make the same point that the member for Rosetown-Biggar made on May 14, 1948, namely that we hope this whole health grants program, including these additional grants, will be regarded as Mr. King regarded them, as but steps toward a complete national health program including health insurance for all the people of Canada.
I want, Mr. Chairman, to give all the praise that is deserved for the health grants program that has been in effect for the past five years. I want to give the minister all the praise he deserves for the announcement of the additional services. I confess, however, that I find myself in a bit of difficulty when I want to give the Minister of National Health and Welfare all the praise he deserves. My difficulty is that he has already given himself ten times more praise than he deserves, and there is no room to pile on any more. He is most capable of making these announcements with everything but the blare of trumpets, and I am not so sure that I did not hear that blare. At any rate, if any type of service deserves the blare of trumpets it is the announcement of progress in connection with our national health program.


The minister indicated this afternoon that three grants are being added to those that have been in effect since 1948. In the first place, he told us of the decision to institute a child and maternal health grant. As the minister said, and as the hon. member for Lanark has pointed out, it is a most welcome grant, and it is in keeping with the plans announced by Mr. King in 1948 for a program which would ensure that future generations of Canadian children would be well born regardless of their financial or economic status. As a matter of fact, it is a grant that should have been included in this list long before this; but we welcome it most heartily as one of the announcements made today.
I was disappointed to hear in almost the first paragraph in connection with that announcement that it is to be on a matching basis. If I heard the minister correctly, I believe he said that the provinces were to be expected to match this grant dollar for dollar. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, I think that is one mistake that is being compounded in the government's health program, namely the way in which this idea of matching grants is being carried forward. To me it is inconsistent with the principles that were suggested in the Rowell-Sirois report; it is inconsistent with the principles laid down in the proposals made by the federal government to the provinces in 1945, and it is inconsistent with the principles laid down in Mr. King's speech on May 14, 1948. It sounds very good; it sounds plausible to say that the federal government will make grants to the provinces on a dollar for dollar basis; but in the end what it means is that the provinces where the need is greatest but where they have more limited resources will not get the services they need.
As I say, those who have carefully studied federal-provincial relations throughout the years have made it clear that we need to get away from that matching basis, and I am sorry that it is being carried forward in at least two of the new grants the minister announced this afternoon. Apart from that shortcoming with respect to the child and maternal health grants, it was a most welcome announcement.
Likewise, Mr. Chairman, we welcome the announcement that there is to be a rehabilitation services grant. At this very moment I think I should say that I was glad to note in what the minister said that this is not to be on a dollar for dollar or matching basis. If I heard him correctly, I believe he said it was to be on the basis of $10,000 to each province, and then the remainder of the amount being granted would be distributed amongst the provinces on a population basis.

4S93
I suggest that is much fairer than a dollar for dollar basis.
In my view the hon. member for Lanark made very pertinent comments with regard to this rehabilitation services grant. It is something we should be doing; it will be most welcomed by those who will benefit from it. I am glad to note also what close co-operation or liaison there is among the departments of the federal government, the Department of National Health and Welfare, the Department of Labour, and the Department of Veterans Affairs, and also the cooperation and liaison between the federal and provincial authorities.
This is a field in which we should be doing a great deal more than we are. We feel it should be one of the marks of a civilization such as ours, that with respect to those in our midst who are physically handicapped in any way, we should go out of our way to provide them with any rehabilitation that can possibly be made available. I am glad to see this program advancing in this way, and I hope it will do a great deal for these people. But, Mr. Chairman, there is a very real gap to which the hon. member for Lanark has already referred, and I was sorry the Minister of National Health and Welfare did not have something to say about that gap.
Just as I think it would not be the greatest kindness merely to provide a pension to an incapacitated person, if rehabilitation is possible and would be of real benefit to him, so I think it is an awful slap in the face to a person who is utterly incapable of being rehabilitated simply to say that there are these rehabilitation service grants, but no pension for such a person. In other words this program for the incapacitated people in our midst, for those who are permanent invalids, will not be complete until we have as part of our social security program a plan of pensions for these people.
Reference has been made by the minister and by the previous speaker to the debate that took place earlier this session on the motion put forward by the hon. member for Fort William. That is a debate we have had a good many times. We have had it on previous occasions on a motion put forward by the hon. member for Terrebonne, and other hon. members have put similar motions on the order paper. The support for a program of pensions for incapacitated persons for whom rehabilitation services mean nothing is, I am satisfied, very strong in all groups in this House of Commons, and I hope this gap will not remain very long. No doubt the very work that is done under this rehabilitation program, bringing to light, as it will, the 68108-297J
Supply-Health and Welfare number of people who cannot be rehabilitated, will prompt whatever government is in power the next little while to fill this gap with a program of pensions for incapacitated persons.
The third of the grants announced this afternoon by the minister is that known as laboratory and radiological grants, or in other words a grant for diagnostic services. I agree with the minister in the order in which he announced these three grants, and in the fact that he attached greatest importance to this third grant. There is no question but that it will be a great boon to medical practice in this country, a great boon to the health of our people generally, to have this money available for laboratory and radiological work and for improving diagnostic services and facilities. Here again I noted that the minister said the grant would be on a generally matching basis. Some time during the discussion perhaps he can tell us the difference between these two matching plans. He said that the child and maternal health grants would be on a dollar for dollar basis. He said that the laboratory and radiological grant would be on a generally matching basis. As I listened to him it did not seem to me there was much difference, and here again you have the matching principle being carried forward, whereas in my view we have altogether too much of that already in this country.
I am surprised at this government doing it, because while this government has been in power we have had the Rowell-Sirois investigation into federal-provincial relations and we have had the federal-provincial conference of 1945, in both of which there was brought out the desirability of making our country a unit, and trying to establish minimum standards' for Canadian welfare and wellbeing across the country without regard to the particular province in which a Canadian citizen happens to live.
One other thought occurs to me immediately when we learn of the introduction of the laboratory and radiological grant, and that is this. If we are now going to have-and highly welcome it is-better provisions for diagnosing diseases and ailments suffered by the Canadian people, it seems to me that is going to make more urgent than has been the case thus far the need for a program of health insurance. When I mention health insurance I have in mind in particular a plan to enable people to obtain and be able to pay for these services which, we are glad to note, are gradually being built up in this country.
And so just as my leader on May 14, 1948, on our behalf welcomed most heartily the health grants program announced at that time, and said that he hoped it would be looked upon as the foundation for a complete

Supply-Health and Welfare program including health insurance, so I make that same statement today. We are glad to have this announcement as to the extension of the health grants program to include these three services. But I suggest that it was singularly significant that, with the exception of one half sentence which the minister quoted from Mr. King, in which the words "health insurance" appeared, the minister never mentioned health insurance, on his own, in his entire speech this afternoon.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Read the speech again and you will see you are not right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister suggests that I read the speech again. Well, during the supper hour I went to the Hansard office and read his speech, page by page; and I had noted here, as well, this afternoon, that the only time the words "health insurance" came from his lips was the time he was giving a quotation from Mr. King. I could hardly believe it myself, but I went and read the speech, despite the fact that I had heard every word of it; and I find that what I have said was the case. Now, I suggest that that is a grave omission, particularly-


Paul Joseph James Martin: And that is not correct, let me
say.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Well, I shall be very glad if the minister can point out where, on his own behalf, he did refer to health insurance, and if I have made a mistake in what I said, I shall apologize. However, I did not hear it and, as I say, I went to the Hansard office to read it during the recess.
This afternoon the minister took occasion frequently to refer to the origin of this national health grants program in Mr. King's announcement of May 14, 1948. As I say, those of us who were here at that time remember that announcement very well. But I just wish to remind hon. members, and in particular the government, of the emphasis Mr. King placed upon the fact that in his view this was the beginning of a national health program, including health insurance. These health grants were to be the foundation for health insurance. In his very first sentence Mr. King said:
Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement to the house on government policy with respect to health services and health insurance.
In the very next paragraph he refers to what had been the government's plan for a long time for a "nation-wide health program leading up to and ultimately including health insurance." As one goes on through his remarks he finds that Mr. King made reference repeatedly to health insurance as being the aim of the program being announced on

that date. For example, referring to hospital grants, he said:
Before health insurance can be established on an adequate basis, another development is essential.
And later on he said:
If, as the first stage in health insurance, hospital insurance were now to be introduced on a contributory basis, the demand that would arise for hospital accommodation simply could not be met.
Then he went on to point out that at that time there was an estimated shortage to the extent of 60,000 hospital beds. Later on he said, as the minister did this afternoon, that the five-year program envisaged the construction of hospital accommodation to the tune of 40,000 beds.
I was interested not only in hearing Mr. King's statement of May 14, 1948, and reading it again this evening, but I was also interested in the interpretation placed upon it by no less Liberal a newspaper than the Toronto Daily Star. I must confess I have shown this newspaper item in the house before, and I had not intended to drag it out again today. However, in view of what was said this afternoon I felt I should. This is the issue of the Toronto Daily Star for May 15, 1948, bearing on its front page a picture of Mr. King, three columns in width-and almost the full length of the page. This front page bears the heading "Can't Wait For Ontario- King". Then follows the subheading, "Delayed Health Plan As Long As We Could For Ontario-Mr. King".
Now that I have read the headings, I would ask hon. members to listen to one or two quotations which I think should be drawn to the attention of the house, in view of the minister's failure this afternoon to repeat- yes, even to do that-the assertions of the government in the past that it is aiming toward a program of health insurance. Listen to this, under the byline of Borden Spears:
National health insurance, the last feature in a complete social security program, is in sight for Canada as a result of the trail-blazing health grants announced yesterday by Prime Minister King.
And then, over on the other side of the page-because this is a full front-page spread -we have the interpretation of the day's news by another Star correspondent, Mr. Robert Taylor, who writes:
For the average man in Canada, the plans announced yesterday for the laying of the foundation of a national health insurance scheme means only that his national government has rolled up its sleeves, dug down in its pocket, and started a war on disease.
Then Mr. Taylor goes on in the article to quote what Mr. King had said in the house and out of the house, and also to quote what the Minister of National Health and Welfare

had said on that occasion. And then Mr. Robert Taylor goes on:
The government expects that within two years there will be operating in Canada at least part of the health insurance scheme.
This was in 1948.


Mr. Marlin:: Whom is my hon. friend quoting now?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Robert Taylor, after he had talked to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Murdo William Martin: Is he quoting the Minister of National Health and Welfare?


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, not directly. He is interpreting what he took from Mr. King's statement of that day, according to the interview he had with the Prime Minister and with the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Murdo William Martin: I am sure my hon. friend would agree with me that, estimable as Mr. Robert Taylor is as a reporter, that does not mean that he is a member of the government of Canada.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A great many other people formed the same opinion Mr. Robert Taylor did, that Mr. King was to be taken at his word when he made his statement on May 14, 1948, that the health grants program was the foundation of a program of health insurance. And I suggest that Robert Taylor's interpretation was probably justified, not only by what Mr. King said in the House of Commons but also by his interviews with those in the government to whom he talked on that day.
I wish to continue reading that paragraph:
The government expects that within two years there will be operating in Canada at least part of the health insurance scheme. One suggestion is that hospital care might be the first thing provided, to be followed later on by medical care, then dental care for children in schools, and then for the whole population.
I would point out, Mr. Chairman, that not only does the expression "health insurance" appear-I did not count them, but I suppose at least ten or fifteen times-in the statement of Mr. King on May 14, 1948, but it has appeared in discussions on a national health program across the years, and in documents and speeches from this government.
As a matter of fact, the first reference to this matter in a Liberal document-at least, the first I know about which is official- was what was set out in the Liberal party platform of 1919, when they advocated a national program of health insurance. I have read again today the speeches from the throne in the early forties. Two or three references were made to health, and in every instance
Supply-Health and Welfare health insurance itself was mentioned. When I put the emphasis that I am putting on health insurance I have in mind the urgent need there is, not only for the facilities which are being built up in this country-I am glad they are being built up, and I pay a tribute to all those who have had any part in building them up-but that there be arrangements to enable the ordinary Canadian to pay for those services when he needs them. That is what Mr. King envisaged in health insurance for Canada; that is what the Liberal party has envisaged in health insurance across the years, at least in its pronouncements.
When you have health insurance mentioned in speeches from the throne from the early forties; when you have it mentioned in the Heagerty report; when you have it mentioned in the Marsh report; when you have it mentioned in the draft bill that was laid on the table of the house in August, 1944; when you have it mentioned repeatedly in the green book proposals by the federal government to the provinces in 1945; when you have it mentioned repeatedly in speeches of the present Minister of National Defence when he was minister of national health and welfare; when you have it mentioned many times in years gone by by the present Minister of National Health and Welfare, and then today you find no reference to it, unless he has found it-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would the hon. member allow me to read a second time what I said today? First of all, in the first paragraph of my opening statement I referred to Mr. King's observation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I pointed that out.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Then later on this afternoon I said this:
Many hon. members now present were in this house on May 14, 1948, when the late prime minister announced the inauguration of Canada's national health program. Mr. King pointed out that besides being fundamental prerequisites of a nation-wide system of health insurance, these substantial grants -undertaken at federal initiative and extending considerably beyond the 1945-46 proposals to the provinces-opened a new era in health for Canada.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I shall have to correct my statement a little bit, but only a little. Instead of the minister referring to health insurance only once when he was quoting Mr. King, he actually used the words "health insurance" twice, but on both occasions he was quoting Mr. King. So my basic contention-


Paul Joseph James Martin: I always go back to a good authority.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And I suggest that the minister go back and read that good authority.
4696	HOUSE OF
Supply-Health and Welfare I suggest that he go back and read his full statement on May 14, 1948, and get the point that Mr. King gave to this house, namely that he was then laying before us not only a health grants program, which was important for its immediate benefits, but a health grants program that was to be the foundation of a health insurance program for Canada.
This afternoon the minister found it possible to use the words "health insurance" only twice. I accept the correction that it was not once, that it was twice, but both times he was quoting the great authority to whom he refers. Not once did he even mention health insurance on his own.
As I say, across the years there have been these references to health insurance on the part of the government and on the part of the Liberal party as though they planned to do something along these lines. Mr. King in his statement, from which I have already quoted, referred to the need of getting hospitals constructed before you created a demand for them which would arise from a program of health insurance. The minister stood up this afternoon and boasted of the fact that the target of 40,000 beds in five years had been exceeded by 6,000. If that target has been exceeded it seems to me that "with the review after five years which Mr. King promised in 1948, and which the minister said this afternoon they were now undertaking, there should at least be a statement to the house as to where the government stands on this question of health insurance.
Across the years we have been voting money for health insurance studies. The research people in the minister's department have done an excellent job in this field. There have come to my desk from time to time-I have a number of them piled under my desk here now-some excellent memoranda and monographs on health insurance in eight or ten other countries in the world. I am sure the research people in the department were ready to give advice to the government or to a parliamentary committee, if we had had one when we were supposed to, in 1952, on this question of health insurance. But for some reason which the minister has not yet explained, in making the important statement he did this afternoon he based it on the important statement that Mr. King had made in 1948 and which laid the foundation for a health insurance program, but he did not even mention on his own part the words "health insurance." The words "health insurance" came out of his mouth twice, but only when he was quoting from Mr. King.
I need not take the time to repeat the history of this matter across the years. As a matter of fact I have already referred in


passing to the lip service the Liberals have given to health insurance beginning as far back as 1919, 34 years ago. Still we do not seem to be able to get this government to realize that with all the credit it has coming to it for what it has done to build up facilities for public health in this country, it has not yet tackled this problem of making it possible for people to afford the health care they need. That is what is involved in a health insurance program.
The last important statement the minister made about this was on June 6, 1952, during a similar debate on his estimates. I had had something to say about the fact that health insurance had been in the platform of the Liberal party since 1919 and that it had been confirmed by the party at its convention in 1948, and this is the reply the minister made on that occasion as reported on page 3007 of Hansard of that date:
There is no question where the party of which I am a member stands. We have advocated health insurance in our platforms as an objective. That was done, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre pointed out, in the platform of 1919. It was mentioned in the platform of the convention at which the present Prime Minister was made the leader of this party. But that does not mean to say that because a party has a plank in its platform, it has got to be done overnight.


Murdo William Martin: That is still my statement.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister says that is still his statement.


Angus MacInnis: What a long night.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Oh, what a long, long night; 34 years of night. The minister says it is still the objective of his party, but because his party has health insurance in its platform we should not expect it to be accomplished overnight.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The dawn is coming.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I do not know what sort of night the minister has had but he has even forgotten the words, and he did not tell the committee today what the government's plan is as to the relation between the health grants program and the eventual objective of health insurance, which I suppose they plan to achieve 34 years from now.
I said earlier that I did not want to detract by one iota from the praise the minister deserves for what he has done. But let it be understood that so far as the people of Canada are concerned, health facilities are but one plank in a national health program; they represent but one phase, and one of the most important of the others is health insurance to enable people to obtain these

4G97
facilities and pay for them when they need them, rather than being faced with bills or expenses that make it impossible for many people to get health services and which mortgage the lives of many others for years on end.
When we advocate a national health insurance program sometimes objections are raised. One objection is the usual one of cost. I have just two things to say on that. The special committee on old age security in 1950 pointed out that if we did have a national health insurance program the total cost would not be all new money, that much of it would be simply the rechannelling of money already being spent on health care.
The other thing I want to say is that the minister did not seem to be worried about the dollars involved in the program he presented to this house. I am glad he did not. He simply stands up and says, if I can remember some of the things he said this afternoon, that you cannot measure these things in dollars and cents, that the health of the nation is extremely important, that it is the greatest thing a government can do for its people. I think that is a good attitude, and if the minister takes that attitude toward the money that must be spent on the health grants program I simply ask him to take the same attitude toward a health insurance program to spread the cost of health and medical care more evenly over the population.
In that connection I shall not take the time to put these statements on the record again, because I have done so several times, last year on the 5th and 6th of June and also in other years, but there are no better statements of the need for health insurance, its validity and its common sense, than have come from the government itself in some of its own documents, notably the green book proposals of the government of Canada to-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will my hon. friend excuse me? I have to leave the house for a few minutes. I have to go out.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I trust that, just as I read the minister's speech at supper time, he will read the rest of mine tomorrow.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I hope the hon. member will not repeat it when I come back.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As I say, Mr. Chairman, no better statements of the common sense and the validity of health insurance have been made than those we have been given in documents and in words by this government. But apparently health insurance has been forgotten by this government, if we are to judge by the kind of speech the minister made this afternoon.
Supply-Health and Welfare
I have said that a national health program requires facilities, and I congratulate the government upon what they have done. But it also requires health insurance arrangements to pay for the medical care about which I have been talking, and it also requires a program of sickness benefits. I shall not take time now to go into that because there will be other opportunities, but I wanted to include it along with these other two as being the three important aspects of an over-all national health program.
I have said several times during the course of my remarks that I give the minister and the federal government all the praise they have coming to them for what they have accomplished in providing health facilities, but like the hon. member for Lanark I could not help but feel that when the minister was speaking this afternoon he might have given a little more praise to the provinces and the municipalities which have also played an important part in this program. I give him credit for digressing at one point from what appeared to be a manuscript to bring in a reference to the provinces. But let it be remembered that a great deal of the pioneering in public health in this country has been carried on by the provinces; and when you are talking about the increase in hospital beds, when you are talking about the development of cancer research, of diagnostic services and free medical care of one kind and another, let it not be forgotten that a great deal of the credit should go to the various provinces of Canada.
Indeed, there is much credit to be given to the municipalities. I think of what my own city of Winnipeg has done by way of pioneering in this field. We have nothing to lose, either as different parties or as different jurisdictions in this country, in giving credit where credit is due. This is a great national effort in which we are engaged. We are all concerned for the health of the people of the country, and I hope we will show that concern by welcoming, as we do, slight steps forward such as those which were announced today. But let us not stop there; let us go on and achieve the full program that Mr. King talked about in his announcement of May 14, 1948, a program which we believe the people of this country expect and which Canada today, with her great expanding economy, can well afford. Indeed, an adequate health program is some-think we cannot afford not to have.
There are other items that come under the minister's department about which I wish to have something to say, but I shall leave any details with respect to them to a later occasion, because I am glad to join with the minister and the hon. member for Lanark in putting the primary emphasis at this stage

Supply-Health and Welfare of the debate on the health situation so far as our people are concerned. When the time comes I shall have something to say about our social security program, about the need for further improvements in our old age pension legislation, about the need for doing something with respect to the means test on the blindness allowance and the amount of the blindness allowance. Indeed, there are a good many places in Canada's program of social security where there is room for tremendous improvement, and as the minister knows I shall continue to urge these improvements.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Mr. Chairman, realizing as I do that there are some 38 individual items in the estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare, and realizing that we shall have an opportunity to discuss specific items under these appropriations it is not my intention to go beyond the statement made to the house by the minister this afternoon.
Possibly I should make reference in passing to the government's remarkable sense of timing, possibly the minister's remarkable sense of timing. Prior to the election in 1945 it was indicated to us that family allowances would become the order of the day. In 1948, prior to the 1949 election, it was indicated that a rather extensive scheme of health services involving health grants would become operative. Now in 1953, just prior to an election, we are advised of the making of grants in three new fields. That indicates a rather remarkable sense of timing. As I have said in the house more than once probably elections should take place more frequently.
However, in saying that I would not want it thought, even though I may hold these views with respect to timing, that I am opposed to the proposed grants. I would not want it to be thought that in saying these things I am at the same time opposed to the grants outlined by the minister this afternoon. On May 14, 1948, when the late prime minister announced the new scheme of grants for national health services, my leader, the hon. member for Peace River, made a few brief observations. Hon. members who were here at that time will recall that the leaders of the opposition parties were not given much notice of the statement, and therefore their first observations were quite brief. As found at page 3937 of Hansard for May 14, 1948, the hon. member for Peace River opened his remarks with this observation:
I do not believe that the Prime Minister could leave a better monument to the long years of service he has given to this country as leader of


th'e Liberal party than the foundations of a progressive health security program. I listened with close attention to the announcement he made, and I certainly want to congratulate the government on the step they have taken.
Later the hon. member said:
We were particularly pleased this afternoon to see the government take some action against these scourges of the human race which, if they are allowed to run their, course, are likely to impoverish whole families-tuberculosis, cancer and similar diseases. This is a splendid start in that direction.
He concluded his observations with these remarks:
We look upon this proposal only as a step forward, and I am sure that is what the Prime Minister had in mind-that it would be the foundation for a program of health security which I hope in the years to come will grow into the much more comprehensive scheme the Prime Minister must have envisioned.
Therefore it can be clearly taken from these observations of that date that we supported the proposals set forth by the late prime minister when he made his announcement upon that occasion. We are able to say again today that we are pleased to note that a forward step is being taken with respect to meeting the problems which confront Canadian people in this field of health. However, I must point out at this time that for many years I have heard this reference to health insurance and I have come to the conclusion, Mr. Chairman, that health insurance means different things to different people. I am inclined to believe that the time has come when, if we are going to debate health insurance, we should have specific proposals before us.
Some persons look upon health insurance as being state medicine. Well, there is a form of health insurance which I would classify as state medicine. It is that type of health insurance that I am personally convinced involves regimentation, red tape and a number of other most undesirable characteristics. Personally I would be opposed to that type of health insurance. If by health insurance one means a health program in which the federal government, the provincial government and the municipal governments along with the people themselves work co-operatively toward the highest possible standard of health service, then I would experience no difficulty in going along with that proposition. Perhaps that is what certain persons mean when they talk of health insurance, but perhaps they mean something else.
So I say the time has come when a definite and comprehensive scheme of health insurance should be set before us by those who advocate it. I would appreciate that, in

order that I might deal with a specific proposition. I realize that health insurance is in effect in many countries, but there is a vast difference between any two schemes which one might wish to use as exhibits. I find myself very confused with respect to all of them. I am certain that in 1948 when the prime minister of Canada referred to health insurance, he did not have in mind the same thing that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has in his mind. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre urges a scheme of health insurance. The government says and has said that it believes in a scheme of health insurance, but I am sure the two are miles apart. Therefore I repeat what I said, that I would like to have a specific proposal in regard to health insurance before I would be prepared to commit myself with respect to it.
This afternoon, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of National Health and Welfare quoted a reference by a one-time British prime minister-and I do not recall the exact words used by the minister today-to the effect that the health of our people is our greatest asset. We have used that expression time and again because we are absolutely convinced that it is a fact. We were rather pleased to hear the minister say certain things this afternoon, and I for one hope that the meaning that I took out of certain of his declarations were the meanings he had in mind when he uttered them. For example, he said that in any proposal that is brought forward we must not destroy the patient-doctor relationship. I agree with that absolutely, Mr. Chairman. I never want to see our medical service in this country put on a production line basis, the same as automobiles running along the production line in the course of manufacture.


Solon Earl Low: Hear, hear.


Frederick Davis Shaw: I am convinced from personal experience that if we set about to dehumanize medicine-and that is exactly what we would be doing under state medicine-we would destroy the basic and fundamental value of it. I hold very strong feelings in that respect, Mr. Chairman. I think of my own relationships with my own doctor, for example. He knows the family background; he knows the background of my youngsters; he knows the psychological implications; and, as is true of every family doctor, he realizes the exaggerations or distortions that a patient may exhibit.
I think it is imperative, Mr. Chairman, that we maintain the doctor-patient relationship in any scheme. The minister said this afternoon that he did not want to see centralization under any scheme. I think that was
Supply-Health and Welfare his reference, because I made a note about it. Certainly, Mr. Chairman, I agree with him there. I think the finest arrangement that can be made is for the federal government to make grants to the provinces and for the provinces to work in co-operation with the municipalities in the administration of those moneys along with their own. It is on that local level that the problem is best known and best understood. It is on that basis that we are able to render the type of service which is in the best interests of our people.
When the minister said we should not destroy the patient-doctor relationship, I believe he also went so far as to indicate that we did not want to regiment patients, doctors or nurses in hospitals; and I agree. I mention these things, Mr. Chairman, because in my conception of a desirable program, whether you want to call it a health insurance program or just a health program, I think these basic and fundamental principles are essential and must be preserved.
Before I refer to the three separate types of grants with which the minister made the house familiar this afternoon, may I say a word about another matter. The grants made to assist the provinces and municipalities to construct or enlarge hospitals have played a most valuable part. Let us remember, _ however, that the provinces and the municipalities in many cases had gone quite some distance in the field prior to grants being made to assist them. That, however, does not at all detract from the fact that in all provinces in Canada hospitals have been constructed which those provinces would not have had except for these grants.
A problem arises in connection with the matter, as I think it arises in connection with all grants which are made to the provinces on a dollar for dollar basis. When you make such grants to a province you are saying, as two previous speakers have already indicated, that if the provinces are in the position where they have the money to match the grant dollar for dollar, the result is that they may take advantage of the grants.
Now, that is fine when the province has the financial resources to match these grants from the federal government. What I would suggest is that we continue such grants on that basis, but that we also make additional grants taking into account the weighted factor. When you make grants on a dollar for dollar basis you are not providing an opportunity for the people right across the country to enjoy the same level of health services. You are saying to the province which may be economically unfortunate that

Supply-Health and Welfare the people of that province are going to continue to experience less in the way of health services than do the people in another part of Canada. If in addition to these grants we made further payments on a weighted basis to help those who are not so well able to help themselves, then I think probably we would be going much further toward the solution of the problem which confronts us.
Today the minister said grants were being made for child and maternal health services. I think it was quite important that the minister put that first, because I believe it is a field in which a lot of good can be accomplished. I hope the minister and the house will pardon me if I make a personal reference, and I do not do so in any partisan sense at all. I well recall that we in Alberta had an infant mortality rate which was not pleasant to behold. We inaugurated a scheme whereby we provided so-called free hospitalization. It does not cost the patient anything except what would be paid in the course of the usual property taxes.
Under this plan the expectant mother enters the hospital and is allowed to stay there for twelve days without making any direct payment. If the mother is unable or does not desire to enter hospital, a straight grant of $40 is made to her. I understand that, although this has not been a factor in the past, provision is being made to grant up to 50 per cent of the cost of extras, that is right across the board so far as hospitalization is concerned. Hand in hand with that is what the minister referred to this afternoon as the health units, in which we have our district health nurses. The nurses arrange for holding pre-natal and post-natal clinics, and so on.
The result of this program has been a remarkable downward movement in our infant mortality index. I cannot give the figures offhand, but the result has been outstanding. In other words there is not the slightest excuse for a baby being born outside of a hospital. My leader has just informed me that the scheme has been in operation since 1944, and we have had an excellent opportunity to see how it works. When the minister indicates to us that grants are being made to the provinces for the establishment of clinics for educational services for expectant mothers and for educational services-I presume that would be the appropriate expression-after the birth of a child, then I can envision a remarkable improvement in that whole general field of infant and mother welfare. I think this is a splendid thing.
I took some exception, of course, to the minister's method of indicating-perhaps it was an inference and perhaps he did not mean it at all, I do not know-that 10,000 infant

lives had been saved as a consequence of federal government grants of one kind or another. We are prepared to share the credit with him, but we feel that the provinces and municipalities have done much. I do not want to exclude the voluntary organizations when I refer to the provinces, the federal government and the municipalities. I think that in combination they have all done much to effect this improved condition so far as infants and their mothers are concerned.
This afternoon the minister referred to rehabilitation services for the incapacitated, the handicapped. Certainly, Mr. Chairman, that is a field wherein much good can be accomplished. But I must agree with previous speakers who indicated that there is a necessity for help by way of pensions for those persons who are permanently incapacitated. Two provinces in Canada have already provided pensions for such persons. I believe Ontario has done so for some time, I do not know how long, and Alberta is now inaugurating a program providing such pensions. I realize the burden that could well fall upon the shoulders of some of our provinces if they were to undertake similar programs. I am not criticizing them for not having done so. Far be it from me to do that. They are in a better position than I am to realize what their financial resources are. It does, however, put us in a rather peculiar position in Canada when we say that in two provinces the incapacitated get pensions but in the other eight provinces they do not. I am excluding the veteran from this, because I am talking of the civilian.
I believe that, along with rehabilitation services, along with vocational training, the federal government and the provincial governments should try to create an arrangement under which the permanently incapacitated persons of this country may receive pensions. It is a rather tragic experience for any member of parliament to be approached by a civilian who is physically incapacitated. He does not qualify for anything but municipal relief. In a great country like this it hurts one to have to tell the man, who possibly has lived in the country for 50 or 60 years and has done much towards developing it, that because of something over which he has had no control and as a result of which he has lost the financial resources he did have, he must seek municipal relief. I suggest that it should not be too long before none of us, as members of parliament, is faced with the necessity of telling an individual that his only hope is municipal relief.
Now, Mr. Chairman, the third aspect of the program is the extension of laboratory and diagnostic services. We feel that this is a field in which inestimable good can be

accomplished. I feel, however, that conceivably some provinces might not be able to take advantage of the full program, although I do understand there are grants to be made that do not have to be matched.
On behalf of my colleagues I might indicate to the minister that we support these new grants. We feel that that one element of change in the grants should be introduced to take cognizance of the weighted factor so we could take care of the situation in all parts of Canada. In this way we could bring about greater equality of health services.
I desire to pay tribute to those who have been striving valiantly to provide us with health services. I am speaking particularly of the doctors. I know they are criticized, but all of us are criticized, and most unfairly in many respects. I think the minister hit the nail on the head today when he said that many doctors do not go into the more outlying points because of the lack of facilities. They are trained to use modern facilities.
I know this program is going to assist many of our smaller hospitals to procure certain of those facilities. I pay tribute to the medical men of our country and to our nurses, many of whom are overworked today because of the shortage of nurses, and those who are administering our hospitals, and so forth. Too frequently we criticize, but on the other hand a great deal of credit is due them, Mr. Chairman.
In conclusion I should like to emphasize one thing. When it comes to this question of health insurance I realize there is an argument about the word "insurance". Someone will say that it involves certain specific things. We have reached a stage in this old world where we use words pretty loosely, but I favour a scheme wherein we take advantage of existing facilities. We expand those facilities. We keep administration on the local levels; we do not have regimentation; we maintain the greatest degree of freedom which it is possible to maintain. It is going to take a bit of time, but I think one would have to be viewing things with his eyes closed if he were not to see that we have made good progress.
Possibly we have not moved as fast as some people would like to see us move, but in our municipalities, in our provinces and federally we have made a good deal of progress in recent years. I hope we shall move along as rapidly as we can, providing the essential facilities and the personnel, and always have as our objective the best interests of all our Canadian people.


George Matheson Murray: I shall be brief. While excellent work has been done in recent
Supply-Health and Welfare years in the province of Alberta, I think it would be only fair to recall to the committee tonight the service rendered to that province and to Canada by the late Hon. Alexander G. MacKay, who was the first minister of health in Alberta. He was a pioneer in bringing in legislation of the kind which has been presented by the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Since I come from a place far removed from the cities, I know of the excellent work which is being done by doctors on the frontiers of this country, where they work without the facilities that are available in the larger centres, and where they render tremendous service to settlers, miners and trappers in distant places. But I should like to commend the minister for the very progressive step that he has taken; well-timed-of course, well-timed. The secret of his great success and that of our late prime minister, Mr. Mackenzie King, was the ability to time these things properly and then to see that they were carried out promptly.


Mr. Hees:: Mr. Chairman, like the other hon. members who have spoken, I was very glad to hear the Minister of National Health and Welfare mention the health grants the government is going to bring in. I think they are a good thing, of course.
As one who has been pressing the government for a couple of years now to do something in the way of rehabilitation, I am glad to see that at least a start is being made. I hope the government will extend this program to a large extent, because the results that have been achieved in the United States in this regard have proved that money spent on rehabilitation is not charity or money poured down the drain; it is the best investment the government can possibly make from the point of view of cash return on what it puis in, as well as the great improvement in the health standard of the people.
I was very surprised, just as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and other hon. members who have spoken have been surprised, that the minister did not make more reference to the vital problem of health insurance. I was also surprised to note that the only two statements he did make were not his own but very brief references to statements made by his former leader, the Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You had better read my speech tomorrow.


George Harris Hees: I have read it. The minister made two very brief references to health insurance, and both of them were in references to what Mr. King said. If I am wrong

Supply-Health and Welfare then I will certainly admit it tomorrow after I read his remarks, but I read them over very carefully and that is all I could find in them.
I sincerely wish the minister would start making statements about health insurance on his own. After all, he has been the minister for quite a while now; he should know his own mind. He has made a study of it, and if he has not, he certainly should have done so. After all, Mr. King's statements are five years old, and this is a very critical problem to a vast number of Canadians, I would say to all Canadians. I am surprised that by now the minister has not called together a conference of provincial health ministers and representatives of the medical profession to talk over the question of health insurance. It is the only way the government can know what kind of plan is the best. I feel that the provincial health ministers are very anxious to meet with the Minister of National Health and Welfare to discuss this problem.


Murdo William Martin: We confer constantly; we have done it twice this year.


George Harris Hees: There is one provincial minister of health who does not think the minister and he confer together nearly often enough on this problem, and that is the Hon. Mackinnon Phillips, minister of health of Ontario.
I speak from personal knowledge, because I spent several hours with him recently talking about this very problem. Perhaps the minister read a statement that Mr. Mackinnon Phillips made in Toronto on April 20, last, as reported in the Toronto Telegram. The statement is headed: "Health Chief Wants Confab on Insurance" and reads as follows:
Ontario health minister Mackinnon Phillips today approved the idea of a conference of all provinces' health ministers to talk over the possibilities of a national health insurance scheme.
Dr. Phillips felt it was time such a scheme was investigated in detail.
Dr. Phillips does not want this government to jam down the throat of Ontario, or of any province, some scheme that it may conjure up in its own mind. He feels, as I am sure all the other provincial health ministers feel, that this thing can be worked out only by lengthy conferences of all the provincial ministers, the representatives of the medical profession, the dental profession, the hospitals, and so on. Surely the minister realizes that, and it is long overdue. This conference should have been called together and started on its way.
I have talked to many ordinary people who would be benefited by a health insurance plan; I have talked to a lot of doctors; I have talked to a lot of insurance men. I am very interested

in this thing and I have spoken to many people about it; and I am convinced that the people of this country do not want a state medicine plan. They feel that it is cumbersome; it is costly; it destroys the doctor-patient relationship which they have learned to value very highly.
Doctors are in favour of health insurance of the right kind, because it will help them to collect their bills for services rendered. They do not want to be put into the strait-jacket of a state medicine plan, and that is why they are very anxious to get together with the Minister of National Health and Welfare and talk this thing over in great detail.


Murdo William Martin: Is my hon. friend aware that such meetings take place almost constantly; that we had a meeting of that kind with the Canadian Medical Association about five weeks ago?


George Harris Hees: Does the minister not think it would be a courtesy on his part to advise the health minister, for instance, of Ontario, of that fact, and perhaps ask him to sit in and talk over this most important matter?


Murdo William Martin: Is my hon. friend not aware that twice a year federal and provincial government officials meet here in Ottawa for at least two days, and that they met here about seven weeks ago?


George Harris Hees: I say that I talked at great length with the minister of health of Ontario, and according to him the minister has not discussed this matter with the provincial ministers of health.


Murdo William Martin: Will my hon. friend permit me to say that I am quite sure the minister of health of Ontario, for whom I have great respect and with whom I have great collaboration and co-operation, never made that statement.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, I spoke to him for two hours not more than two weeks ago, and it was very clear to me that this subject has not been discussed in any worth-while manner between the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the provincial minister. That is why he feels there should be a conference, and that this matter should be discussed properly and thoroughly and a plan worked out which could be proceeded with.
The minister said last year, when we discussed this matter at length, that we could not proceed with health insurance because we did not have the equipment to handle it. Well, how in the world does the minister know whether we have or have not the equipment needed to handle it until



I, 1953

[Stage Direction]
he has some idea of the kind of plan this equipment would be required to handle?
Paul Joseph James Martin: Is not my hon. friend aware that we have completed a sickness survey, that we have also just had a survey of all provincial health services? And, incidentally, the province of Ontario did not make a recommendation along the lines my hon. friend is now advocating.


George Harris Hees: The sickness survey to which the minister refers is, I understand, the provincial health survey.


Murdo William Martin: No. It is a national sickness survey; we discussed it here for about two days last year.


George Harris Hees: The Minister of National Health
and Welfare has not sat down and talked over the question of a national health insurance plan with the representatives of the provincial governments.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend is quite wrong when he says that.


George Harris Hees: The minister had better get it straight.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You had better get it straight.


George Harris Hees: If the Minister of National Health and Welfare has been talking this matter over in some detail with the minister of health in Ontario, then certainly he has made very little impression upon that gentleman. If the minister says there have been some conversations, then the minister in Ontario should be in possession of some information on the matter. I say to the minister here tonight that he is completely wrong in that respect because, as I have pointed out, I have just talked with the Hon. Mackinnon Phillips, minister of health in Ontario, only about two weeks ago.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Come and see me after we adjourn.


George Harris Hees: Oh, I would rather talk the matter over right here. It is all very friendly, and we are not far apart. I am very interested in talking to my hon. friend the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and I like to have his comments on the record, too. I am hopeful, of course, that at some time we are going to be able to pin down our Minister of National Health and Welfare as to what his feelings are about health insurance. The government has been promising it for 34 years; and every time there is an election, Liberal candidates all over the country say, "Vote us in, and you will get health insurance." Then after the election is over absolutely nothing happens.
I think it is about time this government started to get honest with the people of
Supply-Health and Welfare
Canada. After promising health insurance since 1919, it should start to do something concrete by bringing in a plan of health insurance, or at least by laying the foundations for one. The government should get together with the provincial ministers and their representatives with a view to deciding the kind of plan that would be desirable and practicable. The Minister of National Health and Welfare has not conveyed that information to the provincial ministers of health as of this date.


Murdo William Martin: I do not wish to interrupt my hon. friend, but I do say he is in error, and I do not know how many times I have to tell him. Let me repeat that there is continual collaboration in this matter not only with the minister of health in Ontario, but I have discussed the matter with the hon. gentleman's provincial chief, the premier of the province, Hon. Mr. Frost. I can only say that when my hon. friend becomes my parliamentary assistant perhaps he will be able to speak more authoritatively as to what I have really done.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, perhaps the
Minister of National Health and Welfare has talked to the minister of health in Ontario, but perhaps the minister of health in Ontario has the same difficulty with the minister that we have here in the House of Commons, because I know the minister in Ontario has not been able to find out what is in the mind of our Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Murdo William Martin: He thinks I am a good guy.


George Harris Hees: I am sure the minister in Ontario has no idea whether the federal minister is for or against health insurance; what he likes or what he does not like. They may have been talking together for some time; but, just as in our conversations here in the House of Commons, no one knows any more about health insurance at the end of our long discussions than he knew before we began. That is because the Minister of National Health and Welfare is about as easy to pin down to a statement as it is to pin a piece of jelly to the wall. One is just about as easy as the other.
There are a number of rumours flying around, and I wonder if the minister would settle them right now. These rumours are to the effect that the government intends to bring in a measure of health insurance by order in council between the time parliament closes and the date of the election. Would the minister please give me a yes or no answer on that question?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I know my hon. friend is quite concerned about his next election, otherwise

Supply-Health and Welfare he would not be so apprehensive. However, he must know that this government, in respect to other governments he has supported, is not an order in council government.


George Harris Hees: Oh, oh. I guess the minister did not read Hansard setting out the recent debate in which the Minister of Trade and Commerce was concerned. That was regarding a small matter of shipping to China. I repeat this question: Does the government intend to introduce a measure of health insurance between the time parliament closes and the date of the election-yes or no?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have such high esteem for my hon. friend that I can hardly credit that a man trained in our universities, as he is, and who now serves in our parliamentary system, does not yet know the limitations on the executive arm of government in this country, and under our constitution.


George Harris Hees: I think it is obvious, Mr. Chairman, why the Hon. Mackinnon Phillips knows nothing about what is in the minister's mind, because I am wondering if the minister does himself. Everyone in this parliament knows very well there are no limits to what this government can do, if it wishes. The Minister of Trade and Commerce has said, "If we want to get away with it, who will stop us?" And if this government can bring in an order in council, as it did a week ago, when parliament was sitting, in connection with the simple matter of sending ships to China, then of course it can bring in a measure of health insurance after parliament closes and before the date of the next election. It can do it in exactly the same way it brought in a wide measure of tax reduction only a few days before the 1945 election.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Come to my room after this sitting, and I will take you into my confidence.


George Harris Hees: No, I want to know now. Either the minister does intend or he does not intend to bring in a measure of health insurance after the session ends, and as an election measure. And as the minister does not deny it, we must conclude he is going to do just that. The Minister of Trade and Commerce, sitting over there, simply smiled when reference was made to the fact that we must believe in Santa Claus, implying that the government believes in Santa Claus, and that they intend to bring in health insurance before the election date so as to lure votes into the ballot boxes, as they have done in the past.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask my hon. friend a question?


George Harris Hees: Yes.
[Mr. Martin.!


Paul Joseph James Martin: Does my hon. friend really say he does not believe in Santa Claus?


George Harris Hees: Of course I believe in Santa Claus. And, as the minister knows, I have been urging this government for the last two or three years to do something about health insurance; I have been urging him, and urging him, and urging him. Now, I take it, the government does intend-the minister does not deny it-to hold out another evergreen election lure in the form of health insurance, at the time of the next election. If the minister does not deny it we can only assume that that is the government's intention. There is nothing to stop them if they want to do it, and they certainly can do it by order in council. They have done this sort of thing over and over again.
So I take it we are going to have national health insurance introduced by this government by order in council between now and the election date. And, now that we know that, we can understand clearly why the minister has not called together a conference of provincial ministers. He does not want his plan to be known ahead of time; he does not want it to be interfered with. All he wants is to state: This is the plan; this is what we are going to do for you electors. Now go to the polls and vote for us again, and we will promise to bring it in after the next election.
But they have been doing that for 34 years and of course it does not mean any more today than it did in the past, so I am sure the public will not take it too seriously. It is nice to know anyway, at long last, what the government does intend to do about health insurance.


Mr. Riley:: Mr. Chairman, I do not know if the minister will be able to pay much attention to me after having been elevated to the heights of confusion by the previous speaker. The hon. member has spoken tonight with as much authority on health insurance and social welfare as he spoke on housing in Saint John a few days ago. I should like to bring to the attention of the minister a problem in connection with civil defence affecting my own particular area.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Could not the hon. member find it more convenient to deal with that when we come to the particular item?


Daniel Aloysius Riley: It may be that I shall have to be elsewhere as these items continue, and I should like to speak for a few minutes this evening. For some time now Saint John has been extremely interested in civil defence, because our city and the surrounding area are considered to be a prime bombing target

in the event of hostilities. A considerable amount of money has been spent to date by the municipality in order to co-operate with the Department of National Health and Welfare in providing proper facilities for the defence of the area and to take care of emergencies should they develop.
The city has already spent something like $10,000 in this regard. I might say here that the city of Saint John and Saint John county are most grateful for the generous co-operation of the minister through his officers in that particular section of his department, for the training of instructors in civil defence as well as aid by way of equipment. To date this has been worth approximately $18,000.
I understand that the department through the director of civil defence has made an offer to the province of New Brunswick whereby that province could obtain more money from the federal department by putting up a like amount. Up to date the province of New Brunswick has not agreed to accept that very generous offer on the part of the department and thus be able to implement a sound system of civil defence in those areas of the province where it is considered vital that we should have such a system.
I understand that two alternative offers were made. One was that the province could put up dollar for dollar with the department, and the other was that a municipality could put up one-third, the province one-third and the federal government the remaining one-third. Up to date the city of Saint John has not been able to enter into this arrangement because the provincial government has not agreed to put up the $46,000, I believe it is- I may be slightly off, but it would be only a matter of a few dollars-either by matching the federal government dollar by dollar or by agreeing to put up one-third, so that the city and county of Saint John can put up the other one-third and thus be able to derive further benefits from the national civil defence program.
Many of the citizens of Saint John are extremely concerned about this. I am going to ask the minister if he cannot deviate from the hard and fast policy. Even though the province of New Brunswick will not agree to put up the money to enable us to get more support from his department for civil defence in our area, perhaps some arrangement could be made whereby the city of Saint John could match an amount to be put up by the department and thus carry on our civil defence program.
There are many hundreds of people who are prepared to go forward with this program on a voluntary basis. There is the Red Cross
Supply-Health and Welfare and the St. John Ambulance; and we have 25 instructors who have been trained in civil defence here in Ottawa at the cost of a good many thousands of dollars. We do not want this program to collapse; therefore I am asking the minister if some other means cannot be devised whereby our municipality can come in under this program without the assistance of the province.
I thank the minister for being so tolerant as to allow me to speak perhaps somewhat irregularly.


Solon Earl Low: My conscience would not rest over the week end if I did not have a chance to say some of the nice things I have in mind about the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I am sure he would like to have me say those things, but under the circumstances perhaps he will not mind my putting them over until Monday morning when I can do it at greater length than I could tonight, the hands of the clock being in their present position.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I say to my hon. friend that if he is going to say some nice things about me I am so impatient that I do not think I can wait.


George Harris Hees: Just send over the flowers.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



REPORTS OF COMMITTEES


[Stage Direction]
Ninth report of standing committee on banking and commerce.-Mr. Cleaver.
Seventh report of standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.-Mr. Winkler.

Alphonse Fournier: On Monday we will consider the following legislation: Amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 228, to amend the Income Tax Act and to Bill No. 338, respecting co-operative credit associations; Bill No. 340, to amend the Canadian Broadcasting Act, 1936; Bill No. 341, to implement a convention between Canada and the United States for the preservation of the halibut fishery; Bill No. 316, relating to trade marks and unfair competition; the resolution of the Minister of Labour concerning amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1940; then Bill No. 100, an act to prevent discrimination in regard to employment and membership in trade unions by reason of race, national origin, colour or religion. We will then move to go into supply and consider the

Supply-Agriculture
estimates of health and welfare, defence production, external affairs, and mines and technical surveys.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:

[Stage Direction]
45.	Major irrigation and reclamation projects in the prairie provinces, $7,893,420.
46.	Prairie Farm Assistance Act administration, $450,000.
47.	Land protection, reclamation and development in British Columbia under such terms and conditions as may be approved by the governor in council, $110,000.
48.	Land protection and reclamation; clearing and settlement of new lands under such terms and conditions as may be approved by the governor in council, $175,000.
49.	Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Act, $2,492,285.
50.	Assiniboine river-dyking and cut-off, $100,000.
51.	To provide for administrative expenses, Agricultural Prices Support Act, 1944, $98,592.
52.	To provide for the furnishing of a room in the headquarters building of the food and agriculture organization, Rome, Italy, $10,000.
Loans, investments and advances-
Agriculture-
539. To authorize and provide for the operation of a revolving fund in accordance with the provisions of section 58 of the Financial Administration Act for the purpose of financing the purchase of stores for use in the construction, maintenance and operation of projects under the direction of the prairie farm rehabilitation administration; the amount to be charged to the revolving fund at any time not to exceed $200,000.
Science service-
Science service administration-
635.	Construction	or	acquisition	of	buildings,
works, land and new equipment-further amount required, $224,000.
Botany and plant pathology-
636.	Construction	or	acquisition	of	buildings,
works, land and new equipment-further amount required, $36,500.
Forest biology-
637.	Construction	or	acquisition	of	buildings,
works, land and new equipment-further amount required, $72,500.
Experimental farms service-
Central experimental farm, including research and co-ordinating divisions for the experimental farms service-
638.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment-further amount required, $96,000.
Branch experimental farms, substations and illustration stations-
639.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment-further amount required, $66,000.
Production service-
Animal pathology-
640.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment-further amount required, $47,600.
Health of animals-
641.	To provide for the payment of compensation to owners of animals or poultry affected with diseases coming under the operation of the Animal Contagious Diseases Act, which have died or have been slaughtered under circumstances unprovided for under the above act and regulations thereunder, in the amounts detailed in the estimates; and to owners of Canadian cattle which strayed across the international boundary into the United States and were destroyed by United States officials in accordance with the provisions of section 306 (a) of the United States Tariff Act of 1930, during the time that Canada was listed by the United States government as a country where foot and mouth disease existed, each individual claim to be subject to the approval of the governor in council, $14,031.
642.	To authorize payments on account of agreements to be entered into with the approval of the governor in council with the fairs and exhibitions detailed in the estimates, such payments to be charged to vote 28, main estimates 1953-54, $1.
Marketing service-
643.	Subsidies for cold storage warehouses under the Cold Storage Act, and grants, in the amounts detailed in the estimates-further amount required, $170,206.
Special-
644.	Land protection, reclamation and development in British Columbia under such terms and conditions as may be approved by the governor in council-further amount required, $36,000.
645.	Land protection and reclamation; clearing and settlement of new lands under such terms and conditions as may be approved by the governor in council-further amount required, $450,000.
Loans, investments and advances-
Agriculture-
762. To authorize and provide for the operation of a revolving fund in accordance with the provisions of section 58 of the Financial Administration Act, for the purposes of financing the production of improved and new varieties of seeds, including administrative expenses, and the acquiring of livestock for experimental purposes; the amount to be charged to the revolving fund at any one time not to exceed $620,000, of which $250,000 has already been provided under vote 556, Appropriation Act, No. 4, 1952, $370,000.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, May 4, 1953