1953-01-14

Hon. Brooke Claxlon (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of personal privilege, during the debate yesterday I was asked to put on Hansard certain correspondence but I find that I did even more than I was asked to do. As the file had just been handed to me, through inadvertence I put on Hansard a draft of a letter addressed to Mr. Currie which had been prepared for my consideration.


Mr. Casselman:: And marked "confidential".


Brooke Claxton: That was the way to mark it at that stage. It was neither signed nor sent. This appears in the righthand column of page 977 of Hansard for January 13, and I hope a correction will be made.


Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposiiion):: In view of the information
which has been given to the house by the Minister of National Defence, and having regard to the fact that the letter to which he has referred has been placed on the record, I wonder if he would look at it and answer this question. Should not the word "such" in the second line of the second paragraph be "much"?


Brooke Claxton: The letter was never considered in such detail as that. It was offered to me, I said I did not agree with the idea, and that was the end of it.


George Alexander Drew: The minister has misunderstood the nature of my question. I am not questioning the choice of words. I am suggesting that the word that appears here is not likely the word that appeared in the copy that was presented, that the word "much" seems to be the word that likely appeared there, and I am asking the minister if that is not correct.


Brooke Claxton: I do not see any advantage in editing here a letter that we never decided to send.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, since this point has been raised, the letter is on record, and it at least is a clear indication of what the minister was thinking at the time and may be very helpful.


Mr. Mcllrailh:: No, no.


Some hon. Members:: No.


George Alexander Drew: Oh, Mr. Speaker, I am not suggesting in this house for one moment that the minister writes a letter of this kind without thinking.


George James McIlraith: He did not write it. That is the point.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


George Alexander Drew: Therefore I have asked-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There is nothing
before the house at the present time except a statement by the Minister of National Defence that a certain letter appears in Hansard which he had not intended should appear.


Brooke Claxton: And which I did not write and did not dictate, and as soon as it was submitted to me I decided that the idea was not a good one. No consideration was given to the language whatever.


George Alexander Drew: Then may I ask the minister how it is that his signature is reproduced in Hansardl


Brooke Claxton: I imagine that was added at some stage either by a clerk or a printer, but it was not signed.


George Alexander Drew: Has the minister thought of conducting an inquiry as to who put the name there?


Mr. Fulton:: Call in the R.C.M.P.


Mr. Graydon:: Did the C.C.F. get that letter?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think we should proceed with the orders of the day.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Speaker:: I feel I should inform the house that yesterday afternoon the chief of orders and notices received from the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) a notice of a motion of an amendment to the motion to set up the committee on defence expenditures. The amendment was handed to me and I can find no provision under our rules or practices whereby such a notice can appear either in the Votes and Proceedings or in the Orders of the Day. Accordingly I
980	HOUSE OF
Business of the House could not direct that the notice should appear. In fairness to the hon. member for Eglinton I felt that I should make this statement.


Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinton):: May
I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the statement you have made to the house. I think it is a matter of general interest to all members. From time to time you and your predecessor have made rulings rejecting amendments which have been offered in the house on the ground that they introduced new matter and could not be introduced without forty-eight hours' written notice. It was because of that ruling that I sought yesterday to give written notice of an amendment which I proposed to introduce to the government motion then under consideration in expectation that after the conclusion of the forty-eight hour period I would have the opportunity of moving the amendment.
The ruling that you have indicated means that under no circumstances when a government motion is under consideration can a private member, under the present rules of the house, give notice of an amendment. You have indicated it cannot go on private members' resolutions because it is an amendment to a motion under debate, and there is no provision for its going on the order paper under government notices of motions. Therefore at the present time, Mr. Speaker, while such amendments have been ruled out from time to time on the ground that the forty-eight hours' requisite notice had not been given, the rules of the house do not make any provision for giving that forty-eight hours' notice.
I thank you for bringing the matter to the attention of the house because I think it will be agreed that there is a gap in our procedure, and if the rules committee should be reappointed at the present session, as I hope it will, it might well give consideration to an amendment of the rules of the house to permit the giving of notice by a private member of an amendment of a government motion under such circumstances.


Mr. St. Laurent:: I am sure you have satisfied yourself, Mr. Speaker, that there is no provision for such notices at the present time. It is the intention to move for the reconstitution of the committee on rules, and I quite agree with the hon. member that this is a matter which should receive their consideration.



LEVEL CROSSINGS


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to advise the house that the government has asked the board of transport commissioners to make a thorough investigation of the railway-highway crossing problem in Canada. For some time the government has been giving consideration to this problem which, because of expanding motor vehicle traffic and improved highways, has become one of national concern in respect of the present need for protection, safety and convenience of the public.
The railway grade crossing fund was established in 1909 under the Railway Act for the purpose of aiding in the actual construction work for the protection, safety and convenience of the public with respect to certain railway-highway crossings. From 1909 to March 31, 1952, a total of $13,327,000 was expended by the government of Canada through this fund. The annual amounts paid into the fund have varied from $200,000 in 1909 to $1 million at the present time. The act of 1909 provided for a contribution from the grade crossing fund of an amount not exceeding 20 per cent of the cost, with a maximum of $5,000 for any one crossing. The act of course was amended from time to time, and in 1950 provision was made for a contribution not exceeding 40 per cent of the cost where the total cost does not exceed $150,000 for any one crossing, and where the cost exceeds $150,000 a contribution not in excess of 40 per cent with a ceiling of $150,000. The contributions of other parties, such as railways, municipalities, counties and provincial governments, vary with each project as determined by the board after hearing applications for contributions from the grade crossing fund to eliminate or protect railwayhighway crossings.
As I have just indicated, the Canadian government has made substantial contributions through the railway grade crossing fund towards the railway-highway level crossing problem. However, it may be that certain restrictions in the existing legislation, and the present basis of contributions by the railway companies, the provinces and the municipalities, tend to impede the improvement and elimination of many grade crossings. In the circumstances, therefore, the board of transport commissioners has been directed to undertake a thorough investigation into all phases of the railway-highway crossing problem. It is our earnest hope that

their investigation, which will cover all ten provinces, will result in the submission of recommendations, the implementation of which will serve to effect a material reduction in the number of fatal accidents. I now wish to table order in council No. 52 which was passed this day.



REPRESENTATION ACT


Mr. Irvin Sluder (Maple Creek) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 101, to amend the Representation Act, 1952.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Irvin William Studer: Under the Representation Act, 1952, the entire constituency of Maple Creek was incorporated with a portion of the constituency of Swift Current and named Swift Current. The object of this bill, Mr. Speaker, is to preserve the name of one of the first constituency units in Saskatchewan, and certainly the most historical, in the name of Maple Creek. Having the two names, Swift Current-Maple Creek, designating the largest settled and most important constituency in this country, will be a source of satisfaction and pride, not only to those living in that area but to all of the people in Canada and, incidentally, make the seat safe for democracy.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS


Mr. Hodgson:: 1.	What disposal is made of waste paper from (a) House of Commons; (b) other government offices?
2.	Are tenders called?
3.	What price is paid for such waste paper per pound?
4.	Who is the present contractor?
5.	How much has the government received for this material, by months, since January 1, 1952, to December 1, 1952?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	Public printing and stationery declare as surplus, to Crown Assets Disposal Corporation, waste paper from the House of Commons and other government departments. Crown Assets Disposal Corporation call tenders for the disposal of such waste paper.
2.	Yes.
3.	It is not sold by the pound. The contractor pays a sum for the privilege of removing all waste paper from government
Questions
buildings for a period of one year. The contract price for the period of April 1, 1952 to March 31, 1953 is $12,500.
4.	Florence Paper Company Limited, Botelier and Dalhousie streets, Ottawa, Ontario.
5.	The following amounts were received by months from January 1, 1952 to December 1, 1952:
January, $1,208; February, $1,208; March, $1,208; March, $1,250; April, nil; May, $840; June, $1,041; July, $1,041; August, $1,041; September, $1,041; October, $1,041; November, $1,041.
The $1,208 paid in- March 1952 represented the final payment on the previous contract. The $1,250 paid in March 1952 represented the initial deposit on the new contract commencing April 1, 1952.


TOPSAIL ROAD PLANT, NFLD.  DEFENCE MATERIALS
Mr. Higgins:: 1.	Have any orders for the supply of defence materials been given the new machinery plant at Topsail road, Newfoundland?
2.	If so, what orders have been given, and what is the value of such orders?
3.	If not, is it intended that any orders will be given, and when may the same be expected?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	No defence orders have as yet been placed with Canadian Machinery and Industry Construction Limited, by the Department of Defence Production.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Their facilities are well known to officials of the Department of Defence Production. The company is receiving all appropriate invitations to tender and the department is also examining the possibility of placing a specialized contract in this plant.



TAX ASSESSMENTS


Mr. Fullon:: 1.	Have any appeals been made to the Minister of National Revenue against assessments of personal and corporation income tax, during the years 1950, 1951 and 1952 to date?
2.	If so, in how many cases in each year have such appeals been made?
3.	In how many cases in each year have assessments been reduced following such appeals?
4.	What has been the total of such reductions in assessment in each year?
5.	Have any of the appeals covered in part 3 been made, on behalf of the taxpayer concerned, by some other person, firm or corporation as solicitor, agent or representative?
6.	If so, what are the names of such persons, firms or corporations so acting, and in how many such successful cases did he or they act respectively?
Questions


Mr. McCann:: 1. Yes. 2 and 3:	Number of	Number of assessments reduced inCalendar	appeals and	respect of suchYear	objections	appeals andreceived	objections1950	7,346	3,9091951	4,643	2,9611952	4,288	2,218Totals	16,277	9,0884, 5 and	6. No information available as a	record of	the particulars	requested is not
maintained by the taxation division.



LAMEQUE, N. B.-WHARF REPAIRS

Mr. Robichaud:: 1.	Were tenders called for the wharf repairs at Lameque, New Brunswick, for which an amount of $32,000 was appropriated in the 1952-53 estimates?
2.	If so, in what month of the year 1952 were such tenders called for?
3.	What individuals or firms submitted tenders and what was the amount of each tender submitted?
4.	To whom was the contract awarded and at what amount?
5.	If tenders were not called, when will the Department of Public Works do so?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: 1.	Yes.
2.	June, 1951.
3.	Comeau & Savoie Construction Ltd., $28,422; Diamond Construction Co., Ltd., $32,270.60; L. Emilien Langevin, $38,836.30; Mooney Construction Company, $51,321.
4.	Comeau & Savoie Construction Ltd., $28,422.
5.	Answered by No. 1.



FERGUSON GULLY, N.B.-DREDGING OPERATIONS

Mr. Robichaud:: 1.	Were tenders called for the dredging operations at Ferguson gully, New Brunswick, for which an amount of $32,000 was provided in the 1952-53 estimates?
2.	If not, when will the Department of Public Works call for such tenders?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: 1.	Yes, but no contract was awarded.
2.	Dredging is being considered for performance by departmentally-owned plant.
st. mary's, shippigan island-harbour protection AND DREDGING


Mr. Robichaud:: 1.	Were tenders called for the harbour protection and dredging at St. Mary's (Shippigan island) for which an amount of $234,000 was appropriated in the 1952-53 estimates?

2.	If so, in what month of the year 1952 were tenders called for?
3.	What individuals or firms submitted tenders, and what was the amount of each tender?
4.	To whom was the contract awarded, and in what amount?
5.	If tenders were not called, when will the Department of Public Works do so?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: 1.	Tenders were called for harbour protection works only.
2.	December, 1951.
3.	Diamond Construction Co., Ltd., $172,949.60; C. R. MacDonald & J. C. Gaudet, $182,489; McNamara Construction Co. Ltd., $256,198.75.
4.	Diamond Construction Co., Ltd., $172,949.60.
5.	Answered by No. 1.



SHIPPIGAN GULLY, N.B.-BREAKWATER REPAIRS

Mr. Robichaud:: 1.	Were tenders called for breakwater repairs at Shippigan gully, New Brunswick, for which an amount of $36,000 was appropriated in the 1952-53 estimates?
2.	If so, in what month of the year 1952 were such tenders called for?
3.	What individuals or firms submitted tenders, and what was the amount of each tender?
4.	To whom was the contract awarded, and in what amount?
5.	If tenders were not called, when will the Department of Public Works do so?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: 1.	Yes.
2.	October, 1951.
3.	Diamond Construction Co., Ltd., $29,504.
4.	Diamond Construction Co., Ltd., $29,504.
5.	Answered by No. 1.



PETIT ROCHER, N.B.  BREAKWATER REPAIRS

Mr. Robichaud:: 1.	Were tenders called for the breakwater repairs at Petit Rocher, New Brunswick, for which an amount of $35,000 was appropriated in the 1952-53 estimates?
2.	If so, in what month of the year 1952 were such tenders called for?
3.	What individuals or firms submitted tenders, and what was the amount of each tender?
4.	To whom was the contract awarded, and at what amount?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: 1.	Yes.
2.	December, 1952.
3.	Diamond Construction Co., Ltd., $15,337.45; Chaleur Construction Co., Ltd., $19,315.10; A. & R. Ricard (Associates), $22,993; Comeau & Savoie Construction Limited, $26,668.75; J. E. & D. P. Connolly, $34,584.
4.	Diamond Construction Co., Ltd., $15,337.45.



ST. EDWARD, N.B., BREAKWATER

Mr. Robichaud:: 1.	Were tenders called for the breakwater at St. Edward, New Brunswick, for which an amount of $300,000 was appropriated in the 1952-53 estimates?
2.	If so, in what month of the year 1952 were such tenders called for?
3.	What individuals or firms submitted tenders, and what was the amount of each tender?
4.	To whom was the contract awarded, and in what amount?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: 1.	Yes.
2.	November, 1952.
3.	J. W. & J. Anderson Limited, $280,917; Diamond Construction Co., Limited, $292,318; J. W. McMulkin & Son Ltd., $327,948; Colin
R.	MacDonald, Ltd., $343,950; North Shore Construction Co. Ltd., $387,380.
4.	J. W. & J. Anderson Ltd., $280,917.



ST. SIMON, N.B.  WHARF REPAIRS, ETC.

Mr. Robichaud:: 1.	Were tenders called for wharf repairs, extension and dredging at St. Simon, New Brunswick, for which an amount of $36,000 was appropriated in the 1952-53 estimates?
2.	If so, in what month of the year 1952 were such tenders called for?
3.	What individuals or firms submitted tenders, and what was the amount of each tender?
4.	To whom was the contract awarded, and in what amount?
5.	If tenders were not called, when will the Department of Public Works do so?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: 1.	Yes.
2.	October, 1952.
3.	Diamond Construction Co., Limited, $43,072.50; Comeau & Savoie Construction Limited, $45,845.
4.	Contract not awarded.
5.	Answered by No. 1.



INTER-CITY JET AIRLINER

Mr. Thatcher:: 1.	Was the Avro plant at Malton given financial encouragement by the government to produce a jet airliner suitable for inter-city flights?
2.	If so, what was the value of such assistance?
3.	Since making North America's first jet airmail flight from New York to Toronto, what has happened to the plane?
4.	Has the jet plane proved unsatisfactory?
5.	Has Trans-Canada Air Lines ordered any of these planes to date?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	Yes.
2.	$6,648,363.40.
3.	Since making the airmail flight from Toronto to New York, the jetliner has been engaged in certain demonstrations and development test flying and is currently located at the manufacturer's plant in Malton.
Questions
Since the outbreak of hostilities in Korea, work has been suspended due to pressure of military commitments of the company.
4.	The prototype has not been accepted for commercial service by the Department of Transport, although a production model would undoubtedly be granted a certificate of airworthiness.
5.	No.



ORENDA JET ENGINES

Mr. MacLean (Queens):: 1.	Has the Dominion of Canada contracted for the total output to date of Orenda jet engines?
2.	Are Orenda engines shipped to aircraft manufacturers for installation in airframes being manufactured for the government of Canada?
3.	If so, are these Orenda engines the property of the crown?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	Yes.



STE. ANNE DU LAC    WHARF CONSTRUCTION OR REPAIR

Mr. Courtemanche:: 1.	Between June, 1949, and November, 1952 was any wharf construction or repair work done at Ste. Anne du Lac, county of Labelle?
2.	If so, on what dates and for what amount each year?
3.	Was the work done by contract or by day labour?
4.	If by contract, what were the amounts thereof?
5.	To whom were the contracts awarded?
6.	If by day labour, who was the foreman, what daily salary did he receive, and what was the amount spent for such work?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: 1.	Yes.
2.	From Sept. 19, 1950 to Sept. 28, 1950, $439.24; from Dec. 17, 1951 to Dec. 21, 1951, $1,123; from June 30, 1952 to July 28, 1952, $1,376.73.
3.	By day labour.
4 and 5. Answered by No. 3.
6.	(a) Fernand Poudrier; (b) daily salary 1950-51, $1.10 per hour (as foreman); 1951-52 Mr. Poudrier was employed as carpenter at $1 per hour; 1952-53 $1.50 per hour (as foreman); (c) $2,938.97.



KINDORF FITTINGS FOR NAVAL VESSELS

Mr. Green:: 1.	Have Kindorf fittings for three naval vessels to be built in shipyards in British Columbia been ordered from a Montreal firm?
2.	If so, with what firm?
3.	Why were these fittings not ordered from the Kindorf agents in Vancouver?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	Yes.

Questions
2.	Triumph Continental Products Limited.
3.	In accordance with lead yard procedures, fittings for 14 ships were purchased from the Montreal representative of the Kindorf company which agency arrangement has been confirmed by the parent company.



BLUE COVE, N.B.-CONSTRUCTION OF WHARF

Mr. Robichaud:: 1.	Are there any plans in existence, in the Department of Public Works, for, or in any way relating to, the construction of a wharf at Blue Cove, New Brunswick?
2.	If so, in what year were these plans prepared and approved?
3.	Has the government under consideration the construction of a wharf at Blue Cove, New Brunswick, according to the above mentioned plans, in the year 1953?
4.	If not, what are the reasons for the delay in this construction?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: 1.	Matter under consideration.
2,	3 and 4. Answered by No. 1.



RENOUS, N.B., NAVAL AMMUNITION DEPOT

Mr. Robichaud:: 1.	What is the total amount which has been expended to date on, or in any way concerning, the Renous, New Brunswick, naval ammunition depot?
2.	What have been the annual amounts expended on, or in any way concerning the said naval ammunition depot, in each and every year, from and including the year of its inception, to and including the year 1951?
3.	What has been the annual cost, including personnel, of maintenance, of the said naval ammunition depot, during the years (a) 1945; (b) 1946; (c) 1947; (d) 1948; (e) 1949; (f) 1950; (g) 1951, and to date in 1952?


Mr. McCann:: 1.	$5,375,769.59.
2.	1943-44, $526,668.60; 1944-45, $519,066.04;
1945-46,	$238,180.56;	1946-47,	$486,421.31;1947-48,	$445,336.99;	1948-49,	$477,453.69;1949-50,	$560,917.73;	1950-51,	$662,311.36;
1951-52, $857,240.76; April 1, 1952-November 30, 1952, $702,172.55.
3.	1945-46, $30,527.45; 1946-47, $44,518.29;
1947-48,	$59,544.01;	1948-49,	$106,699.80;1949-50,	$131,773.83;	1950-51,	$138,575.64;
1951-52, $125,485.01; April 1, 1952-November 30, 1952, $55,430.98.
(Figures are supplied to November 30, 1952)



CARAQUET, N.B., HARBOUR

Mr. Robichaud:: 1.	Has the government made any improvements in the Caraquet, New Brunswick, harbour, during the past year?
2.	If so, what were these improvements?
3.	If not, has the government under consideration any plans for improvements to that harbour in 1953?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: 1.	Yes.
2.	General maintenance repairs only.
3.	No.



SHIPPIGAN, N.B., HARBOUR

Mr. Robichaud:: 1.	Has the government made any improvements in the Shippigan, New Brunswick, harbour, during the past year?
2.	If so, what were these improvements?
3.	If not, has the government under consideration any plans for improvements to that harbour in 1953?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: 1.	Yes.
2.	General maintenance repairs only.
3.	Matter under consideration.



LAMEQUE, N.B., HARBOUR

Mr. Robichaud:: 1.	Has the government made any improvements in the Lameque, New Brunswick, harbour, during the past year?
2.	If so, what were these improvements?
3.	If not, has the government under consideration any plans for improvements to that harbour in 1953?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: 1.	Yes.
2.	Repairs to wharf, pierhead and warehouse.
3.	Answered by No. 1.



LOWER CARAQUET, N.B., WHARF

Mr. Robichaud:: 1.	Has the government authorized any repairs to the Lower Caraquet, New Brunswick, wharf, during the past year?
2.	If so, what were these repairs and how much did they cost?
3.	H not, has the government under consideration any plans for improvements or repairs to that wharf in 1953?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) General maintenance repairs.
(b) $6,302.76.
3.	Answered by No. 1.



STONEHAVEN, N.B., PIER AND BREAKWATER

Mr. Robichaud:: 1.	Were tenders called for the repairs to the pier and breakwater at Stonehaven, New Brunswick, for which an amount of $46,000 was appropriated in the 1952-53 estimates?
2.	If so, in what month of the year 1952 were such tenders called for?
3.	What individuals or firms submitted tenders, and what was the amount of each tender?
4.	To whom was the contract awarded, and in what amount?

5.	If tenders were not called, was the work proceeded with otherwise by the Department of Public Works?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: 1.	Tenders were called for repairs to pier, but repairs to breakwater were undertaken by day labour.
2.	October, 1951.
3.	Clare Construction Co., Ltd., $30,411; Chaleur Construction Co., Ltd., $33,771.50; Diamond Construction Co., Ltd., $34,444; Alfred Thimot & Medard Comeau, $36,047.50;
R.	A. Blyth, $39,530.55.
4.	Clare Construction Co., Ltd., $30,411.
5.	Answered by No. 1.



R.C.A.F. AIRPORT, CHATHAM, N.B.-CONSTRUCTION

Mr. Brooks:: 1.	How much money has been spent, on a cost plus basis, on the construction and development of the Royal Canadian Air Force airport at Chatham, New Brunswick, from its beginning until the present time?
2.	By whom was the work done, and how much was paid in each case?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	$464,355.34. This contract was awarded November 28, 1948 for the internal rehabilitation of existing accommodation and services and installation of new equipment in nine buildings and three new small buildings and the installation of petroleum storage and fire alarm system. It has been completed.
2.	John Flood & Sons Limited, Saint John, New Brunswick, $464,355.34.



R.C.A.F. AIRPORT, CHATHAM, N.B.-GRAVEL

Mr. Brooks:: 1.	How many yards of gravel were used for the construction of the runways at the Royal Canadian Air Force airport at Chatham, New Brunswick.
2.	From whom was the gravel purchased, and at what price per yard?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	15,743 yards.
2.	Diamond Construction Company Limited, Fredericton, New Brunswick. $1.60 per cubic yard.



PETAWAWA-SPUR LINE

Mr. Argue:: 1.	Did the Canadian National Railways own the spur line running into the ordnance depot at Petawawa that, according to the Currie report, was removed?
2.	If not, to whom did it belong?
3.	What was the value of the spur line?


Brooke Claxton: Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer this and the next two questions orally.
The answer to the first part of the question is no; to the second, the Department of National Defence; and to the third, this spur
Questions
had not been in use since shortly after the end of the war. The police estimated the value of the rails stolen and sold to Jacobson at approximately $505.50. Jacobson has since been convicted and is at present serving a penitentiary sentence.



CURRIE REPORT-CHILD'S ROCKING HORSE

Mr. Argue:: 1.	For whom was the child's rocking horse, referred to in the Currie report, constructed?
2.	Who ordered its construction?


Mr. Claxton:: 1.	It was made in Toronto for the young son of Major-General C. Vokes, C.B., C.B.E., D.S.O., C.D., who was then general officer commanding, central command.
2.	A private soldier at General Vokes' headquarters, on his own initiative, constructed it as a Christmas present for the general's child. The workmanship was rough and the soft wood and nails used in it were obtained from the engineer works detachment. The hairs for the tail were obtained from-


An hon. Member:: The horses.


Brooke Claxton: -a civilian milkman.


An hon. Member:: Horses carry "tales".


Brooke Claxton: The saddle was made from a sheepskin lining of an old coat of Mrs. Vokes. The scrap iron used in constructing the foot rests was obtained from a local hardware store. When it came to the notice of General Vokes that some public property had been used without his knowledge, he had the value of the materials assessed by the engineers. The assessed value of $9.50 he paid to the Receiver General.


Mr. Argue:: Might I ask a supplementary question of the minister? What was the date of the payment made by General Vokes to the Receiver General?


Brooke Claxton: I will be glad to look that up, Mr. Speaker.



PETAWAWA CAMP


Hazen Robert Argue: Of the some 550 tons shipped out of Petawawa camp as scrap iron, approximately how many tons were composed of serviceable material such as kitchen ranges, cannon heaters, shower stalls, sinks, and the like?


Brooke Claxton: Of the figure of 550 tons, given by Mr. Currie in his report, 45 tons were quite legally sold as scrap. Regarding the remainder, material of this character had been mostly collected from demolished huts and had already deteriorated to the point where it was no longer serviceable. It was intended to examine it to see if any of it might be renovated and made serviceable, and what should be disposed of as scrap.

Motion for Papers
This material was illegally added to the scrap being sold under contract and came into the hands of the firms of Jacobson and the Pembroke Salvage Company, which was associated in these contracts with the Jacobson firm. Jacobson, Young, and Baldock were prosecuted for offences, including that of taking this material illegally, and were sentenced to two years. Most of the material has been recovered.



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN


Mr. Murphy:: 1.	How many United States tourists came into Canada during 1952 to date?
2.	Has the government any record of time United States visitors remained in Canada? If so, how many stayed a week or more?
3.	Does the government estimate of United States tourists entering Canada, include those who live in the United States and work in Canada?
4.	What is the estimated tourist revenue for Canada in the year 1952 to date?
5.	Has the government any record of the amount received by each province? If so, what are the amounts?
6.	What magazines and papers were used for advertising in both Canada and the United States in 1952 to date, and how many advertisements appeared in each paper or magazine?
7.	What was the amount paid to each magazine or paper for such advertising?
8.	Does the government have any record of inquiries received from advertisements? If so, how many?
9.	What films were used in the United States, where, and how many times, to promote our tourist industry?
10.	Does the travel bureau have offices in the United States to promote the tourist industry?
11.	If so, in what locations, what is the cost of operating each office, and what was the rental of each for the year 1952?


Mr. Winters:: Return tabled.



MOTION FOR PAPERS


Mr. Brooks:: For a copy of all correspondence from January 1, 1951, to date, exchanged between the federal government or any department thereof and the government of the province of New Brunswick or any department thereof, relative to the taking over of an area in Queens and Sunbury counties, New Brunswick, as a military training area.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, ithe usual communication will be made to the government of New Brunswick in this connection and, with their consent, the correspondence will be tabled.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the motion carry subject to the statement made by the Prime Minister?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fort William) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of co-operating with the provincial governments for the purpose of providing pensions, equal to old age pensions, for all those who are incapacitated and unable to earn their living, regardless of age.
He said: Mr. Speaker, before I deal with the resolution I would like to welcome back to the house the hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin). We would like to tell him, and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), that we think they have been doing a creditable job at the United Nations. We just hope they will be long spared.
Looking at the hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare, he is more like what he was when he came into this house-he has reduced considerably. Whether or not it is from sweating up in the committee, if he keeps on he will have a splendid opportunity of trying out for our big event in the spring.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Is that the election?


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: This resolution will be supported by my hon. friend the member for Springfield (Mr. Sinnott) who has another resolution on the order paper similar to this. This is not the first time that I have brought this matter up in the house, but I hope it will be the last time that it will be needed. I am not going to speak long because I want it to go to a vote so that the house will know, and the government will know, that the people from coast to coast are interested in this matter. It is the most important resolution that will be brought before this house this year, because of its extent and because of the outstanding need.
I have received a great many letters which I am not going to read, because hon. members know the need just as well as I do. I have received long articles and a great deal of information from the trades and labour council of Fort William, as well as from others. I congratulate the government of Ontario upon going along the line of social security which we on this side of the house are following. We commend them heartily for passing legislation granting pensions to those who are incapacitated. Not only that, but I know there are cases where the help has really come from the province of Ontario and therefore, from one province at least, we shall receive wholehearted support on this question.
I might divide these cases into three classes. The first class of those who are

incapacitated might be those who are not able to work and earn a livelihood like the ordinary individual, but who can get around by means of a wheelchair. The second class would be those who cannot get around in a wheelchair or by any other means but who, when placed at a desk or a table, can use their hands, their, speech or their head to earn something. They cannot earn a great deal because there is a limit to the amount of goods which they produce that friends and other individuals can purchase. The third class, Mr. Speaker, with which I am most concerned are those who can neither get around nor earn a dollar. To me those individuals need to be fed ~and clothed; they need to have medical attention and nurses. They are just like newborn babies, the most helpless things in the world. I say, therefore, that the government of Canada should certainly take care of these people. Hon. members can see that this is a very important resolution. I am going to try to cut down my speech so that we can get a vote.
You have all seen the wheelchair brigade. We would not like to be there, and because we are not there we should be willing to help them. These people are more needy than old age pensioners; they are more needy than many of the blind, and more in need of help than those who get relief through unemployment insurance. I have wholeheartedly supported all these things in the house, but I will not support any other social security measure until there is provision made for these people. I include health insurance in that, for which I worked so hard for two years on the committee. This measure is needed more than health insurance for Canada. Some people think that these are the forgotten people, but they are not. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) last year informed me that there was a committee of the Department of Labour, national health and national defence, who are working with representatives in the different provinces to find a way of taking care of these people as well as the incapacitated veterans.
I realize that if the measure is adopted it will mean more taxes. I expect even the members of the opposition, who think we are so highly taxed, to support this resolution because I believe they are human and they recognize the needs of these people. I would just interject here that Canadians pay lower taxes than the people of the United States, Great Britain, New Zealand or Australia. When I visit some of these people I realize that one cannot help them merely by giving them something of one's own. It is a job for the Dominion of Canada. I know
Pensions for Disabled Persons the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) is in his seat today because he wants to support this motion. He wants to let us have the benefit of his judgment. He is going to show us his warmheartedness by not allowing this motion to be talked out.
I should like to speak for an hour, but my common sense and better judgment tell me that I should allow others to have their say. Thank you for your consideration.


Mr. W. G. Blair (Lanark):: This resolution we are discussing today, Mr. Speaker, has been before this house on many occasions. I remember speaking on the matter and supporting it on at least two or three occasions.
I assure the hon. member who introduced the resolution that I am not going to talk for any great length of time. I want to see the motion voted upon, and I want to hear the minister make a declaration on the matter.
The resolution, as introduced by the hon. member today, is extremely broad, but the intention of it is to provide people who are disabled and unable to earn their own living with a pension. The phrase used in the resolution is:
-who are incapacitated and unable to earn their living, regardless of age.
This phrase is open to some criticism, but I am going to regard the resolution as favouring the principle of providing pensions to people who are unable to earn their own livelihood or who cannot be rehabilitated. These people are classed as totally and permanently disabled. Under these conditions, I am going to favour the resolution, and I think that the introduction of legislation along these lines will be a real advance and extension of our social security. It would fill a very serious gap. Public assistance is given to these individuals, and I will cite some forms this assistance takes. It takes the form of pensions under existing legislation. First in this class, I would put the veterans *legislation. Secondly, I would place benefits under mothers' allowance; then workmen's compensation and care in institutions for those who are chronically ill; homes for the aged; and hospitals, especially those hospitals for incurables. Lastly, there is the matter of direct relief from municipalities.
It is unfortunate that in Canada there is a grave lack of institutions of this character, especially of institutions for those who are chronically ill or incapacitated or even those who are classed as incurables. Very often people who are in this class are unable to procure any type of accommodation. Any person who has had any experience in trying to place a person who is incapacitated or totally disabled in some form of institution will understand that there is great difficulty in obtaining accommodation.
988	HOUSE OF
Pensions for Disabled Persons There is grave difficulty in obtaining an institution which is qualified and which can provide that type of accommodation. I am constantly receiving letters with regard to the matter which has been raised by the hon. member today in his resolution; and I am sure that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) also receives such letters. These letters usually take the same form. They inquire about the possibility of a pension for some member of the family who is disabled. I receive letters from parents who unfortunately have an invalid in their family, where the parents are becoming old and are worried about what will happen to the invalid when they pass out of this world. One can understand anxiety of this type when the parents, owing to the age they have attained, look forward to the future and wonder what is going to become of a son or daughter who is disabled and unable to earn a living. I have had personal experience in trying to place some of these people and I assure the house that, while the number of these cases is not large, there is still that difficulty in obtaining accommodation.
This brings us back again to the question of either hospitals for those who are chronically ill or hospitals where completely disabled people may receive some measure of care. I am proud that my native province of Ontario was the first of the provinces in Canada to introduce legislation of the type suggested by the hon. member in his resolution; and although legislation of this type has been in force for only a short time in Ontario, the benefits are becoming apparent and have been received as a blessing by those who are entitled to them.
When a measure such as that suggested by the hon. member is introduced consideration must be given to persons who are a burden not only to themselves but to their families and often to the community. Without financial assistance these people face a serious problem, and the financial burden is probably greater than the husband, the wife, the parents or the relatives can bear, and perhaps the community cannot give adequate financial help. Legislation of the type proposed in the resolution would alleviate these conditions, and the disabled person would have a measure of independence and would be able to pay his own way.
There will, of course, be certain limits with regard to incapacity and inability to earn a living, and these limitations will have to be defined. The definition of words like "incapacity" and "disabled" will involve some measure of difficulty, but a clear definition can be found if we study what has happened in the United States. In 32 states legislation of this type has been passed; but in those 

states rehabilitative or restorative treatment has not always been considered as part of the program. We are aware that at present a rehabilitative program is receiving some study in this country and we can consider the resolution as affecting those who have never participated in the labour forces.
Let me give some of the definitions of some of the states with regard to disability and incapacity. I will take first the state of Illinois in which the following definition has been approved:
An individual has a permanent disability when he has a physical or mental impairment, (1) irreversible or (2) progressive and not amenable to treatment, or (3) requires treatment which is extremely hazardous or of questionable benefit. The disability is considered total when it constitutes a complete handicap in relation to useful occupations within the individual's competence.
Then as to the state of Utah, I quote from their definition of permanently and totally disabled:
That the individual has some physical or mental impairment, disease or loss that substantially precludes him from engaging in useful occupations within his competence, such as holding a job or homemaking.
These are definitions that we shall have to study when we prepare for this type of legislation. Let me read the definition given by the state of Wisconsin:
A totally and permanently disabled person is a person found by medical authority to be so totally and permanently disabled physically as to require constant and continuous care.
That sounds like a really good definition. The state of Michigan grants aid to disabled persons under the following definition:
A disabled person is one who has a physical or mental impairment which cannot be corrected within the foreseeable future and who by reason of such impairment is unable, without help of any person, to carry on the minimum of activity essential to daily living as determined by the state social welfare commission.
The state of Vermont defines a disabled person as follows:
Crippled persons have been legally defined as persons crippled by the loss of limbs which prevents them from performing the necessary work to earn their maintenance when such crippled condition is due to the impairment or loss of function of motor or muscular activity due to disease or injury affecting muscles, joints or nerves.
It will be noted that there is a wide variation in the definitions of what comprises a totally disabled and incapacitated person, as witness the different definitions in the 32 states in the United States where legislation of this type has been introduced. But in all of those states it will be noted that they have restrictive definitions and generally do not consider restorative or rehabilitative treatment as part of their program. It is extremely difficult to estimate the number requiring such assistance. The rates in Canada

for disability and invalidity could not be considered accurate when estimating the number of cases. One must take into account the number of cases receiving assistance under such conditions as workmen's compensation or veterans' allowances.


James Joseph McCann: May I ask a question?


William Gourlay Blair: Yes.


James Joseph McCann: Has the hon. member the Ontario definition?


William Gourlay Blair: The Ontario definition is "totally and permanently disabled."


James Joseph McCann: But what is the explanation of "totally and permanently disabled"?


William Gourlay Blair: A person is totally and permanently disabled-I am not quoting now but this is my interpretation-if there is not hope of recovery or if the disability is such as to preclude them from ever engaging in any form of gainful employment. That would be my definition. I have not inquired into the two words that are used, but those two words come into the Ontario act, and that has been my interpretation.
I was saying that as to workmen's compensation and veterans' allowances the number of persons who are benefiting under such forms of care would also have to be considered. The government of Australia has an insurance plan for invalidity, and the incidence in that country is 9 per thousand of population. I have not the incidence in the province of Ontario, for which the minister might ask, but the incidence in Australia under present conditions is 9 per thousand population. That might be a higher rate than we have in Ontario because there may be some difference with regard to social security legislation already in existence in Ontario as compared with that in Australia. Also Australia may have a higher rate than the province of Ontario on account of the number of people who receive care in hospitals and institutions. But when this plan was first started in Australia-and I think that was in the year 1910-the eligibility requirements were extremely generous and the number of recipients was estimated at the beginning of the plan to be two or three persons per thousand population. The program at present is wide in its scope and they have also had the experience of having an act that has been in force since 1910. The act in Australia is much wider in the coverage of cases than is the plan in existence in Ontario at the present time. However, there is this difference to be noted, as I said before. There may be in existence certain types of
Pensions for Disabled Persons legislation of the nature that I have suggested, like workmen's compensation and mothers' allowances which exist in Ontario, but which do not exist in Australia.
It would be rather difficult at the present time to obtain statistics from Great Britain regarding the coverage of cases, because it might be bound up with the national health plan which does exist in England. The program of aid to the disabled came into existence in the United States in October, 1950. In that country the federal government and the states share the cost 50 per cent each.
We could also give consideration to meeting the needs of disabled persons who reside with their families or with their relatives, and for whom the relatives provide care and maintenance. In some of these cases there is no doubt that the family is financially able to maintain the disabled person, but there are other cases where it places a severe strain upon the family and upon the financial reserves of either the relatives or the family. In these cases, if a disabled allowance were granted it would assist the disabled person to pay his own way, and it would allow him to retain his independence. In most of the cases of disability under consideration these people require constant and continuous care. It is not necessary that these people be placed in hospitals, because the acute phase of the disease, or the accident which has caused the disability, is passed. The patient may be cared for in his own home, and thus save expense to the relatives who cannot meet the expense of maintaining a case in the hospital.
There is no doubt that many of these cases are still remaining in some of the hospitals because the relatives have not had the money to meet the expense of maintaining them in their home. I point out that the maintenance in a home of a person who is physically disabled creates a problem, owing to the lack of facilities for nursing care and of the expenses involved.
There are certain physical disabilities which are caused by, or included in, some of the following diseases or injuries. I suggest some of these cases to the house for the purpose of clarifying the situation and to point out the need of these cases for special care. Hon. members will recognize, from the list that I am going to give, the urgent necessity of dealing with some of these things. I place in the first class various forms of paralysis, probably acquired in childhood, such as poliomyelitis or infantile paralysis and spastic conditions. I place also in this list diseases like cancer, injuries to the spine, probably by accident and not covered by workmen's compensation or insurance, or they may have

Pensions for Disabled Persons been born with some of these disabilities. Arthritis is a crippling disease. At the present time I think of one case which I saw the other day, which would come into this class, and which I think a pension would benefit greatly. Then there are various forms of amputations. Some of these can be rehabilitated. Then there are severe types of heart disease. Oftentimes the patient has no money and is unable to care for himself. It is a chronic condition and a pension would help these people a great deal. There are certain classes of epileptics, although there are epileptics who are taking their place in industry with guarded machinery, and are really doing a good job. There are others who are unable to earn their livelihood. I list these disabilities and I give the house these examples. I again emphasize the fact that many of these disabilities require almost constant care. A pension would meet the needs of a person who is disabled and it would be a great help to the family or to other people who have had to assume the care of these disabled persons. Municipalities give direct relief, but even this form of care cannot be considered satisfactory.
In previous debates on this resolution, or a similar one, in this house I have never heard a dissenting voice. Physically and mentally handicapped patients should receive care. That has been recognized by the house in all previous debates. It will be an advance in the field of social security, and I think people generally will recognize it as a necessary act. I have always felt that people who are disabled, such as those we have been speaking about and who have not had the benefit of good health, who may be physically handicapped and unable to maintain themselves, should be placed in the welfare group. When the Old Age Security Act was passed we recognized the needs of our aged people. It is possible that some of these people have never been and are not now physically handicapped. There is a great gap in our social security program and especially for those people who are handicapped, who will never be able to work and who have no hope for the future as far as a cure of their disability is concerned. I plead with the government that, since this resolution is before the house once again, we close this gap and that physically and mentally handicapped people be given an opportunity for better care.
This resolution has always met with the approval of the house on previous occasions. I have never heard one hon. member dissent from it and say that he was not in favour of it, but invariably it has been talked out. We should have a statement from the minister today telling us where he stands on this


matter, and whether he is prepared to give these deserving people a pension and to take them into the welfare group.


Mr. William Bryce (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I want to support this resolution. I cannot discuss it from a legal point of view nor from the medical point of view. I can discuss it only as a dirt farmer. I know it would be a tremendous benefit to many people in this country who are unable to earn their own living. On many occasions we have had representations from different organizations who have spoken for people who were unable to earn their own livelihood. We know of men and women who have had children who have never grown up. They have been a drain on their parents during the whole of their lives. When the old folks get up in years their greatest concern is, what is going to happen to their offspring who have not been able to look after themselves. As I understand this resolution, it would take care of these poor people.
Then we have a group of people between the ages of fifty and sixty-five-mostly women, I think-who, when they reach that age, are worn out and are unable to provide for themselves. This resolution would take them in and do something for them. I know a lady in my constituency who has worked all the days of her life scrubbing floors in a large hotel, and doing that kind of work. During that time she has paid into the unemployment insurance fund. When she reached the age of fifty she was not able to get down on her knees to scrub floors. She applied for unemployment insurance. They said: "Well, have you lost your job?" She said, "No, I have not lost my job but I was sick and unable to work." They said, "We cannot do anything for you." I think this resolution would take care of people like that. It would provide them with something for a rainy day. I would hope that what would be paid would be not less than what an old age pensioner gets.
Then the question always comes up: Can we afford it? This government and previous governments have always found the money for anything worth while. I do not think there will be any trouble about that. If you explain to the people what a tax is for, if it is something legitimate and really needed you will have their support. So we would have no trouble getting taxes to pay for it.
The resolution deals to some extent with the federal and provincial governments. I hope that there will be no passing of the buck as there has been in other cases. When the act or the amendment to the act is brought in I hope that there will be no room for any misunderstanding and that these people will get this as of right.

I do not want to take up any more time this afternoon except to say that I am sure the rest of my group are behind me in supporting this resolution. I hope the minister will make a statement and tell us just how far he is prepared to go in making this resolution a reality, and that we can have a vote on it to see what is the view of the house. In my years here I have never found anyone who was against a resolution of this kind.


Mr. F. D. Shaw (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I consider this resolution to be one of extreme importance. We welcome an opportunity of again expressing our views. On previous occasions we have sponsored similar resolutions and have brought forward the matter time and time again during debate. I repeat, we welcome this opportunity of offering our unanimous support.
The hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor) is to be commended for having sponsored the resolution. Because he is an esteemed and conscientious member of this house, because he is a Liberal member of this house, we trust that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) already has sent word forth among Liberal members to give this resolution their unqualified support.
I well recall that when we served on the old age security committee in 1950 this matter kept coming forward time and time again. While we were not authorized under the terms of reference to deal specifically with the handicapped, we found it virtually impossible to keep a consideration of these persons out of the committee. I am quite confident that when we submitted our findings to this house we had them in mind. I should like to refer to finding No. 9, reported on page 101 of the report of the joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons on old age security. Speaking of premature ageing and invalidity the committee asserted:
The reverse of the problem of retaining older workers in the labour market is that presented by the prematurely aged and invalids who are obliged to retire from employment before their normal time. The committee has been deeply impressed by the evidence presented as to the position in which invalids and incurables find themselves at present. It has also received representations from organizations representing the blind, and blindness is, of course, part of the total problem of invalidity. The committee has felt, however, that the terms of reference established for it ruled out the possibility of a detailed examination of this problem as it applies to the younger age group.
Finding No. 23 is reported on page 103 of the report. This is headed "Other Claims to Priority" and reads:
Finally, in its study of the old age security systems in effect in other countries, and in its
Pensions for Disabled Persons consideration of the evidence presented by representative Canadian organizations and individuals, the committee has had to keep constantly in mind the place of old age in an over-all social security program. While the terms of reference of the committee have limited its study to the specific field of old age security, it has not felt it advisable to overlook the fact that there are other areas of social need in which governments, both provincial and federal, may be called upon to take in the future a substantial measure of responsibility.
I repeat that time and time again during the deliberations of that committee we heard from members representing all parties in the committee that the time had come when something specific and concrete should be done for persons who are incapacitated and as a consequence unable to provide for themselves.
The national advisory committee on the rehabilitation of the disabled estimates that there are approximately 150,000 people in Canada of working age who are victims of accident and disabling illnesses, including mental illnesses and so forth, and who are in dire need of support. I am not unmindful of the fact that some action has been taken toward providing rehabilitation services. Possibly I could go so far as to say that considerable action has been taken with respect to that one aspect of the problem. In looking over the report of the Department of National Health and Welfare for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1951, I notice that reference is made to the fact that during the course of the year activities in the field of rehabilitation were directed primarily towards preparations for the national conference on the rehabilitation of disabled persons which took place in Toronto during the first three days of February, 1951. Let us not forget that that is almost two years ago. It states here that the conference was scheduled originally to take place during May in the previous year but was postponed for certain very good reasons.
I notice in the report that the conference, which carried on its deliberations through two working committees, one dealing with vocational guidance, training and placement of handicapped persons and the other with the medical aspects of rehabilitation, approved a large number of resolutions. It recommended that the federal government appoint a full-time co-ordinator of rehabilitation activities in Canada and that a national advisory committee be established to co-ordinate the work of rehabilitation planning.
I noted when examining a recent issue of the Labour Gazette that reference was made to this problem of rehabilitation. On page 1566 of the December, 1952, issue of the Labour Gazette, under the heading "National Plan for Rehabilitation of Civilian Handicapped

Pensions for Disabled Persons being Drafted", it is stated that the national advisory committee would hold another meeting in September of 1952. I was deeply interested in the reported comments of some of those who are members of the national advisory committee. Dr. G. Fred McNally, who is chairman of the committee, stated that the period of broad examination of the problem was over. Once again I should like to emphasize that he said that the period of broad examination was over and that the time had come for positive action on specific objectives. To quote his exact words, he said:
The committee must live up to the expectations of thousands of Canadians, physically handicapped and unable to work, who look hopefully to it for efforts which will ultimately help them to a full, useful and productive life.
I also notice that Mr. Ian Campbell, national co-ordinator of rehabilitation, said, speaking of his trips to various provinces of Canada:
Wherever I went people, working with the handicapped, appeared to be encouraged by the fact that we now have a national headquarters for rehabilitation, and that the government of Canada has taken action in this field.
I stated earlier that I wanted to emphasize the fact that I fully realized that work, effective work I believe, has been going on for two years in the field of rehabilitation. Before I leave this point may I add that Mr. Campbell, in speaking of the objectives, asserted:
__money is not spent on the rehabilitation of the
handicapped. It is invested in their future.
I think that is absolutely correct. He says:
Who can doubt the wisdom of a program that makes the dependent independent, makes the nonproducer a producer and makes consumers of wealth creators of wealth?
I stated that was my last reference but I find that I desire to make one more. I wish to refer to three resolutions adopted by the committee last September. Here is the first one:
A broadening of the Canadian vocational training scheme so that handicapped persons may obtain academic and pre-vocational training needed for specific employment.
I am going to inquire of the minister exactly what action has been taken up to the present time with respect to these resolutions. The first one to which I have made reference has to do with a broadening of the Canadian vocational training scheme so that handicapped persons may obtain the academic and pre-vocational training needed for specific employment. I should like to know what has been done. After all, these recommendations were made last September. Here is the second one:
Organization of the rehabilitation program at the provincial level but with federal grants for such aspects as medical care, training and placement.


We are vitally concerned about this matter and I think the minister should indicate to us whether anything has been done with respect to that resolution. In the third place they made the following recommendation:
A "pilot" survey on the physically handicapped now registered for work with the national employment service in Montreal.
Possibly the minister could indicate in the course of his observations whether that survey has been made or is under way. If it has been completed, then I believe the results should be made known to us. I certainly desire to commend the national advisory committee for the work which I know they have done in this field. I also wish to commend the Department of National Health and Welfare and the minister and his officers for what has been done in this respect. I hope that the minister is able to report progress in keeping with the spirit which I am told prevailed throughout the meetings of the national advisory committee.
That deals with one aspect of the problem only, the rehabilitation of those who are capable of rehabilitation, but it does not solve the whole problem by any stretch of the imagination. I stated a moment ago that, according to the advisory committee, there are 150,000 people of working age in Canada who are, using the broad general term, incapacitated. Let us not delude ourselves into believing that, because the report speaks of them as being of working age, they are capable of working. I do not know what percentage of this group would be incapable of working. Only a comprehensive survey would provide that answer.
I should also like to know if any information has been procured with respect to the number of persons who may be incapacitated but who cannot be included within that group of working age, which I presume may be from 16 to 60 years of age. We have that other group of wholly incapacitated persons. I am not so concerned about the difficulty, if there is one, in ascertaining the degree of incapacitation because I know that so far as veterans are concerned under the Pension Act there is a medical board with a competent medical staff, and they are presumed to be in a position to ascertain whether a man is suffering from a 10 per cent disability or 100 per cent disability. I cannot see why a similar committee, board, oi; whatever you want to call it, staffed with competent medical men, cannot do just as competent a job with respect to our incapacitated people.
I realize that certain incapacitated persons have been taken care of. I realize fully that when the old age security measure was introduced we brought into that group certain

incapacitated persons. I realize that we brought a great many incapacitated persons into the Old Age Assistance Act. As indicated by the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Blair), I realize fully that in some instances widows' pensions are provided under mothers' allowances acts and that under other measures we have taken care of a number of them. However, I have to take issue mildly with him so far as taking care of them under unemployment insurance is concerned, because my understanding is that once you become physically incapacitated you can qualify for no benefits whatsoever. I think that was just a slip on the part of the hon. member for Lanark.
We feel that at this particular time, Mr. Speaker, two years after the national advisory committee had its first meeting, and possibly many years after the Department of National Health and Welfare began to look into this matter, we should have a fairly comprehensive and up-to-date report from the minister during the discussion of this resolution. We have in Canada an association of incurables. I want to pay my tribute to the executive members of that association, and particularly to Miss Eva Warden, who took the initiative in organizing these persons into an association. To those of us who saw them here a couple of years ago, most of them in wheelchairs, it was a pathetic sight. They were not asking for charity. They were asking for a place in our general field of social welfare. They were asking for an opportunity for those possessed of any physical or mental ability to be able to engage in productive enterprises.
I realize fully the importance of that field, but in discussing the matter with them I have also come to realize that they recognize that there is one very serious problem that must be taken care of right now, the problem of those who are wholly incapacitated. I know that representatives of the association of incurables have met the minister. They have indicated to me that he has always given them a very courteous reception but their efforts have not always culminated in the end result for which they were hoping. However, I think he gave them courage and hope. Of course the minister is capable of doing that without too much effort. Nevertheless I still have a good deal of confidence that it will not be too long before their wishes will be fully realized. I do not know whether or not they have seen the minister recently. If not, conceivably they have arranged to see him. I have the idea that they probably will. I have before me their resolution, which I shall not read, but it indicates clearly and definitely that they feel 68108-63
Pensions for Disabled Persons that pensions are a most necessary part of whatever general program is adopted to take care of the problem of the incurable.
I am going to take my lead from the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor). I realize fully that one could talk on and on with respect to a matter of this kind, but let me conclude with this one observation, that, while I know that we should soon be giving consideration to certain amendments to the Old Age Security Act, the Old Age Assistance Act and the Blind Persons Act, I am conscientiously of the opinion that before we do more in those particular fields-where we have at least done something for those people-we should do something for those incurables. That is particularly so for those who are incapable of earning a living.
Now, I do not want that statement to be misconstrued. I am not wholly satisfied with all aspects of our old age security program or our old age assistance program, but I do feel that if we are going to move forward at all with respect to social welfare we should move in this direction and make some provision for these people-so that we can thus bring into their lives some ray of hope. They have waited a long time. They have been patient-and I think the minister will confirm that statement. While I did not sit in on any of their conferences with him, I dare say they were modest in the form of their presentations before him. I trust that before too long they will be able to say that the minister in the past has demonstrated his concern and brought results in other fields of social welfare and has now done the same thing for them.


Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I agree completely with the principle expressed in this resolution, which is to pay a $40 a month pension to all people who, through disability, are no longer able to earn their own living. After all, it is exactly the same principle as that embodied in the Old Age Security Act, which assumes that when a person reaches the age of 70 they are no longer able to earn their own living and are, therefore, entitled to a pension.
Now, if a person has a disability which cannot be cured, and if that incurable disability is such that the person cannot be taught a trade which will enable him to continue to earn his own living and provide for his family, then I firmly believe that person should be assisted by the government in the form of a pension.
However, I believe that the very first thing to do is to try to cure that disability, and, failing that, to try to teach that person a
994	HOUSE OF
Pensions for Disabled Persons trade. This will require a well planned and well carried out rehabilitation program, both physical and occupational.
Now, an example of a physical rehabilitation case is that of a man who is only suited to do heavy manual work and who develops a bad hernia. If the hernia is not cured, the man is prevented from continuing to earn his living, and he simply has to remain in idleness. However, if it is made possible for that man to have an operation for that hernia and it can be cured, he can continue to earn his own living.
An example of an occupational rehabilitation case is where a man loses his sight. In a great many cases that man can be taught to handle his old job by the use of guards and aids supplied to him by the Canadian National Institute for the Blind. If that is impossible owing to the nature of his old job, then the great likelihood is that he can be taught a new trade. That sort of thing is going on all the time where opportunities are provided for the Canadian National Institute for the Blind to step in and carry out their very excellent work.
Those are only two examples of what can be done to make it possible for those who have become incapacitated, by accident or disease, to continue to earn their own living. I am firmly convinced that no worth-while person wants charity or to continue in idleness. What they do want is to be able to continue to earn their own living and to retain their independence. I believe that a well planned and well executed rehabilitation program, worked out in co-operation with the provinces, will, in the great majority of cases, make this a reality.
It is well known to all of us that at the end of the last war a very great number of disabled veterans were either taught a new trade or taught how to continue with their old trade despite their disability. I believe that if this same kind of program is carried on on the same kind of scale throughout Canada, a great many more people in industry would be able to continue to earn their own living than is today the case.
I believe it is the responsibility of the federal government to work out with the provinces such a rehabilitation program, and I very much hope that the rehabilitation committee, which has been in operation now for a year, is steadily working toward that end. Like the member for Red Deer (Mr. Shaw), I am looking forward very much to hearing a report from the minister today on the progress of that committee.
I believe that a rehabilitation program such as I have outlined would ensure that


all disabled persons would have the right, which I believe should be the right of every citizen of this country, to have the opportunity to cure their disability and, failing that, to learn a trade by which they can continue to earn their own living and remain independent. In cases where that is absolutely impossible, I believe that the government should ipay those people a disability pension equal to the old age pension.
As the member for Lanark (Mr. Blair) pointed out this afternoon, the Ontario government has given a very good lead in matters of that kind. Since the first of January of last year, they have been paying a disability pension of $40 a month to disabled people. This has provided very much needed relief to a large number of disabled people, and I believe that is the kind of thing we should aim at here in this parliament. I believe that the federal government should co-operate with the provinces and make this kind of pension available to all permanently disabled Canadians.
I earnestly urge the minister to see that steps are taken to make this a reality at the earliest possible opportunity.


Mr. J. S. Sinnoit (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, I wish at this time to congratulate the member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor) on bringing in this resolution. We have both worked towards bringing in a resolution of this kind for some considerable time. I believe the last time I spoke on a resolution similar to this was on March 7 last. I also spoke about this in the year before.
I would like to have the resolution which I have on the order paper coupled with this resolution, Mr. Speaker, so that it will save the time of the house. My resolution reads: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should take into early consideration the advisability of including in their social security program the payment of pensions or maintenance allowances, equal and similar to blind pensions, for the unfortunate crippled people of Canada.
If these two resolutions are coupled I am sure they will be considered by the government. Whatever decision the government makes will be influenced by the way in which the parties of this house agree to such legislation.
In this day and age, when there are pensions for people who are not nearly as deserving as these unfortunates, I think the time has come when we will have to do something. Having been nearer (to the people than I am here in the House of Commons, having been the reeve of a municipality for some ten years, I have had the opportunity of going into many homes where people were

not able to earn a dollar for themselves. I certainly realize the stresses and strains which can be put on families who have to depend on the allowance given out by rural municipalities. The municipalities have to depend for their revenue on land taxes, and in these times the municipalities are finding it very difficult to obtain additional revenue for things of this kind.
I represent seven different municipalities in the constituency of Springfield, and there are approximately five of these cases in every municipality. Since there are about 175 municipalities in Manitoba, this would mean that some 875 people would be benefited by such legislation. The municipalities would benefit also in not being charged for this relief. There is no doubt but that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) has gone a very long way in bringing help to many people in Canada, but I believe this is also a problem which the dominion should handle. It is something that should be thoroughly considered. The dominion government takes full responsibility for the returned soldiers, and I am sure that when this problem is thoroughly considered it will be found that these unfortunate people should not be the care of the province but should be the responsibility of the dominion.
We are asked where the money will come from. A few years ago people thought that the introduction of family allowances would break the country. Since that time it has been found that these allowances stimulate buying power. I believe that money for this purpose can be found in the same way as it was found for family allowances. If cheques were issued to these needy people by the dominion government, it would create buying power for others who have the capacity to produce.
Like the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor), I do not wish to speak at length on this matter. I want to see this motion come to a vote. I hope the other members in the house will see fit to terminate their speeches before six o'clock so that a vote can be taken.


Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):: I am not going to speak at any length either, Mr. Speaker. I believe most of the members of this house who have had any experience in the municipalities realize the necessity for the legislation proposed in this resolution. The resolution asks for a pension for incapacitated people, and I am not going to couple the question of rehabilitation of the handicapped with it because I think that is a separate problem. I am glad the resolution has been moved by a government member. I believe the last time it was before the house 68108-631
Pensions for Disabled Persons it was moved by a government member. Apparently they have done some thinking about it in the last few years; at least they should have. I am disappointed in the fact that nothing has been done other than think about it. There has been no legislation, and no indication of legislation.
So far as the minister is concerned, I am reasonably sure of his opinion on this matter. I am sure also that he has not been able to persuade the treasury board, or something like this would have been provided along with old age security. This particular type of legislation, Mr. Speaker, would fill in the gaps in our social security program. There is a very wide gap there, and perhaps the most pathetic sight in our country is the people who would benefit by this legislation. In my own riding I have about 84,000 people. The constituency covers an area of about 14 miles, and when I am at home I sit in the middle of it. I see a great many people who would come within the provisions of such legislation as is proposed here. It is a sad sight, and it is difficult to have to tell most of these people, when they come to talk to you about their problem, that the only relief provided is by the municipality.
I am thinking particularly at this time of the women in the age group 50 to 65. There is a fifteen-year gap there. I am thinking of the women who raised families and contributed sons and grandsons to the armed services. The average woman living in a home on an average income has had a rather tough life. While she may not be a paraplegic, as defined by the medical people, she is incapacitated to the extent that she has broken down prematurely under the pressure of maintaining a home on an inadequate income. Such people finish up without even a home; with no income and requiring medical attention. These people are not being helped by the provincial government either. There is no provincial legislation under which they can be helped. I have placed hundreds of cases in the hands of the provincial welfare department, only to be told that there was no provincial legislation under which these people could be helped. They become a charge on the bankrupt municipalities. Most of the municipalities across this country are bankrupt, or very nearly bankrupt. It is there that these people must seek relief, and there is no relief there for them.
Think of an old lady between 60 and 65 who comes in and tells you her pathetic story. She has no home, and has been living with friends and neighbours. Some of them are diabetics and require insulin every day, which is a costly process. Then we have to

Pensions for Disabled Persons tell them that there is no relief provincially; there is none nationally, so they have to go over to the relief committee of the municipality. When they go there they are told, "We have not the funds to care for you." It is nearly time we reached the point of doing something about it.
Then there is the case of the paraplegic, the person who is permanently crippled. Many of them are born that way, and many are crippled by injury or the lack of medical attention. A while ago there was a pilgrimage here, and I am sure all members recall the gallery full of wheelchairs that we had exhibited in order to emphasize the necessity of doing something for these people. Many of these people sit alone in lonesome silence. Others have the problem of raising funds for the care of chronic illnesses and diseases, and some are being supported by recipients of the old age security pension. There is a considerable burden there.
I believe the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Shaw) placed the number of these people at 150,000. Perhaps quite a number could be weeded out if you followed a definition of "incapacitated". There would not be very much money involved. I believe the government should, at this time, consider doing something for them. Now, the government may not want to pass a national pension act or make money available to the provinces, in view of the fact that this is a municipal responsibility. From a provincial standpoint, Ontario is doing something about the matter, as is Saskatchewan, so we would not have those provinces to contend with. I think Alberta does something, too. If the minister would take under consideration the problem of checking with the municipalities across the country as to the number of incapacitated people they have who would be affected by this kind of legislation, and making grants in aid to the municipalities to supplement their income, so the matter could be administered from there, I think it would be a good thing. As to a municipality that could take care of itself, you would not have to help it. But if, instead of making a grant in aid of that kind to the province, which involves more administrative cost, it was given to the municipality where it could be handled directly, in my opinion you would save a great deal of money that would be wasted in administration if it went to the province. I think something like that could be done for immediate relief without raising the whole question of another pension.
But I think the final answer to the thing is this. What Canada needs is an over-all social security act. With the piecemeal legislation that we have now, including old age
IMr. Gillls.l

assistance by the provinces, pensions to the incapacitated in Ontario and some of the other provinces; with the millions of dollars that are collected by charitable organizations across this country for the purpose of supposedly helping people of this type, in my opinion the money wasted in administration and in the duplication of machinery would more than pay for a pension to people in this category. I think the government has got to get around fairly soon to the establishment of an over-all social security act whereby you can take in your old age pensioners, your old age assistance recipients and your incapacitated people, and buttress all that with an over-all health program. Definitely the biggest item in this type of legislation is the medical cost which has to be borne by these people without any income. I believe an over-all act administered by the national government and handled from here would have the effect of cutting the administration cost you have now across this country in duplicated services. I think you would save enough money to pay for this pension by tidying up all your social security measures in one over-all act.
I know the minister is just straining at the leash to get to his feet and tell us that his department has given this matter a great deal of consideration and that within the foreseeable future the necessary legislation will be brought down to take care of this particular problem.


Mr. C. W. Hodgson (Victoria, Onl.):: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to take up much time. I am anxious that this resolution come to a vote and am still more anxious that it become legislation as soon as possible. I happen to have three cases in my own village in which, as a result of the act that is now in force in the province of Ontario, these people have been taken off the relief rolls of a burdened municipality. I think the same thing will apply in many cases across the Dominion of Canada. Every one of us knows that our municipalities are burdened with taxes they can hardly bear; they cannot stand any more.
This is necessary legislation, and it is going to take some of the weight off the municipalities as well as being of benefit to those who will receive assistance. For instance, a totally disabled person is bound to be on the relief rolls in 90 per cent of the cases. In my municipality in the province of Ontario they receive approximately $4 a week. That is a meagre handout to anybody who is on his back and unable to work and earn a living. I see that the resolution suggests a pension equal to the old age pension

so this legislation, if it came in, would provide a pension of approximately $40 a month. That would be a grand idea. It would be a grand help to those in need. I thank you for the opportunity of making these few remarks.


Mr. R. R. Knight (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker, I think everything that can be said in support of this resolution has been said, and I am glad that everything that has been said has been in support of it. I should simply like to endorse what has been said and to register my support also. I am impelled to do that by representations which have been made to me by individuals and by organizations, and indeed by my own inclinations. I think we have long passed the day of the doctrine of the survival of the fittest with regard to the care of these incapacitated people. As to those who are blind, we have assumed our responsibility although I think perhaps we have not gone far enough yet. The abolition of the means test with regard to pensions for the blind would seem to be the next logical step that we might take.
We have seen members of an organization of incapacitated or incurable people. You will probably remember, Mr. Speaker, that we had them with us here some time ago. A year or two ago they came to see us in our offices. At that time I was impressed by the lightness of spirit and the brilliance of mind displayed by many of these people. They are capable of some constructive and useful work. As a matter of fact, many are doing some now. But to ask them to compete in the open labour market of the country is simply cruel and inhuman.
In the days of my youth such people were the recipients of private charity. They were looked after by their relations as best those relations could afford to do that duty or else -which was a good deal worse-they were the recipients of public charity. In that type of charity it is certainly more blessed to give than to receive. When we occupy ourselves in charity we have a feeling of virtue which is its own reward and a certain warmth around the heart from the knowledge that we can help others less fortunate than ourselves.
But I suggest that it is often difficult for the recipients of either form of the charity which I have mentioned. I would suggest that we might give ourselves collectively as a nation, rather than individually, that warm feeling I have mentioned, and at the same time give to these people not only sustenance of their bodies which is needful to them but also something which in my opinion is just
Pensions for Disabled Persons as important, namely a spirit of independence of mind, so they would feel that they have some dignity and some right to live and to enjoy, to some extent at least, those things which are enjoyed by people physically more fortunate than themselves.


Mr.  W. Chester S. McLure@Queens: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to take up much time in speaking on this resolution; but having spoken on behalf of the incapacitated at each session from 1945 down to the present time, I wished to say a few words at this time. My purpose in rising is to endorse the principle of this resolution and to say to the minister, on behalf of the people I have the honour to represent, that they are looking to him now to bring in the legislation he considers to be necessary to carry into effect the request contained in this resolution.
That is all I have to say at the present time. We have listened to some excellent speeches on this matter not only today but in former years. I want to commend the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor) for introducing this resolution. I also wish to say that the learned doctor, the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Blair), has given us the medical side of it in language we can all understand.


Mr. Robert Fair (Battle River):: As one
who has been privileged to enjoy the very best of health during my lifetime, I want to give my wholehearted support to the resolution introduced by the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor). I have spoken on this matter on a number of occasions during the past four or five years. We have been put off the beam a little bit by the statement of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) that a survey was being made by the provinces in order to deal with this matter. I believe the survey has been completed, and we expect action at this session and no later.
Having spoken of my own good health and looking back over the years since I have been here, like many others I realize that because of conditions imposed upon me I have great difficulty in making a living for myself and my family. Having that in mind, I can realize very clearly the position in which these people who are physically handicapped find themselves, and also the position in which many of the people who are responsible for those incapacitated persons find themselves when they are unable to do very much for those unfortunate ones.
I feel that this legislation should be enacted during this session. I understand that a committee from the organization for the blind interviewed the Minister of National Health

Pensions for Disabled Persons and Welfare today. They asked for two things in particular, namely increasing the pension from $40 to $50 a month and removing the means test. I hope the minister will take cognizance of the representations that have been made to him and that he will see to it that this request is granted, and that before this session concludes, that is, that before we have another election he will get down to business and see that pensions at least equal to old age pensions are provided for those physically incapacitated.


Mr. W. J. Browne (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I notice that the proposer of this resolution speaks of the advisability of cooperating with the provincial governments. We have been informed here this afternoon that Ontario has an act which provides pensions for incapacitated persons, and I believe that similar legislation exists in the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan. It gives me great pleasure this afternoon to draw to the attention of hon. members the fact that in Newfoundland we have legislation dealing with this very subject. It was passed in December, 1949, nine months after the province came into confederation. Under that act a monthly allowance may be paid out of funds provided by the government-
-to adults or families who through mental or physical incapacity or other exigency are unable to provide in whole or in part by their own efforts or from income or other resources necessities essential to maintain or assist in maintaining a reasonably normal and healthy existence.
Incapacity is defined as-
-a condition of physical or mental illness or disability of such a nature as to render a person incapable of maintaining himself or his family and from which there is no reasonable prospect of recovery within a period of three months from the date of application for an allowance.
I am sure hon. members are familiar with cases of incapacitated persons, fathers or heads of families, who come to them and detail their sad circumstances. If there is no legislation of that kind on the statute books of the province, or if some provision is not made by the municipality, the situation is very desperate indeed. During the last couple of weeks, and especially during Christmas time, people came to me who had not gone through the right channels, and I was able to assist them and put them on the right track. They were not aware of this provision. I was able to assist them to get consideration from the dependents' allowances board, and they will get the pension during their incapacity.
My reason for taking part in this debate was chiefly to draw the attention of the house to the fact that Newfoundland, which is the youngest province, has legislation of this kind. At the same time I feel it is not

fair that a province-and this applies to all provinces except the two major ones-that has not the sources of revenue that the central government has, should have to bear this burden. The resolution refers to co-operating with the provinces. It seems to me that the funds to meet this liability should be provided by the central government.
I should not like to see any further extension of the power of the central government in regard to the examination of persons as to their qualifications for such an allowance or pension. I feel that it should be done by leaving the matter in the hands of the provinces with the central government providing the money.


Mr. J. W. Noseworthy (York South):: Mr. Speaker, like other members of the C.C.F. group I believe that the long-term solution of this problem lies in an over-all national health program. Nevertheless I am quite ready to support the measure before us, even though it be piecemeal legislation. After all, I suppose, one cannot expect those who support the Liberal party and the Liberal government to be Liberals in a hurry. They tell us that the Liberals who are in a hurry sit in this corner of the house.


Mr. Poulioi:: Why do you speak like that?


Mr. Diefenbaker:: The Prime Minister said that at one time.


Joseph William Noseworthy: I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we are making progress even though we are still under a Liberal government. There is a very excellent committee under the auspices of the minister's department known as the national advisory committee on the rehabilitation of the disabled, which is apparently getting down to the job of helping these people, helping them in the way of securing treatment to regain their health to the point where they can assist themselves, and also helping them in the matter of retraining. If one can judge by the recommendations which were passed at the last meeting of that committee one may conclude that it is on the road toward doing a reasonably good job. But notwithstanding all that is being done, there are still some very large gaps in our social security program, large gaps pertaining to these incurables.
In the first place, I can find no reliable estimate of just how many such people we have in this country, how many unemployable incurables there are in Canada. The bureau of statistics tell me that they are unable to find any estimate, and no effort has been made to acquire any accurate estimate of the number of these unemployable incurables. I notice that the Canadian association of the

incurables estimates that there are probably 48,000 unemployable incurables in the province of Ontario alone. I have no idea just how close that comes to the truth, but certainly the time has come when we should at least find out how many of these people there are in Canada. It would seem that we have not been too considerate of these people, in that we have not even tried to find out how many there are needing such assistance.	*
As has been pointed out already, at the last session of its legislature the province of Ontario introduced legislation to assist disabled persons. But here again is an example of how stupid government legislation can be. That act could do a good job with the minister in charge being in full sympathy with its provisions, but the regulations are that to be eligible to receive assistance under the act one must be both permanently and totally disabled. I have people in my riding who have been certified by the medical committee of the provincial department of public welfare to be permanently disabled, but because they can still dress themselves if given enough time and can struggle from one room in their house to another without having to be carried, they are not considered to be eligible for help under that act.
I am sorry the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe) is not present today, because one case has been brought to my attention which has been before the Department of Veterans Affairs and the provincial department of public welfare. This is an air force man 33 years of age, who had served four years and eight months in the air force. He is a victim of what the medical authorities call progressive muscular dystrophy. This means that he is gradually losing the use of all his muscles. He has not been able to work for over two years.
The Department of Veterans Affairs say that this disease is not the result of his service, that it was not brought on because of conditions experienced during service. The man states that while in the service he felt his hands becoming numb but did not report that to the medical officer. Therefore he receives no assistance or consideration from the Department of Veterans Affairs. The provincial department of public welfare cannot help him under the new act. While he is permanently disabled, while there is no known cure for his condition and no likelihood of his being able to work again, he is not considered to be totally disabled because he can walk to the toilet himself without having to be carried.
This simply illustrates how stupid some government legislation can be when it sets
Pensions for Disabled Persons out to help people. I suggest that any action which is taken to help these unfortunate people should provide for more generous regulations than those laid down by the government of Ontario in their new act. The time has certainly come when we should provide for those who cannot be cured or rehabilitated, and who must depend for support either upon relatives or the public generally. I sincerely support the measure before the house and hope the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) will be able to prevail upon his colleagues on the treasury benches to give the kind of help we are asking this afternoon.


Mr. J. H. Blackmore (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, it is not necessary to repeat the things which have been said already in support of this measure. I desire merely to make it known that I am heartily in support of this resolution and will vote for it. I think the case of Social Credit has been put forward quite adequately by former speakers.
I wish merely to point out that there is no conceivable reason why the implementation of what is called for in this resolution should entail any increased taxation. I believe at the present time this country is carrying as great a taxation burden as it should be called upon to carry. I submit that our ability to provide assistance such as is envisaged in this resolution should depend upon our ability to produce goods and services. Certainly no other view could be realistic.
The production of Canada in 1952 has been estimated at between $22 billion and $23 billion worth of goods and services. Surely it ought to be possible to provide the rather meagre assistance suggested by this resolution without adding to our taxation burden. With our production as great is it is, if we must increase our taxation in order to provide this amount of assistance to our people then it is clear that our financial system is unrealistic. We should therefore examine the possibility of learning how to do more of what is physically possible, by a reformation of our financial system.


Mr. G. M. Murray (Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to commend the hon. gentleman for bringing in this resolution. This is typical of the sort of thing he does in this house. His heart is all-out for people who are underprivileged and need assistance. This resolution is meant to assist a group of people in this country who greatly need assistance.
I agree with the hon. member that the work of the Minister of National Health and

Pensions for Disabled Persons Welfare (Mr. Martin) at the United Nations has been a great credit to himself and to Canada. We were all pleased to observe the manner in which he stood up against the delegates from Russia and other communist countries, how he engaged in debate with them and with his most courteous and able manner was able to hold his own and warrant the commendation of the press of the United States, certainly of this country, and of Great Britain and other countries.


An hon. Member:: What has this to do with the resolution?


George Matheson Murray: It has a lot to do
with it, because the voice of Canada was heard at the United Nations. The world was learning that Canada is a great and humane nation, and that in offering leadership to the rest of the world she was prepared to put her own house in good shape. You know what Robert Burns said, that if each before his ain door swept, the village would be clean. If by passing legislation such as is proposed in this resolution we show that in every sense we are a Christian nation, we will then be able to present a better claim for leadership before the world at the United Nations or any other conference or world parliament.
I want to say at the same time that taxation is very high in this country, and that there will be an unwillingness to add to that taxation; but the implementation of this resolution would not necessarily add very much to the amount of taxes the average person would pay. Canada has shown a very good example to the world in its care for aged people, its old age pension legislation, its mothers' allowances and the work that is being done in the field of health and welfare and hospitalization.
Turning from these matters, great work has been done in the field of labour through the abolition of child labour, the limiting of hours of work, improvement of conditions for workers, the introduction of the eight-hour day, and more recently the approach to the five-day week. As I have said before in the house, there is a possibility that we can travel too rapidly along these lines inasmuch as so many countries in the world do not have that sort of advanced legislation.
As we know, half our revenues today are being spent on defence to maintain armies and make ourselves strong together with our allies. Our men are in Korea and on the continent of Europe. They are learning that other countries on the face of the earth are not as well off as Canada and that other


countries face real problems in even maintaining a bare existence, let alone having the type of advanced legislation that we have in Canada.
So far as the old age measure is concerned, I believe an amendment should be introduced to permit pensioners to earn money in excess of their pension. I think it is a harsh thing to prevent these people from earning any money. In my opinion men of advancing years can offer great service to every community. I do not say that they should be engaged in industry generally, but I think our legislation could be amended in order to allow a man receiving the old age pension to work in any kind of industry which does not call for the use of machinery and power equipment of that kind. Masonry is a lost art in this country, and there are men of years who are skilled in this craft. They know how to take a rough rock, break it and make a beautiful wall, arch or doorway. There are others who know the mysteries of gardening and are skilled in landscape gardening. Why not permit them to enter into work of that kind? Let them engage in carving, woodwork and any kind of handicraft where machinery is not used.
Men of intelligence and advanced years know the beauties of the landscape. They understand the planting of trees and things of that kind. Why not employ such men in the forests to thin out underbrush, plant new trees and thus add to the wealth of our country? Many of them are men of art who are skilled in sculpture or music. Why not permit them to engage to the full limit of their ability in these occupations and thus add to their own income and certainly to the beauty and comfort of those about them? They would set a good example for the young people who are coming along. Many of our young people are so mechanically minded and so attached to the machine age that they are losing touch with the crafts, skills and arts that are so essential in any country.
By releasing men of advanced age to carry on such work we would be adding to the wealth of our country and certainly to its beauty. Then there is the field of invention. If an old man has skill in a certain line and has an inventive mind, why should he not be encouraged to pursue that hobby and gain any advantage he can derive from such inventions, the proceeds of which should be credited to him and not deducted from his pension? The same thing applies to women, who are so often skilled in the arts of needlecraft, weaving, the dyeing of textiles, household management, and so on. I think it would be a forward step.

People might very well go to the province of Quebec and study some of the homecrafts that are flourishing there. I had the opportunity of spending some time in that province not long ago, and of visiting some of the farmhouses. I admired the beautiful works of the hands of artistic people in carving, woodwork, the manufacture of household furniture, etc., all of which added to the beauty and delight of living in the rural communities of Quebec. I am ashamed to admit that I had to wait until now before visiting the province of Quebec. While I was there I was struck with the fact that a very prosperous civilization has existed there for all these centuries based upon land which, in the west and in Ontario where I was born, in very many cases would not be considered worth cultivating. Yet I found the nicest homes and the most flourishing communities in areas which had been deprived by nature of the fertility of soil which produces the abundance of the west, and the fertility to be found particularly in the valley areas of Ontario. It seemed to me that we really do not have to have fertile land and a luxuriance of natural production in order to have a strong and virile people. I was reminded of a story about Glengarry-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Is the hon.
member not getting away from the resolution?


George Matheson Murray: When I am speaking about Glengarry I am always in order in this house. The anecdote which I hope you will permit me to relate is a perfect illustration of what I have in mind with respect to the resolution. A city man from Montreal, brought up in the midst of the club life of St. James street and with all kinds of luxuries was driving his car through Glengarry county and he came to one of those rocky farms where you see a mile and a half of fence made out of field stone, and where the land has only three or four inches of topsoil. Inside the fence were a team of horses and a wagon, and a man who was lifting rocks and throwing them into the wagon. The city man paused on the roadside and looked at the impoverished field and the Glengarry fellow lifting the rocks and tumbling them into the wagon. He was a big redheaded chap, a Scotsman, I suppose-


An hon. Member:: It is a good job he was
not an Irishman.


George Matheson Murray: The Montreal man said, "What do you grow in that field? What can that field produce?" The Glengarry man picked up another rock bigger than any of the others, tumbled it into the wagon and said, "Men."
Pensions for Disabled Persons
If we pass a resolution such as my hon. friend has introduced this afternoon, we will make a much happier and much better future for a great number of men and women throughout the country-old men and old women. And to whom should we render service if it is not to those old people who have borne the burden in the heat of the day in one part or another of this country?
So I am all for the resolution and for the work that is being carried on, as I say, by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin); and I hope this resolution may pass this house.


Mr. Maurice Boisvert (Nicolet-Yamaska):: Mr. Speaker, if I rise to take part in this debate it is to reaffirm what I have said before in this house. In 1949, when taking part in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne I said this, and I am quoting from Hansard of September 16, page 19:
To increase social security, I would suggest to the government, if I may, that, in so far as our financial means allow, a pension plan be inaugurated for needy invalids. This would be looked upon favourably by the people of Canada.
Up to the present time, the government has provided for the blind, for the aged, for children; certain provinces grant pensions to needy mothers. The time has come to consider those poor unfortunates who, by accident or by birth, are crippled for life and gaze with sombre melancholy upon the happiness of others. A pension scheme designed to help them would ameliorate their plight. The kindness of the state would atone to some extent for the harshness of life.
There is no one more in favour of the resolution than I, and I would like to see it go through this chamber at the earliest possible time. When last I spoke in this house certain quarters seemed to put blame upon me because I spoke in English. I am glad to be able to say a few words in the course of our debates in the language of the majority of this house. In doing so I have the conviction that I am serving the best interests of my constituency, the best interests of my province and the best interests of Canada. (Translation):
Mr. Speaker, may I be allowed to go on in the French language, that language which I was originally taught and in which I continued my studies. Its clarity, its conciseness are such that we feel we must use it when the occasion requires it. I think that today is such an occasion when we must use the French language to ask the government of this country-all the governments of this country-to consider the unfortunate circumstances of those who have been incapacitated by some terrible accident or who were crippled at birth and are fated to remain so throughout their life.
1002

Pensions for Disabled Persons
Is their anything sadder than a visit to any of these charitable institutions where we find hundreds and thousands of human beings lying in pain, past expecting anything but what may come from Heaven, through their prayers, or from individual charity? The government of this country-all the governments of this country-must seek a solution to this problem, which is the problem of our sick and crippled people.
I admit that our latest old age pensions act takes care of approximately one-third of these unfortunate people. There still remain two-thirds comprising, so I am told, roughly between 50,000 and 60,000 persons awaiting government aid, that is aid from all the governments of this country.
They read in the newspapers and learn through the news and radio, besides being told by their relatives, that family allowances are being paid, that old age pensions are being given without a means test to all people 70 years of age, and that old age pensions are even granted to those who are 65 years of age. And they sadly ask themselves: When will our turn come?
I wish to congratulate the sponsor of this resolution. I also wish to congratulate him for having introduced such a resolution after the measures we have adopted in order to settle once and for all the case of our fellow citizens who are 70 years of age and more. This draft resolution is timely and necessary and all persons of good will in this house must rally behind the hon. member who has introduced it in order that this bill may become the law of the country.
However, in reading the notice of motion, I note that we are asked to consider:
-the advisability of co-operating with the provincial governments for the purpose of providing pensions, equal to old age pensions, for all those who are incapacitated and unable to earn their living, regardless of age.
It appears from the context of this resolution that the federal government cannot intervene, in spite of all its eagerness to do so, without obtaining first the co-operation of the provinces.
I remember that when family allowances were discussed in a certain province, it was argued in the legislature of that province that the legislation which the House of Commons intended to adopt in regard to family allowances was unconstitutional because it violated that section of the constitution which gives to the provinces the exclusive right of legislating in matters pertaining to education.

I understand that the enacting of legislation to assist incapacitated people would have no such scope. Still we must admit that it is impossible to arrive at practical conclusions without the co-operation of the provinces. There is nothing though to prevent us, the members of the House of Commons, from acting in such a way as to enlist the co-operation of the provinces in order to solve, once and for all, the problem of those unfortunate people who, languishing in hospital or staying with their families, often shed tears over their plight. There is something here that goes beyond a duty of public charity. We have adopted pension systems with a view to assisting those who were better off than these. We must look for a way, difficult though that may be, to make these unfortunate people-I hardly dare say the happiest people on earth, since we could never manage to do that-at least somewhat more comfortable, to alleviate their plight.
In conclusion I wish to thank the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Murray) for the kind thoughts and pleasant words he has had for the province of Quebec. The people of that province are attached to their traditions, history and way of life, but they are never happier than when they are sure that our fellow citizens from the other provinces understand them.
(Text):


Mr. S. R. Balcom (Halifax):: I should like to join the other members who have taken part in this debate by saying how pleased and happy we are that the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor) has introduced this resolution.


Mr. Knowles:: He wanted it voted upon.


Samuel Rosborough Balcom: Well, that may come. I am sure the hon. member for Fort William and the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Sin-nott) consulted each other in the preparation of their respective resolutions. By this time I believe we should all know that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) has always been very sympathetic and open to conviction when any appeals of this sort have been made to him. There have been very few of them, if any, that have not been received graciously.
I noticed that none of the speakers who preceded me suggested just how much assistance might be given, other than is conveyed in the resolution which broadly states that some pension should be provided. No one has suggested how it might be administered other than as a pension; and no one, of course, has suggested the cost. The cost perhaps may be the least of these factors.

In this matter of helping the incapacitated, the Department of National Health and Welfare has for years been making a generous contribution through assistance to hospitals, particularly children's hospitals. We all know that if some of the damage suffered by children is remedied early in life, the young people can grow up to be useful citizens and support themselves. Personally, I know that the children's hospitals in Nova Scotia, particularly the one in Halifax, are grateful for the assistance given. It has only been by reason of this assistance that they have been able to continue their work.
Social security has become a very popular phrase in recent years, Mr. Speaker. In the numerous discussions of this topic, social insurance has received the major emphasis and is sometimes considered the only issue, yet the gaps in our social service must not be overlooked. In referring to other measures, we sometimes refer to the means test which has become rather unpopular in Canada and other countries. However, the comments on the means test are unrealistic and impractical. If we think of the needs of the people and the ways in which those needs can be met within our economy, we must accept the fact that a government assistance plan based on a means test is an essential. Public assistance is recognized by all to be necessary until other social security measures are more practically and more adequately developed. In any period in the foreseeable future it will continue to be necessary. There will always have to be provision for the residue of those in need and for those who, for various technical reasons, are not eligible for other assistance.
Since there are those for whom specific provision is not made under insurance and other schemes we must, whether we like it or not, include a means test program in our provisions for those in need. I would presume that was included, even though not mentioned, in the resolution. I believe that, to date, the program is twofold. How do we reduce the number to whom public assistance offers the only security in time of destitution or when they become incapacitated? How do we provide a public assistance program that will give some security, that will be a constructive measure for the person who is in need of its help, and which will be satisfactory to the community and those residing among us?
There are many different views about our planning for social security and welfare. Let us consider here only the significant ones. There are many constructive views about the administration of public assistance. At the present time the national revulsion to 68108-644
Pensions for Disabled Persons the means test is a reaction to destruction. This means test is supposed to be destructive to the person to whom it is applied. There is a difference in the attitude to the old age assistance and mothers' allowance programs as compared to the social assistance for the needy. These are all public assistance and government programs. What makes the difference in attitude? The administration is not better in the former than in the latter. The difference is largely in the public attitude towards the causes of illness. There is little or no stigma attached to the fact of being incapacitated. In our present economy, the difficulty of making adequate provision for such an eventuality is recognized by most of us. We therefore do not attach personal blame to the person who has not been able to provide adequately for a crippled member of his family.
The development of categories for assistance was probably necessary in the process of changing public attitudes. I hope the time will come when we can eliminate such categories; when our communities and provinces will be prepared to recognize a responsibility to people who are unable to provide themselves with the necessities of life; when public assistance will be given on proof of need, and the question of why the person is in need will not determine whether or not he or she receives help, although it will certainly influence the other constructive services which may be available.
How can we make a government assistance program constructive? Government assistance costs the people money. In its short-term planning a constructive program will cost more money than an inadequate one. Good legislation and good administration are dependent on the community, on the people's attitude to the problem, and upon their willingness, of course, to spend and to ensure that the program is good. The public attitude has also its effect upon the recipients, upon those who hesitate to apply, upon their selfrespect and their morale, upon their ability to recognize and perform their obligations as citizens, and upon their attitudes to themselves and to society.
We have come some distance from the time when the pauper was disqualified from all citizenship rights, although remnants of those old days still remain. But I am afraid we are still far from the point where destitution does not carry with it some element of personal disgrace, which makes it difficult for the destitute, crippled or incapacitated person, regardless of the cause of his condition, to remain a respected and contributing
1004	HOUSE OF
Pensions for Disabled Persons member of society. We have trained ourselves to think that a person contributes only if he is economically productive.
In approaching this resolution and giving it consideration we should certainly change our thinking in that regard. This consideration forces us back to the reason the community has for establishing a public assistance program. Why does society give public assistance? And after all "society" really means government. The motives vary, and the nature of the program depends on those motives. I outline them here without attempting to assess their relative importance in different communities. We give to people in many instances when we see them almost reach the point of starvation. That is a grudging, negative attitude associated with our discomfort in the face of human suffering.
We must protect the incapacitated from the results of destitution. I think that is what the hon. member had in mind when this resolution was introduced. The effect may be upon their health, their safety, our personal income; that is yours and mine, for example. The result can be a loss to the property owner because a crippled person cannot pay rent; or it can have an effect upon the total economy in the loss of purchasing power and of manpower. The result may be in the ultimate cost in the increase of disease and crime because, as you are aware, an incapacitated person in many instances has an extremely active brain, and this brain can easily be diverted if such people are not able to enjoy the things that you and I enjoy in our way of life.
We are profiting by the conditions which are to some extent responsible for destitution. Hence we must look on the care of the incapacitated as a necessary expense which we are obliged to shoulder. We have almost no alternative in that case. We are obliged to shoulder that responsibility. Why? Because with the advent of urbanization, industrialization and such conditions, there are consequent changes in our economy and in many cases these are the causes.
Mr. Speaker, there are some other points with which I should like to deal further and if I have your permission I should like to quote from a Canadian welfare council paper of May 1, 1952. In it there is an article by Mr. C. A. L. Murchison, Q.C., which was given before a conference on social welfare in Toronto. Mr. Murchison knows what he is talking about because he is a member of the unemployment insurance commission, he helped to organize the national conference on the rehabilitation of the physically handicapped which was held in Toronto in 1951, and he is now a member of the national


Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the discussion that has taken place is expected to be followed, as indeed several hon. members have suggested, by a statement from me as Minister of National Health and Welfare. In taking part in this debate, I propose first of all to indicate what is being done in the important field of rehabilitation, apart altogether from whatever cash benefits are received by various segments of the population of Canada.
It will be seen from this kind of review that a great deal is already being done by all levels of jurisdiction in this country regarding the important question raised in the resolution proposed by the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor). I think it would be advisable for us to recall the actual terms of the resolution, which reads:
That, In the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of co-operating with the provincial governments for the purpose of providing pensions, equal to old age pensions, for all those who are incapacitated and unable to earn their living, regardless of age.
The house has already expressed its gratitude to the hon. member for Fort William for introducing this resolution at this time, and I am sure we all agree that much good can flow from a discussion, dispassionate and fair as this debate has been. It should not be forgotten that, in introducing family allowances, the veterans' charter, the national health program and in doing other things in these fields, this government has provided a background in health and welfare that should serve, and it must serve, as a proper basis for consideration of this particular problem.
All of the social services in Canada cannot and should not be designated for the sole competence of one governmental authority. . It would be wrong for the federal government
Pensions for Disabled Persons to assume full control and full interest in all phases of social welfare and of health activities. That is not only good government in a confederation such as ours, but it is also the view of the ten provincial governments of our country. As one who has to take part in conferences with the provinces from time to time, may I say that I have been reminded by those provincial authorities that there are fields of action which are peculiarly fitted for their interest; that there are fields in which there can be joint endeavour, but under no circumstances should we, in a country such as ours, seek to arrogate to Ottawa full authority and full and exclusive interest in all phases of welfare and health activity.
It must not be thought, however, that in saying that I am now preparing a complete defence against doing anything in the field of rehabilitation and providing cash benefits for our invalid population, or for those who are incapacitated and on that account unable to provide full maintenance for themselves and their families. For the fact is that while in Canada there is no single disability cash benefit scheme, there are nevertheless under various programs-mostly federal but also under provincial auspices-at the present time some 325,000 disabled Canadians who are receiving assistance at a cost of $110 million a year, almost 80 per cent of which is borne by the central authority. That is a considerable proportion of the population. It is a fact that has not been emphasized here today. Those who have argued for this proposition, and argued well, have failed, it seems to me, to emphasize the important contribution already being made not only by the provinces but by the federal government in this important matter.
It must not be forgotten that in 1952 there came into being in this country the most comprehensive old age security system of any country in the world, and that scheme has a very definite bearing on this matter. Likewise, in that same year, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg), the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe), and I convoked a conference, which was held in the city of Toronto, on the question of rehabilitation, a very important prerequisite to a satisfactory system of disability pensions.
At that conference the ten provinces of Canada were represented, as well as the voluntary health and welfare agencies of the country, hospital, medical and allied professions, the three departments of the federal government, organized labour and management, universities, social welfare organizations and so on. The conclusion of that
1006	HOUSE OF
Pensions for Disabled Persons conference was that in developing programs in this field careful consideration must be given to the place of disability allowances in the physical and vocational rehabilitation of the disabled. Consideration must likewise be given, of course, to the constitutional position, to administrative difficulties and to the relative priority of disability pensions in the over-all social security program.
I was interested in the observations of the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Blair) who strongly supported this measure. I recalled at once the contributions which he made to the discussion, and they were valuable contributions, during the sittings of the committee on old age security in 1950. His observations will be found at pages 808 and 810-11 of the minutes of the committee. Just to single out one set of questions and answers to indicate what his view then was, I would remind him and others of what he said. The following were some questions put by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Laing) :
Q. I was going to point out in 3 the recipients have objected to the means test; I think workers in the government service have objected; and I think members of parliament have objected. This brief proposes that beyond 70 years we should remove the means test but it transfers it to the age group 65 to 69, with greater intensity than ever before? -A. It is not a means test.
Q. Well, who is going to say whether a person is prematurely aged or not?-A. It is a health test, not a means test.
Q. Who is going to say that?-A. Medical officers.


William Gourlay Blair: You cannot do it.
It will be found that throughout the deliberations of that committee the hon. gentleman emphasized the difficulty of using for the purpose of the receipt of cash benefits the yardstick of total disability. That merely emphasizes the point that was made at the conference in Toronto as to the administrative difficulties.
Now with regard to rehabilitation. As I said a moment ago, almost $11 million is made available to the provinces under crippled children, mental health and tuberculosis control grants. Very substantial proportions of this money are used for rehabilitation purposes. Then again, $100,000 a year is provided by the Department of National Health and Welfare to national voluntary agencies engaged in rehabilitation work. The department offers valuable consultative services to the provinces and to private agencies in such fields as blindness control and mental health. Federal-provincial aid is being given to special federal-provincial projects to provide surgical operations to restore the sight of selected blind pensioners.
Today I, along with many members of this house, received two delegations representing the various blind associations of our country.


They came to ask the government to give consideration to increasing the basic pension for the blind and to removing the means test. In dealing with this application I pointed out that these associations and the provincial and federal governments had been able to bring about a great improvement in social welfare measures in so far as they apply to the blind. When one is considering the particular question under discussion one would have to bear in mind our obligations to the blind as well as our obligations in other fields.
Likewise the federal government, through the Department of Veterans Affairs, provides welfare services and treatment for disabled veterans. That service includes rehabilitation activities as well as cash benefits for many thousands of veterans who come within the ambit of the resolution now under discussion.
Now with regard to the large segments of the population which are covered by provisions fully as generous as those envisaged in the resolution now before us, I would point out that all persons between the ages of 65 and 69 years with insufficient means to provide for their own needs are taken care of through federal-provincial old age assistance programs. Those 70 years of age and over are cared for under federal old age security legislation regardless of means. It is correct therefore to state that the objectives of this resolution are being already realized in so far as those of our population over 65 years of age are concerned.
Then with regard to blind persons, all adult blind persons regardless of age who are unable to earn their own living are taken care of under the new federal-provincial blind persons' allowance program. It is worth noting that the blind are the largest single group of civilian disabled, and represent perhaps one-third of the total number of those who are incapacitated.
With regard to our veterans, I think it is desirable to remember that all our veterans who served in both world wars are covered by provisions even more generous than those contemplated in the present resolution. Over 200,000 disabled veterans are now receiving assistance, either in the form of pensions or war veterans allowances.
At the provincial level there are a number of important provisions for the disabled. Everyone in this house knows that the provincial governments have developed comprehensive provisions for partial and total disability benefits under their workmen's compensation programs. In most provinces where a husband is prevented from working

by physical or mental disability aid is provided under a system of mothers' allowances. As an example of what is being done for tuberculosis victims, most provinces provide special allowances for persons incapacitated by that disease. At least one province, Alberta, has a provision for widows' pensions which covers a small segment of the disabled group below 65 years of age. Newfoundland has its dependents allowances act which takes care of the disabled, among others.
It is therefore clear that a large proportion of our disabled population, all those over 65 years of age, our war veterans, all our blind, those who have been injured by industrial accidents and other similar groups are covered already under one or other of the programs I have described.
Last year the province of Ontario went a step further in introducing a new plan for the disabled. The initiative which that province took seems to suggest that possibly disability pensions, like workmen's compensation and mothers' allowances, can best be taken care of by the provincial governments to the extent that they cannot be subject to insurance principles. I know that is the view of the government of Ontario from the discussions I have had with them.
It certainly is the view of at least three other governments that this is a field which they can best attend to, though they do not all agree that there should be no financial participation by the federal government. When we embarked upon the old age security program we had in mind the fact that we were assuming a greater responsibility, not only for those 70 years of age and over but for the group which would be covered under the new act, those between the ages of 65 and 70 years. We were relieving the provinces of a great financial responsibility. Their financial load has been very considerably reduced as a result of our old age security program.
To come back to the scheme in Ontario, I have not seen official figures as to the extent of that program. I understand that the number of recipients is not large and that consequently such a program is well within the capacity of the province. I hope to be able to announce the results of our health-sickness survey within a very few months, and that will reveal, I think, that this problem is not as great in the proportion of disabled people as might be thought, particularly when one takes into account the 350,000 individuals in the country who are now receiving cash benefits in one form or another through the federal government. It may be that the survey will reveal that, just as this group is within the capacity of the
Pensions for Disabled Persons province of Ontario financially, so too will it be well within the financial capacity of municipal and provincial governments throughout the country.
In any event it seems to me that these programs can best be handled provincially because there is a precedent already, and because of the heavy administrative problems involved, administrative difficulties which were ably pointed out in the old age security committee by the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Blair) a year ago. So with this in mind it might be well to note that the federal government's assumption of the total cost of old age security payments for those 70 and over has reduced provincial expenditures on old age pensions by more than $18 million a year, and our estimate would be that the kind of scheme envisaged by the proposition now before the house would certainly not cost the provinces anything like that in total. Because, it seems to me, we are now doing our share in respect of this problem and because we have other great obligations, I could not get up in the house at this time and accept this resolution without qualification, much as my own human instincts and sympathies, like those of every other hon. member, might lead me to do. I could not do that in the light of the situation which I am describing to the house, and also because of other things that the government yet hopes to be able to do in these wide humanitarian fields for the people of this country.
It is not that these things should not be done, and not that they will not be done. I firmly believe that the attitude taken by the province of Ontario will be emulated by other provinces in the period that lies ahead. Therefore it seems to me that we must look at the whole question in the light first of all of the kind of country in which we are living. There can be no argument about our unanimous wish to see that provision is made for the individual who is incapacitated to the point that he cannot provide for himself or his dependents. There is no doubt that he has a strong and justifiable demand for assistance at the hands of the community. Of that there can be no question. The question is what jurisdiction of government should bear the responsibility.
In answering, one will have to emphasize that the federal government has assumed the cost of family allowances, a burden of over $28 million a month, a social welfare measure bringing security to over four and a half million children in two million families every month, and has undertaken an old age security program that will cost well over $300 million this year, which cost will increase because of the increase in the ageing of our
1008	HOUSE OF
Pensions for Disabled Persons population. It has assumed the cost of these two measures together with the national health program, the veterans charter and our contributions to the unemployment insurance scheme, as well as half the cost of old age assistance, and in addition there is the reserve of projects that the Canadian people will want to have in store for future action.
It seems to us that we can develop these schemes in partnership with the various provincial governments, and this is one phase of activity which I believe most of them are prepared to undertake and which I believe they can do better than we. The administrative difficulty is very great, as we have found in administering those problems of rehabilitation that come directly within our own sphere of activity.
I believe this discussion serves a useful purpose. Reference was made a few moments ago to the fact that I had been at the United Nations, and the hon. member who proposed the resolution was kind enough to speak of the work which I was able to do there. This is the first opportunity I have had to comment on that reference and I should like to make this observation, it being the first chance I have had in the house since my return from the seventh assembly.
Canada was honoured at that assembly in more ways than one, and perhaps in no more effective and impressive way than by the very able and constructive manner in which Canada's Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) carried out the assignment of president of the general assembly. One of the things that impresses the various delegations to the general assembly, as indeed it impresses anyone who attends the meetings of the various organs of the United Nations, is that there is a sound appreciation on the part of most countries of what Canada is doing in the field of health and welfare. That is particularly true, of course, at the economic and social council. It is true on the part of those who go to the world health organization, as the hon. member for Welland (Mr. McMillan), the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. McCusker) and the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) have reminded the house.
When we come to consider suggestions such as are put forward today it is important for each of us to recognize what we have done in these fields and not to belittle the accomplishment. There has been no belittling of that accomplishment in any part of the house today. The debate has been on a high level and of high order. There has been a common recognition of the importance of the


problem, but perhaps not a sufficient appreciation of the extent of rehabilitation that is now going on in the country, and perhaps not a sufficient appreciation of the extent to which cash benefits are now being extended to so many people by one of the several government authorities in the country, the federal government.
Later in the session I hope to be able to announce a program in connection with a phase of activity in our department that will not be unrelated to this matter, although it will not be directly in answer to what is requested in the resolution. I must make it clear that it will not provide for disability pensions, but it will be a matter closely related to this problem and to many other phases of activity with which our department would normally be expected to be concerned.
I should like to take this opportunity to say to those who have made representations today and to the various organizations of the blind that the submissions they have made will receive the most careful consideration and attention at the hands of the government. The blind are one group of many in the category of disabled and incapacitated individuals in this country. It is the first group among the disabled to have received assistance at the hands of government in Canada on the federal level.
I think we can be proud of our achievements. I am not speaking only of the government, although I speak of it too because this government has great achievements to its credit over the course of the years in the field of health and welfare. I am speaking of the contribution that has been made in a co-operative way between those various groups and ourselves.
First of all, we have increased the basic pension three times. We have met almost 100 per cent the proposals put forward in the six-point program which the Canadian National Institute for the Blind offered to us three years ago. In every particular but one so far we have recognized their full demands.
On the other hand there is the work we have done in setting up, under the national health program, the glaucoma clinics, the remedial surgery program that is going on in this country to improve the sight of the blind. These are programs of the first order, about which perhaps not sufficient has been said.
I might take this opportunity of urging those provinces in the country that have not agreed with us on this remedial surgery program not to delay but to come in so that we can provide relief for many blind

pensioners who can yet have their sight restored by capable and effective surgical operation. Under that scheme the federal government pays 75 per cent of the total cost involved, and I am happy to say that in 70 individual surgical operations on people who were receiving blind pensions, and whose hope for the restoration of their eyesight had long been given up, we were able to effect under this program significant restoration of sight in over 40 cases. That kind of program is one we want to see continued, and it is one that is closely related to this whole question of rehabilitation.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we set up under the program conceived by the former minister of labour and now ably carried on by the present Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg), in conjunction with the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe) and myself as Minister of National Health and Welfare, a scheme by which we sought to provide for co-ordination in the field of rehabilitation of the handicapped and incapacitated of our country. We have set up a national advisory committee composed of the representatives of organizations in the country best suited by tradition and knowledge to deal with this problem. In addition to that we have appointed as coordinating officer with residence here in Ottawa, serving in the Department of Labour, the former head of the workmen's compensation board rehabilitation service in the province of Ontario. It is his job to try to develop a program in conjunction with the provinces both for the rehabilitation and for the financial assistance, in time, of those who through no fault of their own find themselves incapacitated. That is a scheme which is based on the kind of programs other countries have followed. I believe it marks a very definite step in what we are doing both in terms of meeting the proposal that is before us today and also in effecting and completing what we are doing for the rehabilitation of the incapacitated and for others in the country.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Question.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend says "question" and I want to say to him that the big question that is before us today-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Let us have the vote.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -is whether or not we have gone too far in this country.


John George Diefenbaker: Let us have a vote.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Speaking for the government I want to say this. The government of this country is firmly of the view that there cannot be too much interest in humanitarian questions.
Pensions for Disabled Persons


John George Diefenbaker: As long as it does not come to a vote.


Paul Joseph James Martin: This government and this party will always support the interests of suffering humanity.


Some hon. Members:: The vote?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) obviously is not interested in these problems that have to do with human welfare, otherwise he would let me point this out. While I believe the kind of society that he advocates is one that possesses within itself the seed of its own destruction, I do say that those who argue against the welfare state make a tremendous mistake. If by "welfare state" they wish to put the emphasis on "state", then, of course, I agree with the suggestion and deplore the sinister implications involved in the phrase. But, if by "welfare state" we mean that the government of the country should be concerned with the welfare of its people, then I am unashamedly a strong protagonist of the welfare state.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Let us have a vote then.


Mr. Marlin:: So is the government of which I am a member and it is because of that conviction-


Donald Methuen Fleming: That you are talking it out.


Murdo William Martin: -that this government has brought in family allowances, the veterans' charter, old age security and the national health program. It is because of that it has been able to effect a measure of co-operation with the provincial governments that as Minister of National Health and Welfare I am justified-


John George Diefenbaker: In talking this out.


Murdo William Martin: -in saying to the hon. gentleman who proposed this resolution that it has at least served the purpose of giving all of us an opportunity to appreciate the great progress that has been made in the field of health and welfare in this most favoured among the nations of the world.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You have talked it out again.


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: I move the adjournment of the debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Fournier (Hull) moves the adjournment of the debate. It is six o'clock.


Donald Methuen Fleming: We should have a vote on the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: It is six o'clock.

Business of the House Mr. Fleming: Hall a minute to six.


Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker said it was six o'clock.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Mr. Fournier (Hull): Tomorrow we will continue the debate on the motion to set up
a committee to examine national defence expenditures. Then we will take up the items on the order paper in the name of the Minister of Justice.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, January 15, 1953