1953-05-08

Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre):: Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Spadina referred to an excerpt from a speech reported in the Globe and Mail, in which I was reported to have said as follows:
He said the defence committee, which reported Tuesday with a revised Currie report, wasted its time in sitting for seven weeks. The report was written by a minister and could have been drawn up before the committee even sat.
I want to assure my hon. friend that an error was made in the report. What I said was that the report could have been written by a minister, and could have been drawn up before the committee ever sat. I thank my hon. friend for the courteous way in which he dealt with it, and his point of privilege was well taken.


Mr. Sinnott:: What about Springfield?



MR. BALCER    PROTEST AGAINST THE ATTITUDE OF MR. HUMPHRYS  REQUEST FOR RETRACTION

Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. After the luncheon recess yesterday, the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer) rose on a question of privilege and, quoting an extract from Le Droit of May 6 with reference to a questionnaire sent from the Ottawa district office, taxation division, Department of National Revenue, signed by F. A. Humphrys, assessment branch, the hon. member protested against the unworthy and anti-national attitude of a civil servant and asked for his dismissal.
I was not in the house at the time. Had I been here, I would have immediately protested against this unwarranted attack on a civil servant who was not here to defend himself. I have known Mr. Humphrys for the past eight or nine years, and have always found him a conscientious and efficient officer. In an interview yesterday afternoon with Mr. Humphrys, in the presence of the assistant deputy minister of the taxation division, Mr. Humphrys absolutely denied
having made the statement or reply attributed to him. Personally, I accept Mr. Humphrys' word.
Within the next few days, the estimates of the Department of National Revenue will be under review, and the house will have an opportunity to more fully discuss this and related matters. I shall be prepared to answer any questions and give all available information.



STATEMENT AS TO POSITION IN CANADA

Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a further short statement in regard to the grain position in Canada. In doing so I would first like to comment that during the past and present crop years we have been dealing with physical grain handling problems arising from abundant harvests. In
1951,	the western wheat crop was estimated at 529 million bushels, and this was followed by a crop of 664 million bushels in 1952, or a total wheat production of 1,193 million bushels from the two harvests. The production of oats in 1951 was 340 million bushels and in 1952, 346 million bushels, or 686 million bushels in the two years.
In the case of barley, 1951 production was 234 million bushels and 1952 production was 281 million bushels, or a combined barley production of 515 million bushels in 1951 and
1952.
In all the history of the west never have these quantities of grain been harvested in two successive years.
The phenomenal grain production in the prairie provinces in the last two years has been accompanied by an excellent demand. The extent of overseas demand for grain is indicated by the fact that in 1951-52, total grain exports-including wheat flour-from Canada amounted to 506 million bushels, an all-time record; and during the present crop year exports are running substantially ahead of the volume of a year ago. Our exports for the crop year 1952-53 should exceed the record levels of the last crop year by a substantial margin.
With this background I would now like to give the house an estimate of delivery possibilities in the prairie provinces for the balance of the crop year.

Grain
First of all, I would like to observe that producers' deliveries of grain up to April 30 amounted to 573 million bushels. This is the largest delivery of grain ever recorded in the corresponding period of any crop year. When we consider that we started the crop year with not more than 125 million bushels of immediately available country elevator space, I think you will agree that we have had an excellent movement of grain out of country elevators this year and an excellent turnover of country elevator space. Producers will, of course, continue to deliver grain in substantial volume right up to the end of the crop year. I have requested the Canadian wheat board to provide me with its estimate of the delivery position for the balance of the crop year and I will summarize the board's appraisal of the position.
According to the latest estimate of elevator agents, producers had marketable surpluses from 1952 crop of all grains amounting to 964 million bushels. This figure is about 37 million bushels lower than our earlier estimate and, of course, could be affected by crop development over the next 90 days.
Based on the grain movement to date, and after allowing for an increase in country elevator storage capacity and more efficient use of both country and terminal storage this year as a result of the dry harvest, we believe it will be possible to provide for firm deliveries of about 830 million bushels by July 31, 1953. This will be an increase of about 110 million bushels over the quantities of grain delivered in 1951-52. Up to the present time producers' deliveries have amounted to about 573 million bushels and we have, therefore, to make space available for a further 257 million bushels to provide for total producers' marketings up to the objective of 830 million bushels.
We estimate . that about 830 million bushels of grain can be delivered under our basic quota of 15 bushels per seeded acre on wheat, oats and barley, and the supplementary three-bushel delivery quota on total wheat, oats and barley acreage. Therefore, it looks now as though this will be the limit of our delivery quotas for the present crop year, although, of course, we will keep the position in continuous review for the balance of the crop year.
On May 1 the supplementary three-bushel quota became effective at every delivery point in the west and two weeks later, on May 15 all delivery points become alternative points. This means that producers may deliver their grain up to the 18-bushel quota at any station in the west where space is available.
As closely as we can estimate, total deliveries of around 830 million bushels will allow about 532 million bushels of wheat, 150 million bushels of barley, 120 million bushels of oats, 18 million bushels of rye and 10 million bushels of flax to be delivered.
To accomplish this, space must be found for about 165 million bushels of wheat, 49 million bushels of oats, 35 million bushels of barley and about 8 million bushels of flaxseed and rye.
If the foregoing estimates prove to be substantially correct, we will have a farm carryover on July 31 of about 133 million bushels of grain. The farm carryover will be largely in areas with the highest yield per acre in 1952.
[Later: ]


Mr. Argue:: I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce a question, arising out of his very comprehensive statement on the grain situation. I think the minister realizes that farmers need to deliver additional grain.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Will the hon. gentleman ask his question?


Hazen Robert Argue: My question is this. Will the farmer have the right, as I believe the minister indicated some weeks ago-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Hazen Robert Argue: Will the farmer have the right to switch deliveries of oats and barley on his quota to deliveries of wheat? Will he have alternatives, and will he be permitted to switch grains in order to market his most valuable grain?


Clarence Decatur Howe: He has the privilege of marketing 18 bushels of wheat per acre, plus 18 bushels of oats per acre, plus quotas for barley and rye, but he cannot switch. In other words, he cannot switch between one grain and the other. He has a maximum in each case that must be observed. I may say that when he delivers 18 bushels of wheat per acre he is delivering a very handsome crop. If he has more, he is fortunate.


Hazen Robert Argue: Will the minister give consideration to that point? There is plenty of oats and barley in the elevators now; it would be better to have wheat.


Some hon. Members:: Order.



CRIMINAL CODE


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 367, to amend the Criminal Code.


Mr. Knowles:: Explain.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, in the Criminal Code consolidation bill, in respect of which I believe there is now general agreement that it shall not be proceeded with at the present session, there was relating to Newfoundland an administrative provision which it is necessary to have passed at the present time and which would have been taken care of if that consolidation bill had been passed. To provide for that matter, this will be a very short bill indeed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is all there is in it?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That is all that is in it.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the second time? At the next sitting of the house?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, might I ask the minister a question? In order to preserve the outstanding work that has been done on the part of the committee in the recommendations which they have made, will there be any difficulty, in another parliament, in just utilizing the findings of the committee, its report on the evidence and also the general bill it recommended?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The point which my hon. friend raises is quite a large one, but I will try to deal with it as briefly as I can. The great problem in introducing a consolidating bill which is to take care of some 60 years of amendments to a statute, which itself is perhaps the largest one on the statute books, is to get the debating stages and the committee stages disposed of in both the House of Commons and the Senate within the compass of a single parliamentary session. When, in connection with a bill, both the Senate committee and the House of Commons committee hear lengthy representations from a large number of delegations, achieving that objective becomes impossible, just as it would be impossible to put an extremely long train upon a rather short railway siding.
My hon. friend's question is a pertinent one. From it I infer that what he has in mind is that we might use the work which the committee have done and the representations which they have heard, in order to introduce at another session a bill which, instead of going to a special committee for it to hear further representations, would be disposed of in the house itself. If I correctly interpret-


John George Diefenbaker: That is correct.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: -his views, I would most certainly agree with him. If we proceed 68108-314
Criminal Code
otherwise we would not get a piece of legislation of this size through parliament in any single session.


Mr. Speaker:: Do I understand it is the wish of the house that the present bill should be read the second time now?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: the second reading of the bill.


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the minister could tell us something of the nature of the administrative provision to which he referred?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes. I shall be glad to do so. The number of lawbreakers in Newfoundland is so small that at confederation it was thought advisable that special provision should be made whereby the one institution which serves as a provincial jail there would also house and keep in custody those who were sentenced for a period of more than two years and who would normally go into a federal penitentiary. In other words, the one building functions as a provincial jail and as a federal penitentiary.
There is in the present Criminal Code a provision which authorizes that arrangement up until January 1, 1954. That meant that when we drafted the Criminal Code consolidation bill we inserted in it a provision that the arrangement would continue until a proclamation was made by the governor general to authorize some other arrangement. Since the Criminal Code consolidation bill is not being passed, it is necessary to pass this short bill in order that we shall have legal authority for the continuance of the arrangement which now prevails in that custodial institution in Newfoundland.


Mr. Drew:: Mr. Speaker, the explanation may be adequate, and I accept the explanation of the minister, but feel that there will be no delay in deferring the bill that is before the house this morning. It would be most improper to give second reading to a bill, which is an acceptation of the principle, without having the bill before us.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I think my hon. friend's point is well taken. I am not for a moment pressing for second reading now.


Mr. Coldwell:: May I ask the minister a supplementary question, following what the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Browne) has said. If the two types of prisoners are kept in the same institution, are they kept apart? Are there two separate parts so that what we might call the hardened criminal is not associated with perhaps the

Inquiries of the Ministry young fellow who has been more or less delinquent and received a sentence of less than a year?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes; the very best arrangements possible in that regard are provided. Of course my hon. friend is aware that what can be done in that regard is always subject to the limitations of your physical arrangements.


Major James William Coldwell: Accommodation.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Your accommodation, that is right.


Major James William Coldwell: That is what I had in mind.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The fact that in the existing code this provision was made to expire on January 1, 1954, indicates that, as I think my hon. friend had in mind, this is a temporary arrangement. Perhaps because of the fact that I mentioned the number of prisoners is small we have had no information up until the present time to indicate that the accommodation is inadequate.


Mr. Speaker:: When I put the motion for second reading I thought I was doing so with the unanimous consent of the house. Apparently the house does not wish to proceed further with it at this time. Is it agreeable that we consider that the minister has adjourned the debate?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Higgins:: On a question of privilege, may I say that I do not like the undue publicity for criminality given to Newfoundland, particularly when we remember that the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) has not room in the jail in his riding and has a waiting list of prisoners to be put in jail.
On motion of Mr. Garson the debate was adjourned.



DOUKHOBORS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: should like to direct to the Minister of Justice a question based on news reports. Has the government received any representations from the premier of British Columbia, urging the imposition of a curfew on the Sons of Freedom?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I wish to thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his question. The answer is yes.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I should like to ask a supplementary question. Can the minister inform the house as to the nature of these representations, and what was the government's reply, if any, to date?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The representations took the form of a telegram dated yesterday, signed by the Hon. W. A. C. Bennett, premier of British Columbia, and addressed to the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent, Prime Minister, Ottawa, in these terms:
Doukhobor situation in Kootenays extremely critical. Unless some action taken immediately expect violence will break out. Strongly recommend that your government under the powers of the War Measures Act proclaim an immediate curfew on all Doukhobors in the Kootenay district of British Columbia.
To reply to that telegram, a telegram dated yesterday and signed by the Right Hon. C. D. Howe, as Acting Prime Minister, was dispatched as follows:
The Hon. W. A. C. Bennett,
Premier of British Columbia,
Victoria, B.C.
Replying in absence of the Prime Minister to your telegram to him requesting curfew under War Measures Act directed against Doukhobors in Kootenays might I say that the action that you propose that we should take would constitute a clear invasion Of your own wide field of provincial responsibility for the administration of justice. I feel sure many provinces would resent action by the federal government to impose a police regulation in form of curfew on a single locality within a single province. What really is involved is the exercise of your own indisputable and wide authority under heading fourteen of section ninety-two of the British North America Act to administer justice and enforce law and order in the province of British Columbia. If you find that you cannot do this with your own resources you have the right under your wide authority to requisition military aid where you consider that riot or disturbance is likely to occur.



C. D. HOWE,

[Stage Direction]
Acting Prime Minister.
Major James William Coldwell: The War Measures Act?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I do not think it is within my proper compass to offer any footnotes or commentaries upon either of these wires.
The wire from the premier of British Columbia was as I read it; it referred to the War Measures Act.


Major James William Coldwell: Does he not know that that is no longer in effect?



THE CORONATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. F. G. Bradley (Secretary of State):: A couple of days ago the hon. member for Peterborough West raised a question in connection with June 2 next, the date of Her

Majesty's coronation. The situation is that a proclamation in connection with this matter was issued on the 22nd day of January last, under which June 2 next is proclaimed as a day of "general thanksgiving and rejoicing on the occasion of our coronation".
Under the Interpretation Act, chapter 1 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927:
In every act, unless the context otherwise requires, the word "holiday" includes . . . and any day appointed by proclamation for a general fast or thanksgiving.
I would judge that the interpretation therefore is that the 2nd day of June is a holiday.


Mr. Fraser:: I want to thank the Secretary of State for making it clear that it is a legal holiday.


Mr. Gauthier (Sudbury):: We all knew that.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: No; you did not all know it.


Mr. Pouliot:: I thank the hon. member for thanking the government.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Francis Higgins: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister of Fisheries is now in a position to answer the question I asked a few days ago.


Hon. James Sinclair (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, this is the time of year when the fishermen of Newfoundland become exercised about the appearance of foreign trawlers offshore. Our fisheries protection service is carrying out its usual duties and, as well, we have the assistance of the R.C.M.P. vessel MacBrien. No violations have been reported as yet.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Is the article in the Sunday Herald of May 5 correct?


James Sinclair: My recollection of the article was that it stated the fishermen were exercised about the appearance of foreign trawlers. My answer is that there have been no violations as yet reported by our protection service.



WATER POWER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. J. Brooks (Royal):: Mr. Speaker, on March 23 I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) a question regarding the report of the international joint commission concerning the power prospects 68108-3141
Supply-Defence Production on the Saint John river. At that time he replied that the report had not been submitted. I should like to ask the acting minister whether it has been now reported and, if so, whether I can have a copy of it before the end of the session.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I shall call the attention of the Secretary of State for External Affairs to this question.


Jean-François Pouliot: Supplementary to the question of the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) I should like to ask the Minister of Resources and Development to kindly make a statement tomorrow indicating what arrangements have been made between the government of Canada and the province of New Brunswick regarding the development of the Saint John river, in virtue of Bill 109. I hope he will be able to make such a statement tomorrow. And if any arrangements have been entered into, I would be delighted to know what proposals have been made by the province of New Brunswick to the dominion government in that respect.


Hon. Roberf H. Winters (Minister of Resources and Development):: Mr. Speaker, I can answer the question now. In the first place, Bill 109 has not yet received the royal assent. In the second place, there have been no arrangements between New Brunswick and the federal government, and, to the best, of my knowledge, the government of New Brunswick has made no proposals.

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



DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE PRODUCTION

[Stage Direction]
80.	To provide capital assistance for the construction, acquisition, extension or improvement of capital equipment or works by private contractors engaged in defence contracts, or by crown plants operated on a management-fee basis, or by crown companies under direction of the Minister of Defence Production, subject to approval of treasury board, $60,000,000.
Mr. Fulton:: Mr. Chairman, last night I indicated that I would ask some questions under this item about Sorel Industries Limited. The minister said that the plant is being given government assistance, so I think it is proper to ask questions under this item. My questions refer particularly to the program of production of the 3.7-inch naval gun being produced there for the American and Canadian governments. Are there any difficulties of which the minister is aware by way of delays in production, and suggesting

Supply-Defence Production that production costs are somewhat out of line, and have these suggestions given some concern primarily to the American government, as well as to our own government? If so, is the minister in a position to say anything on the point? I would mention particularly difficulties in connection with delays in deliveries.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have no doubt my hon. friend is referring to the 3-inch 50-calibre guns.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That may be so.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Deliveries are on schedule. Production rates at the moment are up to the required schedule. The cost of the gun has not been determined. At present we are negotiating a target price. Those negotiations are going on, but there is nothing in the situation which I could call to the attention of the committee at the moment, with any advantage to anyone.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Have not the Americans made some representations regarding cost of production and delays in production, and have they not asked for some cost accounting Investigation into the whole set-up?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is no delay in production; production is on schedule. Negotiations are going on at the moment to fix a target price for the guns. Those negotiations are proceeding. A meeting was held last week, and another will be held shortly in an attempt to fix the price. Naturally the Americans have one view and we have another- but that always happens when a target price is being fixed. But, as I say, we are in the midst of negotiations, and nothing could be said now to the advantage of anyone.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Do I understand the minister to say that there is no cause for dissatisfaction or concern on his part? Is there not a rumour current to the effect that Canadair is taking over the operation of the plant?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, that is wholly a misstatement. Mr. Notman, who happens to be the president of Canadair Limited, is also a member of the Canadian Arsenals Limited board. In his capacity as member of the Arsenals board he has been looking into production at Sorel for Canadian Arsenals and for myself. But no one has taken over Sorel Industries Limited. The management has not been changed in any particular.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Has the minister any information-if he has not, perhaps he could get it and give it to me, I would hope before the end of the discussion on these estimates, but if not, at a later time-as to how many of these guns that plant has produced, how
IMr. Fulton.1

many they have delivered in Canada, and the average cost per gun?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, I cannot give that information. In the first place, deliveries are being made under the United States contract, and, in the second place, information about deliveries of guns and ammunition is classified information which cannot be given publicly.


Mr. Hansell:: Mr. Chairman, I do not rise with the intention of taking any great length of time of the committee, but I have one or two questions to ask the minister.
On several occasions sessional returns have been brought down to the house. The hon. member for Eglinton and other hon. members have placed on the record details in connection with purchases of large quantities of small personal equipment. I would suggest that there might be a change in the purchasing policy of the department.
If my recollection is correct, there have been purchases of large quantities of shaving brushes-I believe something in the nature of 150,000. There have also been large purchases of tooth brushes, tooth paste and other items of a personal nature. Has the government given consideration to making an extra allowance to members of the forces so that they could look after the purchases of those items? My understanding is that in times of war-and I am thinking particularly of the first world war-nothing of that kind has been supplied to the armed forces. It was recognized that that was taken care of in their allowances. I am just wondering whether it would not save a lot of trouble, expense, administration and the making of contracts and so forth if the government would give a little extra to the armed forces to take care of these items. It would not amount to more than a few cents a day and then the forces could look after these things themselves. These miscellaneous items are mainly of a personal nature and I wonder if they could not be handled better in that way.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am unable to answer that question as the policy is determined by the Minister of National Defence. I suppose the hon. member is asking this question under the capital assistance item on the basis this would be capital assistance to the individuals of the troops. We are simply the purchasing agents; when we get a requisition we fill it. Whether or not the requisition is necessary is a matter for another department.


Edmund Davie Fulton: There was one question that I omitted to ask when we were dealing with Sorel Industries. It has been rumoured that the Americans are pulling out of that area,

selling their houses and so on. Can the minister give assurance that no dissatisfaction is being expressed by the United States which might form a basis for this rumour?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not know where my hon. friend gets his gossip. I have heard nothing about any reduction in the contract. There are certain contracts covering the 3-inch 50-calibre guns and there are contracts covering other heavy artillery for the United States. As far as I know the	situation is unchanged. I know of
no house in Sorel owned by any American who has to do with the gun contract. Whether they are moving out or not, I do not know, but if they are it is to make way for someone else or because their inspection staff service is not required. My officers tell me that we are taking over more of the inspection now that production is getting to a stage where the United States feel that their inspection is not required to the extent it was in the early stages of production.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have just one question to ask, and perhaps I might preface it by saying that I had intended to make a speech on this matter but I am prepared to let it go. I hold in my hand a document which the minister laid on the table of the house on April 12, 1945. This was a government white paper on employment and income with special reference to the initial period of reconstruction. Included in that very interesting white paper -that is the reason why my question is appropriate on this item-there is a reference to the conversion of government-owned plants and others which the government had in mind once world war II was over. My question is an obvious one. We do not know what the situation will be in the immediate future but the news from the Far East is encouraging and we dare to hope that there may soon be the possibility of tapering off the defence construction and the defence production programs. Has the government any plans or any white paper for that eventuality comparable to the plans and white paper that the minister tabled in April, 1945?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think my hon. friend has pretty well answered his own question. The preparedness program must extend for a considerable time. The only development so far has been the working out by the department of a program for the rental of tools and space in government-owned plants for civilian work when defence production drops below a level that will provide all of the employment of which the plant is capable. I think there has been one instance where that has happened. The rental includes the
Supply-Defence Production plant facilities and the use of machines which will be used on civilian work.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I point out to the minister that the item we are discussing is for $50 million less than it was a year ago. I suggest that I was not out of line in using the phrase "tapering off". I feel that in the light of that eventuality the government should go further than has been suggested by the answer the minister made just now and should indicate to the house and to the country what are its plans for the conversion of industry in order to maintain a high level of employment and a high standard of living if we are fortunate enough at an early date to enter a period when we can hope for peace.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The reason this capital assistance is dropping off is that the facilities required for our program have pretty well been completed. I would not think that we will be required to build any new facilities after the current fiscal year. The dropping off of the capital assistance program does not mean that production is dropping off. As a matter of fact, production is coming up to its peak at the present time.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
81.	To provide for payment of grants to municipalities in lieu of taxes on crown-owned defence plants operated by private contractors, $400,000.
Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Can the
minister indicate how this works out from the point of view of the municipality? On what basis are these grants made? Could the minister indicate what the difference would be between the taxes .which a municipality would have got and the grant that is made in lieu of taxes when the Department of Defence Production takes over a plant and turns it into a crown-operated plant?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The policy is to pay as a grant approximately the taxes that the firm would have paid had it been operated as a private plant.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I hope the minister is quite sure that that is so. I want to put on the record the details of a case where it is felt that that is not what happened. This is referred to in a memorandum of the Canadian federation of mayors and municipalities presented to the federal government at Ottawa on December 5, 1952. It would appear that the municipality concerned was surprised and taken aback when it found it was dealing with a government agency. After setting out the difficulties that the municipality was faced with, they go on to state, as reported on page 10, as follows:
The thinking of the municipal governments with respect to this matter is understandable. They are so severely dependent on property taxes for the

Supply-Defence Production major portion of their revenues that they view with concern the continuing and, in many cities, the mounting incidence of tax exempt federal crown property, a concern that becomes all the more serious when, as is so frequently the case, crown property is a significant percentage of the total real property in a municipality.
To add further to the grievance which the municipalities feel with respect to this matter is a recent interpretation of what constitutes crown property. We refer to the situation which has arisen in connection with the construction of the new industrial plants, privately managed, but being constructed with crown funds and ultimately to be bought by the. private management operating the plants from profits accruing as a result of their production on defence goods.
This new situation, of great significance to all Canadian municipalities, can best be illustrated by the developments that have recently taken place in Scarborough township, Ontario. In order to build up its revenues from industrial assessments, Scarborough township bought raw land and spent millions in providing essential services such as water, sewers, roads, etc. The intent of all this was to attract new taxpaying industry to the area. Some of this land was sold to two private companies, the John Inglis Company, Ltd., and the Lucas-Rotax Company, Ltd., both engaged in defence production. The sale was completed in good faith and at the time of sale it was understood that the land and plants thereon would be subject to the full municipal tax levy on the same basis as other industries and home owners in the township. It, therefore, came as a rude shock to the township council and the citizens of Scarborough to discover that this seemingly simple and straightforward transaction was not to yield the results expected.
When the township submitted its tax bills to the two companies it found that the properties in question had now been designated as crown property as the result of arrangements entered into between the companies concerned and the federal Department of Defence Production. Unknown to the municipal authorities, it now appears that the funds for the purchase qf land and construction of plants were actually provided by federal authorities with the understanding that the federal government will subsequently be reimbursed from the profits of defence production. In the meantime the property is vested in the name of a crown corporation under the terms of an agreement.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Perhaps I could shorten this.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: There is
only one further paragraph that I want to read.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It was written under a clear misapprehension.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: It was
apparently very widely shared. I will just read this and it will only take a moment. I want to get it on the record.
When the township of Scarborough protested the interpretation that these plants constituted crown property and, therefore, were exempt from municipal taxation, the matter was referred by the federal government to the Department of Justice, which gave its opinion "that these plants are not liable for taxation while owned by the crown and operated by the companies concerned exclusively on behalf of Her Majesty."
While it is true that the federal government has stated that it proposes to deal fairly with the

municipalities by making "grants in lieu of taxes" on these properties, on the basis of previous experience such grants are likely to amount to no more than 50 per cent of the normal tax assessment.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, the township corporation insisted that these were privately-owned plants. We said they were crown-owned plants, which they always were and which they always will be-or for a good time anyway.	We asked them to come here and
work out arrangements for grants in lieu of taxes. They did not come but they continued to try to prove that these were privately-owned plants. Finally I met the reeve at a function in Scarborough and I was able to convince him that they were publicly-owned plants.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: At what
point?


Clarence Decatur Howe: And he did come to Ottawa and arrangements were worked out. In the case of the John Inglis Company the value of the lands and buildings-that is the amount for which they could be taxed-is $2,595,000. The normal tax as worked out by the assessment commissioner would be $68,840.40 and the grant in lieu of taxes for 1952 was $65,000.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Who worked that out?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am sorry, that figure is for the coming year-1953-the first year of operation. For the Lucas-Rotax company the value of the land and buildings was set at $2,121,740 and the normal taxation according to the assessment commissioner would be $65,873.59. The agreed payment in lieu of taxes for 1953 will be approximately $60,000.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Who was the
assessment commissioner who fixed that?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I cannot tell you.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: It was the
commissioner for the federal government.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, it was the local assessment commissioner for the township of Scarborough.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Is the minister sure?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Then one
other question is this. When the sale was made, at what point did Defence Production emerge in this transaction?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The Lucas-Rotax company
people bought the land on our behalf, at our request and with our consent. They were the purchasers.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: In their
name?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It was immediately switched to our name. I am not sure whether it was in their name or in our name but the reason it was bought that way, as my hon. friend will quite understand, is that private enterprise can purchase to a little better advantage than the crown.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Yes, but I rather question a transaction where that is done-where the township sells in good faith with everybody knowing that what they wanted to have was ordinary taxation, but they wake up and find that they have not.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I would like to ask the minister another question. I notice that there is an increase in this item which indicates that there is an increase in the number of these crown-owned defence plants operated by private companies. I would like to ask the number of the plants and where they are situated.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There are eleven plants. They are at North York, Etobicoke, Renfrew, Lachine, two at Scarborough, one in the township of Ross, the town of La Salle, the township of Toronto, and two in the parish of St. Laurent.


Mr. Fleming:: I was going to ask the minister a question in regard to last year's expenditures under this item. The details on page 158 indicate actual expenditure, by which, I take it, are meant grants to municipalities in lieu of taxes, to December 31, 1952. The sum of $175,500 is the actual amount to that date, and $49,500 is the amount estimated to be required for the balance of the fiscal year. The estimated total for 1952-53 is thus $225,000. Would the minister now give us the actual total, and would he put on Hansard, although it may be a long list, the municipalities to which payments were made and the amounts paid in each case?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, I can do that for this year but I have not the expenditure detail for last year. The total was $214,842.36 and we have not got the detail here but we can easily get it for my hon. friend, and we will be glad to do so.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That will show the amount paid to each municipality?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, last year.


Donald Methuen Fleming: For the last fiscal year. I suppose there is a problem because the municipalities operate on a calendar year basis, but this statement is for the fiscal year commencing April 1. I understand that the grants were operative for the full fiscal year ended
Supply-Defence Production March 31, 1953, but what accounts for the increase from $213,000 to $400,000? Is there any change in the policy or is it simply a matter of more plants coming under the scope of grants in lieu of taxes?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, Lucas-Rotax and several other plants operated for only a few months last year. There is no change in the policy followed and it is the same as for last year. There is, however, more property which has come on the tax rolls since that time.


Donald Methuen Fleming: As I recall it, the policy when announced applied to crown-owned property and also to property owned by crown corporations?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is right.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I ask if precisely the same policy is followed with respect to crown corporations on the one hand and crown-owned property on the other?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It varies with the corporation. The corporation is subject to taxation-at least we have practically made it so. It is not legally subject to taxation because it is property of the crown. Nevertheless, the corporation works out its own tax deal with the taxing authority with which it is associated, and satisfactory arrangements are made by all the crown companies with the taxing authority to which each is subject.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Has any question been raised at any time by the Auditor General or otherwise as to legislative sanction for these payments, especially with respect to such payments by any of these crown corporations? While all parties have supported the policy of having grants equivalent to taxes made in respect of crown property, has any question been raised by the Auditor General, the Department of Justice or otherwise as to the need for legislation to give full legislative sanction to the making of such grants by crown corporations?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Finance-I am not sure whether he introduced legislation-announced in the house a policy covering the taxation of government-owned property. In that announcement he made a statement that industrial plants owned by the government would make their own arrangements, and that policy has been followed. So far as legislation is concerned, if we pass this estimate we have the legislation necessary to cover the grants this year.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is for crown-owned property?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: My question deals with
corporations. I recall the statement of the minister to the effect that was the policy

Supply-Crown Companies that would be followed thereafter, but so far as the legal position is concerned it was done as a matter of grace and not right on the part of the municipalities. X am wondering whether any question has been raised by the Auditor General or otherwise as to payments made by crown corporations to municipalities in the absence of some clear legislative provision? I know the policy announced by the Minister of Finance, but there was no legislation introduced following his statement.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My advisers tell me that we know of no objection from the Auditor General to the payments that have been made. I think the practice is well understood by hon. members through the announcement made by the Minister of Finance. He has an appropriation for that purpose covering another type of government property, and we come each year for appropriations to cover the properties owned directly by the crown. So far as the crown corporations are concerned, the payments are made with the consent of the individual board of directors. I think there is no great difficulty.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Crown companies-
82.	To provide for expenses incurred by Defence Construction (1951) Limited in procuring the construction of defence projects on behalf of the Department of National Defence, $4,242,000.
Edmund Davie Fulton: I should like to ask a question or two about the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation. My question relates to something which took place in Halifax, so it will be obvious to members that I have been asked to raise this question by the hon. member for Annapolis-Kings, who is unable to be here at the present time. My question concerns information which came to that hon. member's attention regarding the sale of a number of Browning .5-inch machine guns which, according to the information he received, were sold as scrap. I do not know all the details, and I think perhaps the best way is to ask the minister or his parliamentary assistant whether Crown Assets Disposal Corporation sold such Browning machine guns?


The Deputy Chairman:: May I draw the hon. member's attention to the fact that we are discussing item 82, which deals with defence construction.


Clarence Decatur Howe: This is quite in order, Mr. Chairman.


Edmund Davie Fulton: For the chairman's information, may I say that last evening when I sought to raise this matter on the general item it was suggested that I wait until we came to

section "B" dealing with crown companies. Did Crown Assets Disposal Corporation sell any Browning .5-inch machine guns at Halifax? If so, could the minister tell us how many and under what circumstances and on what terms?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, I am told that there were certain guns there sold as scrap. They were, of course, breeched and destroyed for useful purposes before they were sold as scrap. Other guns were sent to Canadian Arsenals to be rehabilitated and sold to the government of Israel.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Had those guns been sold as scrap originally? Perhaps I should ask who was the initial purchaser? My information is that it was a firm that had the word "Sumac" in the name, anyway. Were those guns sold initially as scrap and at scrap prices?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The Sumac Company is the purchasing agency for the Israeli government. Any guns that were bought by Sumac were reconditioned by Canadian Arsenals and sold by Canadian Arsenals at what was believed to be a fair price for the account of the Israeli government. I understand that my hon. friend has asked for information on this matter, and I am told also that the Israeli government refused to consent to the information being made public. Therefore, I cannot speak about the guns that were sold to Sumac on account of the Israeli government.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I understand that in conversations between the member for Annapolis-Kings and the member for Halifax, who is the parliamentary assistant to the minister, it was indicated that the Israeli government objected to the correspondence being made public. I am not talking about the correspondence. I am asking what the purchase price of those guns was which were sold to Sumac. Surely the Israeli government cannot raise objections to revealing what price the Canadian government received for those guns.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We can get the price. I do not know that that would be a breach of confidence. We would be glad to do so, but we have not got it here at the moment.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Does the minister have at the moment information as to whether or not they were sold at scrap prices or at prices which would represent a fair price for workable guns?


Clarence Decatur Howe: They were certainly sold to Israel at fair prices which would represent the price of a workable gun. Certain guns were sold for scrap. They had deteriorated to the point where they were no longer useful, but no

guns are sold for scrap which can later be converted to useful guns. When sold for scrap, the breech is broken and they are rendered unusable. I believe we also make a kink in the barrel.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Do I understand that the price received from the Sumac Company, the price received by Crown Assets Disposal Corporation for these Browning guns under discussion, were prices for workable guns and not prices representing scrap guns?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, that is correct.


Mr. Low:: I want to ask the minister one question in connection with item 82. Did his department, under this item, build the United States base at Saskatoon Mountain in the Peace river country?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have never heard of that base. If it is a United States base, the chances are that we did not build it. If we did build it, we built it for our United States government account and I do not know that I can give any information on it.


Solon Earl Low: I was told that some Canadian service built it and then turned it over to the United States government for operation. I know the base has just been opened. I just wanted to know whether Defence Construction Limited had built it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Just to dispose of the matter which I had mentioned, I understand the minister is going to furnish the information if it can be done before the items carry, or if not, will give me the information later. That is as to the number of guns and the prices received.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I will furnish it later. That is a classified structure. We cannot talk about it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
National research council-
288. Salaries and other expenses, $13,536,529.
Mr. Green:: Is the minister going to make any statement on this item?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No. I had not intended to do so. This is the usual estimate for the national research council. I made a statement last year about the work of the council, and I do not propose to make one at this time.


Howard Charles Green: I must admit that I am greatly interested in the work of the national research council and I always find it a little bit difficult to raise any question of expense. I think that the work of this council is of great
I, 1953	4979
Supply-National Research Council importance to Canada. Our country is so far-flung and we have so many different sorts of problems arising that a research council is probably of more benefit here than it would be in any other nation in the world.
I believe that our research council has done a fine job. I notice that in the last monthly bulletin, the last NRC Research News, which is for May, 1953, one of the reports is on research into the problem of radar detection of sea ice. This research had been carried on in Hudson bay in connection with the British ministry of transport. Of course hon. members will realize just how important that research is with respect to navigation. The other report is on doughnut frying tests. That matter may be equally important and perhaps of more interest to some Canadians.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is to make the hole more edible.


Howard Charles Green: I am not sure. I rather suspected that is what it was for.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And we are a committee of the whole.


Howard Charles Green: In any event, I think that the research council is of great importance to the nation and that we are able to benefit greatly from its work also because we are privileged to work closely with the British and with the Americans.
Then of course it is doing splendid work in providing training for young men who subsequently go into industry. Perhaps the minister can tell us whether the policy is still one of using the research council, to a degree at least, as a training ground for experts in the various Canadian industries.
It is difficult to check the expenditures. I notice that this year the first item, which is that of salaries and other expenses, has increased by $1,337,845. I wish the minister would explain how that increase comes about.
There is one other question I should like to ask about that item and it is this. In the details at page 354, near the top of the page we find an item showing that the gross total for the continuing establishment is $8,590,284. Then there is the note "Less-Anticipated savings due to difficulty in recruiting staff". I think that was for the year 1952-53 and not for 1953-54. Perhaps the minister can explain the story behind that entry. Then the total expenditure for last year, after deducting the revenue received, was only $11,618,000, although the vote last year was for $12,198,684, the difference being made up of $550,000 received by way of revenue. How is that revenue derived? Is the item for the current
4980	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Research Council year inclusive of a certain amount calculated for revenue?
In the 1950 session we had a special committee on the research council. One year previously there had been one on atomic energy and this year the same committee, with one exception, is working on atomic energy again. I believe it would be a good practice to appoint a committee of the house to consider either one or the other each session. That would mean that perhaps next year there could be a committee-the same committee or a similar one-appointed to look into the operations of the research council.


Mr. Cote (Maiapedia-Maiane):: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I do not know the rules and I should like to have a statement made. May I ask if my hon. friend will tell me whether the opposition can stand with the hon. member alone?


William Alfred Robinson: The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra has the floor.


Howard Charles Green: I was suggesting to the minister that it would be worth while to establish a practice of having a small committee-


Alcide Côté: No, no. I
want a ruling.


William Alfred Robinson: Order.


Howard Charles Green: -to keep in touch with the workings of the national research council and Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. In that way it is possible to have some check on the moneys expended; and after all, that is an extremely important function in any democratic system of government. It is quite impossible for the members of the house to check the expenditures efficiently in the house; for example, in committee of the whole as we are today.
Then another great advantage of a committee of this kind is that hon. members are able to understand the problems being faced by the scientists engaged in this very important work. I suppose hon. members are sometimes also able to make suggestions which are helpful to the scientists. In any event it does build up a very fine feeling between the men engaged in the scientific work and the members of parliament who are on the committee in question. That has been the experience in each of these three instances, the committee on atomic energy,
I think it was in 1949; the committee on the research council in 1950; and the committee on atomic energy again this year.
It has been most interesting work for those of us who have been on the committee, and I think the result has been to give the scientists the feeling that they have the


sympathetic understanding of hon. members. In that way the welfare of the nation as a whole is promoted. Perhaps the minister can let me have a reply to some of these comments.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend has suggested that men go from the research staff to industry. That is true. During the past fiscal year nine have gone to Canadian industry, two have gone to Canadian universities, and four to other departments of government. These of course are senior men. The national research council does make an excellent recruiting ground for men who have been trained in scientific work, and I think in that way it performs a very valuable service.
My hon. friend asks about the increase in the appropriation. It is due to two causes; one is the somewhat larger staff and the other somewhat higher salaries. There has been a revision of salaries for technical and scientific workers during the past year, with a reaction on the appropriation. One important factor is that it is becoming the practice of government to use the national research council for special problems to an increasing extent. For instance, at the moment the council is engaged in a very extensive research into the causes of dust explosions in grain elevators. That is a big task. The council has been asked to undertake the problem of removing Ripple rock, and also-


Howard Charles Green: That is a tall order, too.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, it takes a good deal of work. It is also studying the effect of tides on Vancouver harbour if the first narrows are dredged to a wider depth and straightened out. Special problems of that kind are being referred now to the research council and we find it is a splendid source of information.
It is difficult to get as many trained men as the establishment calls for, but if men are available, bright young men from the universities with the proper background, it is the policy to add them to the staff and thus make it possible for a turnover of staff which is helpful for scientific purposes and also very helpful to the community.
As far as a continuing committee is concerned, if I were sure that my hon. friend and I would both be back for the next session we might sort of make a definite promise, but I can assure him that if I am then the minister in charge of the national research council I will never object to a committee being appointed to examine its work. I think it is a good thing for the House of Commons and perhaps a good thing for the national research council to have a committee meet from time to time, not every year perhaps,

but at frequent intervals to examine and report on the work of the council.


Mr. Siuari (Charlotte):: I should like to go on record as endorsing the statements that have been made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra. I have been a member of this committee since it was set up some years ago. Our visits to Chalk River and Deep River have been most interesting. I support the statement made by the hon. member in connection with our visits there and the way we were received by Dr. Mackenzie and his staff. I believe that they welcomed us most sincerely, as they felt it was helpful to them for hon. members to have some information as to the work they were doing and as to some of the problems they had to encounter.
I will not go into this in detail, but the damage to the reactor last December was a most shocking thing at that time. I believe at the present time it is pretty well understood that it might have been helpful in many ways owing to the information they have been able to obtain in repairing it.
On our visit there a few years ago Dr. Lewis spoke to us at the hotel, and his information was called a gleam in the eye of the scientists. Two or three years ago he indicated to the committee the program that they had in mind at Chalk River; that is, the short-term program, and again the program with the longer vision. It was most interesting. When we went back this year he repeated some of the predictions he had made a few years ago, and went on to explain to us what had been accomplished since our last visit to Chalk River.
I feel that we have in that organization young men of vision, young men who are capable of doing a very fine job for this country. They furnish information that is greatly needed in industry in which they are playing a most prominent part. I believe that each and every member of the committee would be prepared to support their effort in every way. I must say that it is the one committee on which I have sat where there has been no criticism whatever. Every member has been prepared to do everything in his power to assist this organization, which we all consider is an asset to this country of ours. I do believe that at some future date we might expect something even more outstanding than we had up to the present time.
In so far as expenditure there is concerned, I believe that the Canadian people are convinced it is worth while, and the contribution that this country is making takes second place to none in the world.
68108-315^
Supply-National Research Council


Stanley Howard Knowles: Can the minister explain the apparent reduction in the salary of the president, as indicated on page 352 of the estimates?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Since there was a change in the incumbent, the new incumbent starts at the minimum rates rather than the maximum.


Howard Charles Green: The minister did not deal with the question I asked him about the explanation of page 354 of the estimates.


Clarence Decatur Howe: About the lack of ability to fill the establishment?


Howard Charles Green: Yes.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I did say that we recruit men as they become available. You cannot produce scientists out of thin air. These young men go into the research council from zeal for that class of work. It is not possible to compete with private industry, but as they become available they are taken on.


Howard Charles Green: What about revenue?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Revenue is from testing work for private industry. Material is sent in for testing on account of the specialized equipment that we have. We count on revenue of around $500,000 when making up these estimates.


Mr. MacLean (Queens):: What liaison is
carried on between the national research council and similar councils in other parts of the commonwealth with a view to eliminating duplication of effort?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is very close liaison. The national research council has an information section, and information concerning everything going on at the council is furnished to the provincial institutions. If a problem is being undertaken, the others are notified and an arrangement is made as to which of them will undertake it. So far as I know, there is no overlapping. There seems to be the best of good feeling and close co-operation.


John Angus MacLean: I was asking about research councils in other parts of the commonwealth.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We have a liaison officer in
London, and also one at Washington permanently, to keep in touch with scientific establishments in each place. Of course there is a liaison system in London in respect of commonwealth countries doing scientific work.


Howard Charles Green: What progress has been made in research into the problem of removing Ripple rock, and also in the study of tides
4982	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Research Council and currents in Vancouver harbour leading eventually to widening there?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Replying to the part of the question having to do with Vancouver harbour, I would say that a hydraulic model is being built. That is the surest way to test reactions of that kind. It is being built by the same organization that prepared the model of the Fraser river, which has proved so useful.


Howard Charles Green: The University of British
Columbia?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, the University of British Columbia. In the case of Ripple rock, studies have been advanced, and borings are to be taken shortly to determine whether there is any fissure in the rock which would have an influence on the method adopted. So far the studies have been office studies. These will be available later to determine the various methods of attack upon the problem.


Howard Charles Green: Borings are to be made at Ripple rock?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Not on the rock; one method would be that of tunnelling. The tunnel would have to be at a depth of, I believe, 350 feet below the surface of the water. That type of tunnelling is feasible if there is no Assuring in the rock; but if the rock were badly fissured it would be impossible to hold back the water. The drilling to be undertaken is to determine the nature of the rock.


Howard Charles Green: How can that be done? Is that not very difficult, in view of the strong currents and tides?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The tunnelling would have to be from the shore, and under the rock. The drilling would be near the shore to determine the nature of the rock, and whether it is subject to Assuring. If it is, then that method' of attack is unworkable. If it seems to be solid rock, then the assumption would be that it would be solid rock out to and including Ripple rock itself.


Howard Charles Green: If the rock is found to be solid, when will'the actual tunnelling be begun?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Really, we are simply exploring the problem. After we find the nature of the rock we can determine as to the tunnelling. Meantime other approaches are being studied, and it is hoped a report will be made in due course, as soon as the research council can complete the data and report to the government recommending a certain manner of attack. At that time an appropriation will be made, and field work undertaken.


Howard Charles Green: What other approaches are
under way?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The committee has been appointed for only a few weeks. Three or four weeks ago I talked to Dr. Steacie, at which time he wanted permission to get on with the drilling. I did not discuss other approaches. However, he did say that that was one approach they were studying.


Howard Charles Green: In what vote is the money for this work included?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Supplementary estimates for
the national research council, which we hope to call in a few minutes.


John Angus MacLean: Would the minister give a brief outline of regional laboratories of the national research council, and what work is being carried on in those laboratories?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There are two regional laboratories, one at Saskatoon for the prairies and the other at Halifax for the maritimes. It has been the understanding that the maritimes laboratory would work on problems of particular interest to the maritime provinces. I understand one branch of research has been into the uses of seaweed. I think that is the principal project at the moment.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
National research council-
684. Salaries and other expenses-further amount required, $70,000.
Howard Charles Green: What is this for?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Vancouver harbour.


Howard Charles Green: Does it include the work at Ripple rock?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes. It is the expenditure which it is believed will be made during the current fiscal year in connection with the studies of that problem.


Howard Charles Green: Is there anything in the estimate to enable a commencement of the actual work?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Not at the moment, no.


Howard Charles Green: During the present fiscal year?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


Howard Charles Green: Then there is no possibility of being able to start work on the Ripple rock problem before March 31 next?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is the view of the committee. If there is, we will have to take it up with the Department of Finance and see what we can do about finances. However,
I think it is unlikely. This is a very big problem. As my hon. friend knows, over a million dollars has been spent on it already- and quite us|lessly. We hope this time, if we undertake it again, we will know more about the possibilities of finishing it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Probably you will drop an atomic bomb on it on August 9.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We would like to do that very much indeed.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Atomic energy control board-
Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (research programmers. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, and to authorize Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to undertake construction of works at Deep River for Atomic Energy of Canada Limited-further amount required, $75,000.
John Angus MacLean: What flying field facilities are available to the aeronautical research branch of the national research council? Would the minister also state the position concerning new facilities on the Montreal road?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The experimental work of the research council in aviation was formerly carried on at Arnprior. Those facilities are now being moved to Uplands. A hangar is being constructed there to serve the purposes of the hangar previously used at Arnprior.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Atomic energy control board-
290. Administration expenses of the atomic energy control board, $59,240.
Howard Charles Green: Here again we have a work which is of the utmost importance to Canada, and in which we are working closely with the United Kingdom and the United States. I think the hon. member for Charlotte was right when he referred to the wonderful spirit of the young men and women who are carrying on this work at Chalk River. It would be helpful if the minister could bring us up to date on the plans for the reactors at Chalk River. He gave an interview to the Ottawa Journal which was reported in the issue of April 3.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The interview I gave was not reported; the reporter wrote a story.


Howard Charles Green: I wondered because there were several things in that story which went rather far to the knowledge of the atomic energy committee of the house.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Please do not hold me responsible for the story. That was written by Mr. Jackson of the Journal.


Howard Charles Green: Perhaps the minister could tell us what the plans are for the reactors at Chalk River. As I understand it, the original pile which was known as Zeep is still in operation. The second pile, NRX, is the one to which the unfortunate accident happened
Supply-Atomic Energy Control Board some months ago and which I believe is now in the course of being repaired. Then we have had word of a third pile to be known as NRU. In this statement the minister is quoted as mentioning a fourth pile which has not yet been commenced but which would be used largely in connection with the setting up of power plants. Could the minister tell us what the plans are with regard to these reactors and also give us some idea as to the cost of the fourth pile?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We are getting a good many piles here. The Zeep pile was the original one. It was a low voltage pile that was put in for experimental purposes. The commercial pile known as NRX which had been operating at Chalk River had lived its life and finally became punctured. It was believed that when punctured the life of a pile would be ended. However, it has been found possible to remove the calandria and rebuild the pile for further life. This is the first occasion this particular operation has been undertaken and it has attracted a great deal of attention both in the United States and in the United Kingdom. Scientists from both those countries have been studying the effect of operating a pile for five years and then decontaminating it and withdrawing the working parts.
That operation has now been virtually completed and all that remains to be done is to put back new working parts and start up the pile. That work is under way. The. second pile of course is the big project.


Howard Charles Green: That will be the third.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That will be the third. When that is finished the present plans for construction of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited will have been completed as far as work at Chalk River is concerned. Methods of producing commercial power are now fairly well developed. We hope that private industry will undertake the building of a pile for the production of commercial power. That is our hope. I am not going to ask the government to build that pile because I do not think it is a proper government operation. We hope that the Ontario hydro and some of the other commercial power companies which have shown an interest in the project will combine their talents and resources to build a commercial pile. I think that that will be undertaken, but I cannot be sure just when. As my hon. friend is aware, there is a great deal of interest by private enterprise in the United States in the development of power by this method. The position is about the same in the two countries. I am hopeful that the next development will be a private industry development.
4984	HOUSE OF
Supply-Atomic Energy Control Board


Solon Earl Low: Is private industry building a pile in the United States for experimental purposes?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, not at the moment, but there is considerable interest in the subject. I think the work will be undertaken in the near future.


Howard Charles Green: An article in the current U.S. News and World Report is entitled "Industry Gets Set for the Atom. Sites being Chosen-Power in 2 to 5 years". The article continues:
Peaceful use of the atom is closer than you think. Private industry is ready to move in as soon as congress gives the word.
Apparently there w-ill have to be a change in the atomic energy legislation of the United States before private industry can participate. The article continues:
Electric power, generated by atomic heat, may be only two years away. That is a radical revision of the timetable.
Blueprints are being drawn for reactor plants. A hunt for sites is under way. There is a lot going on.
One startling paragraph of the article reads:
Before 1960, possibly in five years, there may be six to a dozen big-city type central power stations fueled with atomic heat at various localities in the United States.
Is the policy of the Canadian government similar to the policy which has been recommended to the United States government by their atomic energy commission, that is, that private industry be encouraged to carry most of the responsibility for the development of power from atomic energy subject, of course, to strict government control? I notice in the press of April 29 that Prime Minister Churchill states that Great Britain is setting up a new type of control. He seems to be moving in the same direction as the United States. Is the Canadian policy of the same type?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The Canadian policy is the same as that announced in the United States, to encourage private industry to take up the development of the atom for power purposes. One difficulty in the United States is that the McMahon Act prevents any plutonium being diverted from the atomic energy commission into private hands. That restriction does not obtain in Canada. From the interest that is being taken in this matter I think we can hope that private industry in both the United States and Canada will take up the development of the atom for commercial purposes. According to the announcement by Mr. Churchill, the United Kingdom government is undertaking to build a plant which in addition to making plutonium for government purposes will also generate heat for commercial purposes. I understand that that is to be a


government undertaking, but we have no similar plans for Canada.


Howard Charles Green: This policy will mean that private industry will develop power from atomic energy. Could there not be some policy adopted under which this power could be made available in those parts of Canada which are short of power? For example, will it be possible to have atomic energy produce power in the maritime provinces or in Saskatchewan? There should be some way by which atomic energy can be made available to those parts of Canada which do not have hydro power and which require electrical power for development purposes. Has the minister in mind any plan of that type that would help to spread industry to those parts of Canada where there is no industry at the present time?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, Mr. Chairman, if this is to be a private enterprise development piles can be built anywhere. The fuel problem is not difficult; you can almost carry the fuel supply for a year or two in your hat. The shipment of fuel is not a problem. I can see that it would be more attractive to private enterprise to build in power-hungry provinces where rates would be higher; but I hope the government does not intend to get into the business of generating power from atomic energy any more than it has been in the business of developing electric power or any other form of energy.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Could I ask the minister this. I realize from the replies that he has made that this atomic energy power development is to be undertaken by private enterprise; but would the information which they have at Chalk River be made available to the provincial legislatures? You have mentioned the province of Ontario, but would that information be made available to any provincial legislature?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Not to provincial legislatures but to the provincial power people. The power companies are represented on the board of directors of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, and if any province signified an interest arrangements would be made to make any necessary information in the board's possession available to the province.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister in his reference just now mentioned provincial power companies. I presume that would include provincial public power authorities?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I said provincial power
authorities.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Well, I hope you did.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, all this atomic energy program depends primarily on one

metal, uranium. At the present time the only uranium we are getting in Canada comes from the government mine on Great Bear lake and I believe now from Beaverlodge in northern Saskatchewan; the mine there was to come into production last month. In spite of all the rises in stocks of uranium mining companies, I understand that as yet not one ton of ore has been purchased by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited from a private company. As hon. members know, all ore must go to that company and it does seem to me that something should be done and done quickly to step up the finding of uranium and also the processing of uranium in Canada.
I think I am correct in saying that there are only two or three geologists in the geological survey branch who are available for work on radioactive minerals, whereas in the United States there are dozens or perhaps hundreds. Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, the members of the atomic energy committee were shown the laboratories where the radioactive division of the geological survey is doing its work. They are in the basement of the museum and some of the equipment cannot be used because the rooms cannot be air-conditioned; in that old building the basement apparently runs some distance on one level and then drops to another level. It is a very unsuitable place for this work.
I do believe that it is a great tragedy that this important work is being handicapped through lack of accommodation here in Ottawa. We are building a $2 million building in Washington for the joint staff, yet here in this work on radioactive minerals we make our scientists go down in a rat-hole to carry it on. I am not blaming the minister for that and I think that if he had the handling of that situation it would have been remedied some time ago-and I am not blaming the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys either.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Blame the Minister of Public Works.


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: Don't you think I have been blamed enough?


Howard Charles Green: But there is a ridiculous position.


An hon. Member:: They are falling apart over there.


Howard Charles Green: The most important work of a scientific nature that we are doing in Canada today has to do with these radioactive minerals, yet these scientists have to work in the basement of an old building that is only fit for the storage of letter files. I do hope that the Minister of Trade and Commerce
8, 1953	4985
Supply-Atomic Energy Control Board will see to it that the condition is remedied without further delay.
I have one other point and it has to do with the processing of this uranium ore. At the present time we have to send our ore to the United States for processing.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


Howard Charles Green: In part at least. I realize that there are difficulties in doing all processing in Canada, but certainly every possible move should be made to bring about that result.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If my hon. friend does not mind, we send an oxide to the United States, and they do the processing into metal.


Howard Charles Green: I mean that part of the processing has to be done in the United States.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is a little cheaper. We could do it here just as well, and we probably will.


Howard Charles Green: I would hope that we would take steps to bring about that result. Can the minister give us assurance about proper premises for these men who are working on this development? I also mentioned staff. I think we are trying to do the work of surveying the districts of Canada where there are radioactive minerals with much too small a staff.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, my hon. friend has been addressing the three important ministers in connection with providing new accommodation-the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys, the Minister of Public Works and the Minister of Finance. I am afraid that as Minister of Trade and Commerce I cannot help you very much there.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He is an important minister too. .


Clarence Decatur Howe: Not very, for that. As far as staff is concerned, it is difficult to keep highly trained laboratory men who know the mining field. They are very scarce, and fabulous salaries are being offered to them by commercial companies. However, we always have a list of devoted scientists who prefer to work for the government, and we are thus able to keep a nucleus and to train others. I am sure it is the same with the mines branch, which is highly regarded by the mining fraternity.


Howard Charles Green: I am not criticizing them for the work they are doing. I think they are doing grand work.


John Angus MacLean: I have a very brief question. Can we supply all hospitals which are prepared to instal cobalt bombs for cancer treatment? Is the material available and what is, generally, the arrangement for
4986	HOUSE OF
Supply-Health and Welfare making radioactive elements available to universities, hospitals and industries?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We made about 1,100 shipments of radioactive isotopes last year. It is my recollection that they are furnished for hospital or scientific use at a price that represents just about the processing cost. As far as the cobalt bomb is concerned, it is manufactured by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. The demand exceeds the supply. We think that some of the demand is coming from sources that are not qualified to handle the equipment. We are working closely with the cancer foundation, and bombs are being built steadily and put into use.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I want to make one comment to support what the hon. member for Vanoouver-Quadra said concerning accommodation for these gentlemen who are doing this important work in Ottawa. I can assure the minister that every member of the atomic energy committee would certainly be in favour of improved accommodation, so perhaps the minister and the Minister of Public Works can get together so that we might look forward to something better.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Howard Charles Green: Is there not a supplementary item still to come?


The Chairman:: Items 684 and 685 were called at the time when we were discussing the national research council at the hon. member's request.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE

[Stage Direction]
249. Departmental administration, $1,001,677.
William Alfred Robinson: Shall the item carry?


Solon Earl Low: Mr. Chairman, I wish I could
accommodate you by allowing the item to carry but I am afraid that if I did so, my promise of the other night-to say something good for the minister's ears-would not be kept.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We could skip it.


Solon Earl Low: I suppose we could skip it but this is one department, Mr. Chairman, in which I am most keenly interested, chiefly because I had something to do with making some plans for health services.
On Friday last the Minister of National Health and Welfare presented to the house what he called a threefold advance. The substance of his speech was new policy as far as the federal government is concerned;
IMr. MacLean (Queens).]

and because it was new policy I felt that I should like to comment on it briefly under item 1 of his departmental estimates.
The minister spoke with considerable fervour and enthusiasm on that occasion. That, of course, is quite understandable because, when one knows that he is doing something really worth while for humanity, especially something designed to prevent or to alleviate human suffering if he has a heart at all he can wax enthusiastic when he is talking about it. That is particularly true in the early stages soon after one catches a vision of what a job there is to do and what can be done if we set our hearts to it with some determination.
I compliment the minister. He is catching a real vision, I believe, of what can be done and of what ought to be done. He has given tangible evidences of having caught it, at any rate. I think he gave no less than three of those tangible evidences when he spoke a week ago; I believe it was a week ago this very night. The minister should be encouraged because what he is now doing is, I think, right and good. People are not always given encouragement when they try to follow a vision-that is, when they set out to do what is right and good.
I know something about this matter because 16 years ago I had an intimate part in a program of a kind quite similar to the one which is now firing the enthusiasm of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, as, I may say incidentally, it is firing the enthusiasm of all of us. I recall with what fervour my colleagues and I at that time talked about plans for the provincial government especially to take over from the municipalities of our province the whole of the cost of tuberculosis treatment and of preparing the provincial department of health for an all-out fight to the finish against that dread disease. Although our total provincial revenues at that time were only $18 million, we felt that we must appropriate enough of them to provide for complete diagnosis and treatment, including medical and sanatorium care, for all the residents of our province, without direct charge to them in this fight against tuberculosis. As we saw our battle against tuberculosis succeeding, it gave us heart and determination to go further. I think perhaps the most effective single thing we did in that particular fight was to send out all over the province, into every settlement and centre, mobile X-ray diagnostic clinics. In the year 1951 these clinics alone examined 700,000 individuals, more than three-fifths of the province's total population, and that is something of an achievement.
Encouraged by the success of our fight against tuberculosis, we decided next to work

out a long-range policy covering the whole field of health and welfare. I suppose you could call it planning; it does not matter to me what you call it. In any event, it was our desire, and our hope that, in the course of making our plans and putting them into effect, we could keep them as free as possible from politics because we wanted it to develop scientifically and on a sound basis without any hasty, showy or ill-advised leaps that so often attend policies that are devised to catch votes.
I want to say right here that, as a consequence of that firm decision made early in the course of our plans, we kept the program particularly free from political influence. We decided that no part of it would be announced or put into operation just before an election, and, we stuck with that decision, Mr. Chairman. It paid off handsomely because we never had to retrace a single step and we never took a misstep in all of the progress we made in the program after the first ones were taken. There were, of course, minor changes that we made as we gathered experience, but there were no major ones. If I could be so bold as to offer a word of advice to the Minister of National Health and Welfare at this time, it would be this. The people of Canada will have much more confidence in him, in his department and in the soundness of his health program if they see his policies unfolding and developing as conditions become ready and as the provincial governments and the people are ready for advances without his relating what he does too closely to elections and vote catching.
To come back to my story for just a moment, it became our determination in the province to expand our health services program just as fast as finances could be found without imposing heavy burdens of taxation upon the people. We felt that the resources with which the good Lord had endowed our province ought to be made to pay the costs, or at any rate most of them; and this idea became part of our policy. I might say here, Mr. Chairman, that it has worked out very well because we have not instituted any health measure or measures which necessitated imposing upon the people any new taxation or any increases in old taxation measures. Very early in our experience it was recognized that, if we were to build a good, well-founded health program, our prime necessity would be hospital beds. We therefore bent every effort to get as many as possible into the province. We worked in close association with the municipalities in this area. I might say here, Mr. Chairman, that to the municipal governments must go the lion's share of the credit for the splendid progress that was made in building hospitals
Supply-Health and Welfare and in running them efficiently and cheaply, and they are still doing it. I think they are doing an excellent job from one end of our province to the other.
We had made excellent progress in this regard before the federal government entered the field with hospital grants of $1,000 a bed. But I hasten to say that the federal contribution was a real help. We acknowledge that and we are grateful that the federal government saw fit to institute these hospital grants. However, we must also bear in mind that the real heroes in the struggle to provide adequate hospital accommodation in the provinces have been the municipal taxpayers. They dig up $10,000 or $11,000 per bed for every $1,000 put up by the department of health in the province or the Department of National Health and Welfare at Ottawa.
No province in Canada can be said to have enough hospital beds today. I agree with what was said the other night in this regard by the hon. member for Lanark, who spoke in this debate and emphasized the necessity of putting forward more effort to get greater hospital accommodation in all of the provinces. As he said, more emphasis should be put on the provision of chronic patient accommodation so as to release the space these chronic cases now occupy to take care of the acute cases that need the beds. I thought a lot about that since the hon. member for Lanark spoke, and it does seem to me that one of the things toward which we should be bending our efforts today is the provision of infirmaries of some sort in connection with or quite close to old folks' homes and the like, in order to release for acute cases the beds that are now being used by the chronically ill individuals. I do not know how far the federal government can give impetus to that sort of thing in the provinces, but it does seem to me that some emphasis will have to be put on that matter in order to provide proper accommodation for acute hospital cases.
I should like to say here that no comprehensive health program in Canada is possible until our hospital space and facilities are much more nearly adequate than they are now.
I should like to revert for a moment to the earlier days of pioneering in the health service for all the people. I well recall with what enthusiasm we entered upon our polio program in Alberta. On the western prairies, as many hon. members know, we frequently suffer more or less from intense epidemics or outbreaks of poliomyelitis. For many years these outbreaks, as they came, crippled and maimed the victims. Well-meaning science seemed almost powerless to do much, if any-
4S88

Supply-Health and Welfare thing, about it. All too often the parents of the victim of the disease had not the means to pay for the long and costly treatment that was necessary, and as a consequence all too often the disease was allowed to run its course without anything being done except what could be done of course by loving hands at home.
When we experienced an outbreak of polio in 1937 and 1938 in our province our government decided to provide free medical, surgical and hospital care for all those suffering from this disease, as well as the free after-training for those who suffered paralysis from the disease. I believe I am right when I say we became in 1938 the first province to provide such a health service. I know I became most enthusiastic about it, even though I had to find the money to pay for the service, and in those days I was having plenty of difficulty to gather together enough money to take care even of the absolute necessities, let alone any frills. But I could not help becoming enthusiastic about it, as I saw suffering children and even grown-ups who became victims of the disease quickly brought into the University hospital in Edmonton to receive the very best relieving treatment and remedial training known in the world. I recall that when Sister Kenny was brought to America we did send representatives and trainees down to wherever it was she was carrying on her training course in the United States to learn her methods and bring back to the University hospital the techniques she had applied for the relief of those suffering from poliomyelitis.
Our experience in the field of polio has been a most satisfying one. Rehabilitation assistance granted to those suffering physical defects has helped many hundreds of young people especially to live useful and happy lives. Eventually we extended the same kind of rehabilitation efforts into the field of cerebral palsy. The Edmonton clinic was opened in 1950 and the Calgary clinic in 1951. They are doing outstanding work. I am sure that the provinces, particularly my province, welcome the new grants for rehabilitation services which the minister announced last Friday. It is just another evidence that the minister is seeing more clearly as the days pass the things that have to be done, and I compliment him on introducing this new service.
As I think about those days, 16 years ago, when we introduced free polio treatment and rehabilitation service, I think of how we found ourselves quite bitterly assailed by many of our political opponents for giving something for nothing. That is the kind of thing that we got. Well, that was only one of the problems
	.

we had to face in those days when we tried to do something, when we had only $18 million to $20 million total revenue out of which to do all the things we had to do. Just for the record, Mr. Chairman, we did not have oil at that time to provide the funds.
In his speech of Friday last the minister announced grants to make possible better health care for mothers and children. Here again the minister became enthusiastic, and in his enthusiasm he made some claims which will bear a little more careful examination. Amongst other things he said, at page 4681 of Hansard:
There can be no question that this federal aid over the past five years has been a factor in the decline in infant deaths in Canada from 16,333 in 1947 to 14,584 in 1951, a total saving of 10,000 infant lives In this period.
It is remarkable that we have made the progress we have in combating this terrible and unnecessary loss of human lives, and I do not blame the minister one bit for being enthusiastic about what has been accomplished, nor do I blame him for one moment for being enthusiastic about his new grants for child maternal care; but the people will hardly be able to credit those new grants with retroactive effects. Since no such grants have as yet been made, I think people generally would be more likely to believe that the remarkable decline in infant mortality in our country would have resulted from the kind of thing which we started in Alberta nine years ago; that is, in 1944.


Mr. Martin:: As I said, there already have been grants. There has been assistance along this line under the existing program.


Solon Earl Low: If that is the case, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre suggests to me, what is new about it?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I thought I had explained that clearly.


Solon Earl Low: At any rate, in 1944 we started in Alberta our fight against infant mortality by providing free hospitalization for all prospective mothers who were resident in the province, granting them free maternity hospitalization up to a period of twelve days. At present 96 per cent of Alberta's maternity cases are handled in the hospitals at a cost to the province of about $1,250,000. As I say, the program has been in effect in the province for nine years. Let me say here that it has done more than any other single thing of which I am aware to bring about a decline in infant mortality. Because of the pre-natal, natal and post-natal care the mothers get in the course of the hospitalization provided by the government, Alberta mothers have been getting along very well,

and the children have been getting the kind of start they ought to have if they are to grow to strong manhood and womanhood.
As I said, in this case the hospitalization is extended free to the mothers. This was done for the purpose of making it possible for all prospective mothers to have hospitalization. Because we discovered in our surveys taken before 1944 there were so many of the mothers who just could not afford to go to hospital some action was necessary. Of course we became very enthusiastic about it, as did the minister the other day. I can understand his enthusiasm. Our experience in Alberta leads us to commend the minister for what he is now doing. I cannot say that it is a new policy, but the procedure of extending the grants as he explained last Friday is a commendable one.
I am sure we would like to see every province in Canada providing maternity hospitalization free to its resident mothers. It can be done; there is no question about it. And, furthermore, it should be done. Under a proper financial policy our country and its resources could make that available to each prospective mother; and it should.
But if this is to be made possible, then I say much more substantial grants will have to be made available-much more than the maximum of $2 million a year proposed the other evening by the minister. And let me hasten to add that I am not belittling that amount; it is an excellent start.
One of the best fields for the government in the matter of providing health service for our people is that of diagnostic services. I believe that eventually most diagnoses will be made in clinics set up and maintained by provincial departments of health and supported by federal grants. In my opinion there is a great field here for development; and future extensions of national health policy ought to emphasize provision of free diagnostic service. We are glad to see a good start in that direction this year. I am sure that many people who today cannot get medical assistance, owing to its very high cost, will find it much easier in future to get and to pay for such medical care, provided we extend greatly government help in this field of diagnostic service. In my opinion this offers the very best field in which we could expand state health assistance.
Grants for laboratory and radiological services the minister announced last Friday will go a considerable distance in encouraging more diagnostic clinics of the kind found in some of the provinces, and which make provision for attacking cancer in its early stages, providing quick treatment for it, either by
Supply-Health and Welfare way of surgery or radium X-ray, or perhaps by the cobalt bomb. We have had such clinics in Alberta since 1940, and I understand they have had them in Saskatchewan for some years, although I do not know the exact length of time. And perhaps they are to be found in some other provinces of Canada, so that a good start has been made along this line.
We are making progress in the field of public health, but the provinces are leading the way in most branches. In my view that is a good thing. There is still much to be done, and I sincerely hope the provincial and federal departments of health will live in close harmony in laying down future policy and plans. However, this will require effort and desire on the part of the federal department as well as the departments in the provinces.
The other evening the minister was criticized for failing to use the expression "health insurance" in his speech. I listened to what was said and, as I understood it, the suggestion was that no reference whatever was made by the minister to health insurance. I am not very much worried about that, because health insurance is a term which may mean one thing to one person and another thing to another person. In short, it means different things to different people.
My colleague the hon. member for Red Deer dealt with that matter in his speech. Like him, I would like to know what people mean when they speak about health insurance- and I am not issuing that as a challenge, at all. I am merely interested to know what it is they mean. And, like my hon. friend, I would be interested in having the term defined in detail by those who use it.
The people in this country who foot the bill for these things are entitled at some time to know just what is involved when one recommends a national health insurance plan. So that if the minister does feel the urge to offer the people health insurance just prior to the general election, as the hon. member for Broadview has said he will do, then I hope he will spell out the details of that plan, including some information as to how much money his colleagues in the Department of Finance and the Department of National Revenue will have to take from the people by way of taxes to pay for this gift. I think we have got to give much more attention to the health of our taxpayers. We talk about the health of our people, but certainly we are not paying much attention to the health of the taxpayers. I am referring not only to their physical and mental health but also to their economic welfare. If we, as their legislative
4990	HOUSE OF
Supply-Health and Welfare representatives, fail to legislate proper financial economic policies so as to make it possible for these taxpayers to keep production and distribution at a high and balanced level, we can hardly expect them to continue to bear the heavy taxes required to pay the cost of a comprehensive national health insurance program.
A great responsibility rests upon the minister when he proceeds with the investigation of his dream and vision, particularly if he is going to make taxes carry the cost of a national health insurance scheme. If he does this he will have to see to it that a broad tax base is maintained within the Canadian economy. Otherwise Canadian taxpayers may wake up some morning to find themselves ground down at the heel under a tax dictatorship. It is time the minister laid bare his plan to the Canadian taxpayers; they want and need to see what his plans are. We will go along with him on any program that is reasonable and just and that offers our people the health services they should have. But at the same time we urge that the taxpayers be given some consideration and that concurrently with the development of our health program we develop some new concepts of finance in this country to make these things possible without having the people ground down under the heels of a tax dictatorship.
There will be a number of questions I shall ask later and in order to prepare the minister for some of them I will mention now one matter which is becoming quite an issue in some parts of Canada and I should like to have his views thereon. There are certain municipalities which appear to be preparing for the fluorination of their water supplies.
I have not had the opportunity to go into the pros and cons of this mass medication, which is all it can be called, and perhaps the minister can give the committee some information during the course of the consideration of his estimates.


Mr. Mclvor:: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry that I have not a written speech. When the minister was appointed to national health and welfare from citizenship I was very pleased because I do not think we forget that he wiped out all the little nationalities there were throughout Canada. When he was minister of citizenship he wiped out the little Italys, the little Turkeys, the little Germanys, the little Polands, the little Russias, the little Irelands and so on. Even I cannot be called an Irish-Canadian, although I like it.
Many Canadians said that the minister would be doing something worth while for Canada before very long when he was appointed minister of national health and he has not disappointed us. I am not trying to flatter him because that is the truth.


We had a debate on the question of aid for disabled persons and the minister made a promise which he is now fulfilling, or at least which he has begun to fulfil. At the next session I think we will be hearing, at least some of us, that he is more than doubling the grant for the disabled. When I brought up this resolution it would have gone to a vote if the government had not told its supporters to support it. We know that the resolution would have been carried but we accepted the minister's promise and he has kept it, just as he has kept the promise he gave before the last election that we would have old age security.
In Fort William we are grateful to the minister for the help we have received. We have been able to make an addition to the sanitarium in connection with which we received a substantial sum. An addition is being made to the McKellar hospital, and again we were given a substantial sum. When the provincial health unit was moved from the cramped quarters which it occupied in the city hall to the new wing in the McKellar hospital we again received additional assistance.
There is one thing that the people of Fort William do appreciate and that is the aid given for the training of nurses' aides. About $155,000 was provided for this purpose and a good job has been done. What is the use of having a hospital-doctors do a great job but they cannot do everything-if you do not have nurses to look after your patients. I know that these nurses' aides do a great job because I was in the hospital for a short time and I saw the service they were giving.
There are other things I would like to see brought about, such as the elimination of the means test in connection with the blind. I am not going to urge that very strongly because I said that I would not urge anything until the disabled were taken care of. I refer now to the third class of disabled. I stated before that there were three classes of these unfortunate people. There are the disabled who can get around but who cannot earn a living. There are the disabled who cannot get around but who can earn a little if they can get someone to sell the wares that they produce. Then there are the disabled who cannot earn anything, and should be given national support. You, Mr. Chairman, being mayor of your town, know who takes care of the disabled. These people must be taken care of and this represents one of the national needs of Canada at the present time. I would emphasize this much stronger if I had a better command of language.

I know that if the minister makes a promise there will be something happening. I worked for two years on the committee which drew up the details of the health insurance bill which was not put into effect. I was corrected when 1 said that the provinces did not support it. I was told that that was not true, but I think there are many Who know just who was correct. The health insurance proposed in that bill was a contributory measure. One provision that I liked, and I think the hon. member for Lanark will agree with me, was that the patient had the right to choose his own practitioner. Even a Christian Scientist could have his own practitioner. I think that is only proper because they have their rights, although I am not one of them.
I commend the minister for the present plan. I have read it over very closely and it indicates that the minister now looks after all phases of human life from the time before a person is born until he closes his eyes in sleep. But I do hope he is going to look after the disabled. We will keep after him. If I am here next year I am going to sponsor another resolution and I warn him that this time it will be carried.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, in view of the rather extended remarks which I made when this item was before us last Friday I shall not have as much to say at this point, but I feel I must rise to my feet because of what has been said by the hon. member for Peace River and by the hon. member for Fort William.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You would not want to say it on the item, would you?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think I would rather say it now.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I thought that as we had had a long general debate, and my hon. friend did make a rather comprehensive speech-


Stanley Howard Knowles: I shall not be long. I am afraid that there are a good many of us who are not as easily satisfied as the hon. member for Fort William. He has complimented the minister upon keeping his promise or, as he put it, starting to keep his promise in respect to disabled persons. I remind the hon. member for Fort William and the committee that the resolution which was debated in this house asked for pensions for disabled persons, but there is no provision of that kind in the plan which was announced last Friday by the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Supply-Health and Welfare
As to some of the other comments made by the hon. member for Fort William with respect to old age security, blindness allowances and so on, we can deal with them when we get to the specific items.
Mr. Chairman, I did feel that something should be said1 without waiting too long by way of comment on what was said by the hon. member for Peace River with particular reference to the question of health insurance. I say at the outset that the question which he asked was a perfectly fair one. It is the same question that was asked a week ago by the hon. member for Red Deer. The question was: what is health insurance? Hon. members are perfectly right in saying that there are various forms of health insurance but it seems to me that at this stage of the debate, and at this stage of discussing this question in this country, those who speak about this matter should by now know that health insurance is one part of an over-all national health program and that it is the part that relates to providing finances for health care.
If one goes back to the green book proposals of the government of Canada to the dominion-provincial conference on reconstruction, back in 1945, he will find set out therein what the government at that time called a national health program. The subheadings were: health services in Canada; health insurance; grants for planning organization; health grants; and so on. In other words, an overall health program includes a number of items. It includes grants, it includes facilities, and it includes the provision of doctors and hospitals. It also includes the question of how people are going to be able to pay for those services even after they have been made available. Mr. Chairman, it was because of the minister's omission, as far as his own speech a week ago was concerned, of any reference to health insurance that I felt that it was extremely important and a matter to which reference should be made.
I have before me the annual report of the Department of National Health and Welfare for the year ended March 31, 1952. On page 13 I find what is called an outline of the national health program. I am not going to read the program but the subheading is "Purposes of program". As I go down to the various purposes listed one of them is: "(d) to lay a sound foundation for health insurance". In other words, the government knows what health insurance is. The government knows that after you have provided hospitals, and after doctors and all the facilities are available to take care of the health of the people of Canada, there must be arrangements made for the people of this country

Supply-Health and Welfare to pay for those services. Back in 1945 the government knew that, when it made its proposals to the dominion-provincial conference. It certainly knows it now because many memoranda and monographs have been prepared on the question in the research division of the Department of National Health and Welfare.
So, Mr. Chairman, it is not my purpose to expand on the subject at this stage of the debate; but I felt I should answer the question put by the hon. member for Peace River. When we are talking about health insurance we are talking specifically about how the Canadian people are going to be able to pay for the services which are made available to them. The reason we are concerned and the reason we are exercised about the question of health insurance is that we feel that although the health grants are a real contribution to a health program for Canada, they do not pay a single Canadian's hospital bill. They do not relieve the burden of medical expense from the shoulder of a single Canadian family. These grants are welcome. They are an important step forward and we welcome them; but let them not be used as a smokescreen to try to 'hide from the Canadian people the fact that this government, which has been talking about health insurance since 1919, has done nothing about that important aspect of an over-all national health program.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to interrupt my hon. friend but I think that we are discussing a general item and my hon. friend is launching into an argument, the same kind of an argument in principle which he made when he spoke earlier. I do not think, on the first item, it is good debate; and it is not fair to hon. members, because these items can be discussed seriatim. One member should not repeat what he has already said in substance. My hon. friend will have an opportunity later on and I would suggest that all of us would want to say something. My hon. friend has made a comprehensive statement and he is repeating it now. If he wishes to repeat it, surely the place to repeat it is on the appropriate item and not when we are having a general discussion. I have always understood that to be the practice and rule regarding the general item.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I could argue the point but I will not do so. I will be more co-operative than the minister expects. I am prepared to defer the rest of my remarks on this question of health insurance until we get to item 266. However, I hope that when we get to that item the minister likewise will be prepared to discuss this question and to


tell us how much longer we are going to have to wait before this government does something about this very important aspect of our national health program. So, Mr. Chairman, without prejudice to what I think would be my right to carry on now on the first item, I am prepared to leave any further remarks until we reach the item to which I referred.


Mrs. Fairclough:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make a few remarks about the Old Age Pensions Act which is still on the statute books but, in so far as payments are concerned, is no longer operative. The matter 1 wish to discuss concerns claims from estates, still a matter of some confusion in the various provinces.


Mr. Marlin:: Would my hon. friend not agree that she refers to a particular item, and when we come to old age pensions we can discuss it? It is a particular question. If we did not follow that procedure all hon. members would have the right to speak and I would ask her in the interests of economy of time to defer her remarks.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: If the minister would say which item it should be discussed under I would be very glad to wait.


Murdo William Martin: Under old age security.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: This is the Old Age Pensions Act.


Murdo William Martin: We can discuss it then.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: If the minister agrees that we can discuss the matter then I will be very glad to do so.


Mr. Bourque:: 
Paul Joseph James Martin: Would the hon. gentleman permit me to interrupt? I would like to be fair to the whole house. Is he going to discuss medical research?


Romuald Bourque: I wish to speak about
rheumatic fever.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would my hon. friend not agree that he might discuss the matter when we come to the heading of epidemiology?


Romuald Bourque: I would be glad to do that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I shall undertake to tell the hon. member when we come to that item, if he wishes, so that we will have the debate in regular form.


Romuald Bourque: I was leaving this afternoon and I shall not be back until Monday morning. It is a very important matter, and I wanted to discuss it this afternoon if that were possible. However, if it is against the rules-


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am sure we shall reach item 260 today, with the co-operation of the house. When we come to that item, the hon. member can make his remarks.


Romuald Bourque: Unfortunately, I shall be away by that time. However, I shall leave the matter until then.


Some hon. Members:: Go ahead.


Romuald Bourque: Millions of dollars are being spent today seeking the cause and cure for cancer. Some day cause and cure will be discovered and humanity will be spared another great scourge that has killed many of our people in the prime of life. Tuberculosis, the white plague of a few generations ago, has been attacked by the medical profession supported by contributions from millions of people who buy Easter seals. Diabetes, thanks to the skill of two Canadian doctors who discovered insulin, is no longer the dreadful killer that it was in the past.
But rampant amongst us, virtually unrecognized and generally ignored by the public, is a common murderer known in the United States as childhood's greatest enemy. No organized body in Canada is on this killer's track. Nobody in Canada is being asked to come to the rescue and save the thousands of today's children who will be robbed of the life to which they are entitled, because of this
Supply-Health and Welfare killer's activity. For some reason or other, a disease which is the greatest known threat to our children is never publicly discussed in Canada and has never been the subject of any great, nation-wide campaign.
Rheumatic fever is generally a childhood disease. It usually begins between the ages of five and fifteen and it is the cause of most of the heart trouble in children. It is not exclusive to young ones, however. During world war II, for instance, about forty thousand men in the American armed forces were attacked by rheumatic fever.
In Canada, although no official figures are readily available, it is likely that about one hundred thousand people are affected by the disease. Not all its victims know they have it. It is a disease which may affect any part of the body, the heart, joints, blood vessels, skin or brain. Only when it attacks the heart are its effects likely to be fatal or long-lasting. Two out of three patients get well or suffer such slight damage to the heart that they can work or play like any normal person.
Rheumatic fever, next to accidents, kills or disables more school-age children than any other disease. It causes more deaths than all other communicable diseases and polio combined. Between the ages of 15 and 19 it is the leading cause of death, and between 20 and 24 it is second only to tuberculosis. When I first heard these figures, I could scarcely believe them. I could not recall ever having seen anything published in Canada which would indicate the serious damage caused by rheumatic fever. Like many others, I had heard of the disease off and on for years, but I had never thought very much about it. To me. I suppose, it did not seem to be any more important than measles, or mumps, and certainly not as serious as scarlet fever.


Mr. Ferguson:: Mr. Chairman, do you not think we could have the hon. member hand in his speech and take it as read? Then we could get along.


Mr. Fournier (Maisonneuve-Rosemont):: Go
ahead. We want to hear this.


Romuald Bourque: Yet now I find that rheumatic fever is something which should concern us all, first as a disease for the conquering of which more research needs to be done, and second, and perhaps more important, as something which can be fought with at least some success. Education is necessary. Just as in the cases of cancer, tuberculosis, and diabetes, there are weapons at hand, weapons of varying efficiency, but weapons nevertheless.

Supply-Health and Welfare
Those who are informed will use them. Those who are not informed are lucky if they do not see their afflicted ones go early to the grave. It therefore becomes the responsibility of someone in Canada to see that people are properly informed. In the United States, the American Heart Association is waging a nation-wide campaign in an effort to inform the public about the dangers of rheumatic fever. In the province of Quebec the antituberculosis league is doing similar work to prevent tuberculosis. In Canada, there is no similar campaign being undertaken, nor is there any organized group at present endeavouring to carry out similar educational work on behalf of rheumatic fever.
I bring this subject to you today, because I am convinced by the information which has now been made available to me that sometime soon something must be done to organize a campaign against rheumatic fever in this country. It will cost money and it must be thoroughly done. Perhaps this kind of program could be undertaken by some service club operating throughout Canada. No more worthy task than this could be undertaken by any club. Failing the development of interest on the part of some private branch of society, it is inevitable that the essential program will become in this country the work of a government department. The matter is too serious to leave alone. If the government, owing to public disinterest, is forced to step in, then we will have no right to complain about the danger of socialized medicine or the menace of state interference.
Apart from all humanitarian aspects, and certainly I am sure that no one in this room would reject any appeal to reduce human suffering, but apart from that aspect entirely, a program directed towards reducing rheumatic fever is well worth while. The loss of thousands of lives each year due to rheumatic fever is a serious loss to Canada, in manpower and in economic value. The training and education of a child constitutes a considerable investment by the state, as well as by his parents. The child who dies before he can return any of that investment, by contributing to the national income, must be written off as a capital loss.
Further, we never can know just what we have lost. How many of the victims might have written great books, composed great music, or painted great pictures, had they lived? How many might have contributed to Canada as scientists, as professional engineers, as business executives and builders of Canada? Those are losses we can never measure, but they are losses worth taking any precaution, spending any amounts of money, to prevent.

Fortunately, because we are friendly neighbours of the United States and because our medical leaders, our hospitals and schools work so closely together, we are able to benefit from those activities below the border. We share the fruits of their research, and we are always, in every walk of life, impressed by the generosity with which they make available to us their skills and their developments. It is consequently possible for us to do many of those things which left to our own resources would be beyond reach. An excellent illustration is provided in the campaign against rheumatic fever. I am privileged today in being able to quote to you figures and statements compiled by the American Heart Association, and to give you a basis for consideration of the situation in Canada. I am also able to give you in very brief form some of the facts about this disease, which will put you in a preferred position as compared to most Canadians, and to tell you some of the hopeful things that are being accomplished.
First of all, let me distinguish between rheumatic fever and rheumatic heart disease. Rheumatic fever, as I have explained, may affect any part of the body. Damage caused to the heart may be long-lasting or fatal. The effects on other parts of the body are usually temporary and not serious. Rheumatic heart disease is the inflammation and scarring of the heart muscle and heart valves as a result of rheumatic fever. This inflammation and scarring may interfere with the work of the pump that supplies the blood to our bodies, and this interference may cause death.
What causes rheumatic fever? The medical profession does not know the immediate causes. It does know, however, that rheumatic fever usually follows nose and throat infections that are caused by a germ. Those who have rheumatic fever usually have first a "strep" throat, tonsilitis or scarlet fever. Rheumatic fever usually starts two to four weeks after the "strep" disappears. Not all "strep" infections, however, are followed by rheumatic fever.
One of the difficulties faced by the medical profession in warring against rheumatic fever is that the disease has no positive symptoms all its own. Because any part of the body may be affected, the warning signals which indicate to a doctor, or to a patient, what is happening are varied. A victim of the disease may simply have a continuing pain. He may have a poor appetite, or be constantly tired. He may fail to put on weight, be pale and have repeated nosebleeds. But none of these symptoms indicates rheumatic fever alone. They may be a warning of any one of a number of other ailments.

Once a child or an adult has rheumatic fever, the lasting effects may or may not be serious. To a considerable extent, however, this is the result of luck, because there is no specific cure. Drugs, may be used to help the patient feel more comfortable, but the use of many new drugs is still experimental.
All these facts may sound very discouraging. They may lead you to question the value of a campaign against rheumatic fever because there seems to be very little we can do about it. There is, however, one bright feature about this disease. Doctors are discovering that rheumatic fever can be prevented. People who are suffering from a "strep" infection can be saved from the more serious consequences of rheumatic fever, if that first of the wonder drugs, penicillin, is given promptly. People may also be protected by improved housing conditions, by being given rest facilities and by being given early treatment. Ever since the middle of the second world war, penicillin has been produced in great quantities. It is impossible to estimate how many lives have been saved, and how many infections have been halted, because of prompt use of this wonder drug, discovered almost by accident by an English doctor.
If rheumatic fever has occurred once, the victim may be subject to relapses, each of which will endanger his life or at least make his lesions more severe. Such relapses which are always due to streptococcus may be avoided, by a continuous penicillin treatment over a period of not less than five years. Thus the patient who has had one attack of rheumatic fever is an invalid who has to be watched constantly. However, most initial attacks of rheumatic fever may be avoided in the first place by adequate use of penicillin at the first sign of "strep" infection. If such treatment is not used, it is estimated that 3 per cent of cases of "strep" infection will result in an initial attack of rheumatic fever.
That is as positive as anyone in the medical profession wants to be. We can respect them for their caution and for their wish to be sure before they make any more positive statements. But with that much indicated, with that much being considered as valid by medical people, everyone should be given the necessary information so that they can take the only apparent precaution to protect themselves and their families against rheumatic fever.
For those who have not taken such precautions and who have suffered from rheumatic fever but have recovered, there is also important information available. A child who has recovered from rheumatic fever without
Supply-Health and Welfare any apparent after-effects should be protected from future "strep" infections and should be given regular medical check-ups. In his case, sulfa drugs or penicillin, given under doctor's directions, may succeed in preventing a recurrence of the disease.
Doctors believe that much can be accomplished to reduce the death rate from rheumatic fever. They believe that teachers in the schools should be informed about it, so that they can make sure their pupils have proper medical check-ups and that parents are advised what to do. They believe that every parent should be warned about the seriousness of this disease and kept constantly on guard. They believe that by parent-doctor co-operation prevention can do away with the need for cure.
Deaths from many other causes have been reduced with a much less hopeful fund of information from which to work. Here in Canada we are making many important contributions to medical knowledge and to medical history. At the University of Montreal, and later at Ottawa University, Dr. Selye has won world-wide recognition for his research and his work in connection with nervous tension. The same can be said for Sir William Osier, on behalf of McGill University. At the Neurological Institute in Montreal patients from all parts of the world are being treated by what is probably the greatest group of brain specialists in any one centre anywhere. At the Banting Institute in Toronto, medical research is attracting world-wide attention, and at the University of Saskatchewan, preliminary work in connection with the cobalt bomb for cancer treatment drew the interest of scientists everywhere.
In one vital field we lack what is already available to people in other countries. Our medical people are doing their best, but in their fight against rheumatic fever they need more than anything else an informed public, willing and able to co-operate with them in attacking this disease before it begins; and they need organized community health programs supported by the public.
Diagnosis of rheumatic fever is so difficult and treatment is so complex, many medical men who have made a special study of this disease believe that the only possibility of success lies in a public health program, similar to the one that has been waged so successfully against tuberculosis. First of all, qualified medical consultants and clinics are required where private practitioners could seek diagnostic help and to which community agencies could send families for medical assistance. Also of great assistance would be the various types of nursing service for patients who have

Supply-Health and Welfare to be cared for at home. Social case workers to help rheumatic fever families work out such problems as better housing, housekeeping help, welfare aid, diet, et cetera, are important. The anti-tuberculosis league of Montreal, as I have stated previously, has done a wonderful job in the province of Quebec. The results achieved by this league are simply amazing.
A public health program for rheumatic fever is needed because rheumatic fever is a widespread disease; because its diagnosis depends on specialists; because its victims need prolonged treatment, and because in many cases the average citizen cannot afford all these services.
In the United States community-wide programs are being developed in many communities through the activities of the American Heart Association, the Children's Bureau, local heart associations or other agencies. By the plan adopted in London, England, under which one bed is supplied for every 550 school children, the incidence of acquired heart disease among school children dropped from two per cent to 0-8 per cent in ten years.
Figures from these community projects are encouraging because they prove that progress may be made. They also prove, however, that considerable sums of money and a great deal of effort are necessary if any achievement is to be expected. A positive, forceful, organized drive is necessary to bring home to the people of Canada the importance of doing something now about rheumatic fever.
This program is one which appeals to the hearts and to the minds of all Canadians.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order.


Romuald Bourque: I have just one more sentence, Mr. Chairman.


Louis-René Beaudoin: If the hon. member is about to conclude, I will allow him to carry on. On the other hand he will realize that he has been reading his speech for quite some time.


Romuald Bourque: I have just one more sentence, Mr. Chairman.
The need is urgent and we should be prepared to act without delay.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Mr. Chairman, I have a few notes here, but, as I want to speak from the heart on the basis of my belief, I am not going to use them. This is not my maiden speech and I know the committee will not permit me to read it. With the previous speaker, as it was his maiden speech, after four years, the committee was extremely

considerate and permitted him to read it from start to finish.


An hon. Member:: He has not been here four years.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: The rules are clear. The hon. member should not come in here in the fourth year of the session and read his speech. The hon. member knows that. It is a waste of the time of the committee.
The minister will agree with me in this, and I say it briefly. The hospitals of this country are occasionally forced to action very quickly, in an emergency. A man can be driving an automobile from the province of Ontario or Quebec. He can pick up a hitchhiker, a poverty-stricken person. Suppose they are both injured in the automobile. They are taken in to a hospital anywhere in Canada and they receive the finest treatment it is possible to procure.
The burden on the municipal taxpayers with respect to this institution is too great. The federal government gets the greatest bulk of the taxes in Canada. They should send back far more than they are sending to the provincial governments, and they in turn should send it to the municipal governments in order to relieve the almost impossible burden of taxation, and pay the deficit through cutting unnecessary expenditures. I am not saying that most federal expenditures are not necessary. They are. I am' not one who advocates cutting out this and cutting out that when it is not necessary. The Minister of Public Works and other ministers of the cabinet will say I do not ask for any expenditures in my constituency unless they are merited and needed, and many unnecessary expenditures could be avoided.
I do believe that if the ministers would take their pencils and sharpen them they would find many items that could be cut out, and the money thus saved could be given to the Minister of National Health and Welfare for distribution to the provinces and to the municipalities, thereby lessening the burden of heavy taxation that has to be carried for essential hospitals. In that way these hospitals could rely more on federal taxes. That is all I want to say. That can be done; it has to be done; we should have no more procrastination. Federal grants to municipal hospitals should be greater. They are all part and parcel of this great dominion of ours.


Mr. Blackmore:: Before this item carries I wish to raise one matter that is in some degree associated with what the hon. member who has just taken his seat has said. As the minister was giving his fine introductory speech I noticed that he pointed out that

any province that received a dollar in connection with this new departure which the minister is making must put up a dollar itself. That sounds fair and equitable, but the minister knows it is far from equitable because there are many provinces which have not the money to put up.


Murdo William Martin: Will the hon. member wait until we come to these grants so I can explain precisely what grants are matching and what are not? They are not all matching. The new ones are not all matching; the old ones are not all matching. I can explain the principle more appropriately when we come to the item. We are now on general discussion, and I was hoping we could get over it.


John Horne Blackmore: I have no intention of making any extended remarks bearing on this matter. I just wish to point out that as it is worded it is obviously very unfair to provinces like Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and New Brunswick.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
National health branch-
Health service-
260.	Epidemiology, $88,580.
Solon Earl Low: Can the minister say where it would be possible for him to give me the answer I requested?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That would come under the research grant.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
261.	Administration of the Food and Drugs and the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Acts, $1,016,884.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Since this is the item for the administration of the Food and Drugs Act as well as other statutes, I presume any research carried on by the food and drugs division is carried on under the provision of this estimate. Has there been any research into the incidence between arsenic poisoning and cancer? People do not go around taking arsenic from habit, but it is known that arsenic sometimes gets on food in very minute forms because it is used in poisoning and in trying to eliminate insects of one kind and another. I am told there is some question as to whether tobacco is affected by it as well. Obviously any amounts of arsenic that would be carried over into food or into tobacco would be extremely minute. I understand there has been some concern as [DOT] to whether that is so, and that concern has created a desire for research into this matter. Has there been any research by the food and drugs division into this matter, or was any such research started and not proceeded with?
Supply-Health and Welfare


Paul Joseph James Martin: No research has been specifically done in that connection in this particular division, but I may say that under the cancer control grant and under the public research grant which we make there are two projects dealing with not just these two things specifically but these among other things. One other grant deals more specifically with the question of tobacco and cancer.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is that research, under whatever grant it comes, into the question of relating cancer to tobacco still going forward?


Murdo William Martin: It is still under way.


Mr. Gillis:: What mechanics exist in the minister's department to assist a person in Canada, for example, who goes over to one of the clinics in the United States and has certain drugs prescribed for him, but cannot procure them in Canada, and it is necessary from time to time, in order to fill these prescriptions, to send over to the United States and have the drug delivered to a drugstore in Canada. The cost of that drug in Canada is about three times what it is in the United States, when delivered, because of duties and so forth. Is there any medium in the minister's department through which a person in these circumstances could do his business direct rather than in the more or less roundabout way that he has to take in order to secure the medicine required?


Murdo William Martin: I am familiar with my hon. friend's question because he once brought a case to my attention, although I forget all the details. I would say this, and I am sure the medical men in this house will support it. I know of no drug available in the United States that has been properly tested and found valid that is not available in this country or that could not be made available. Now, assume the situation were otherwise, there is no machinery by which you could address yourself to our department for financial assistance; but as my hon. friend knows, when these cases have been brought to my attention we have endeavoured to deal with them.


Clarence Gillis: I have had several instances in addition to the one I brought to the minister's attention. There are prescriptions made up in the United States that are not available here. The Lahey clinic is a pretty reliable body.


Murdo William Martin: None better.


Clarence Gillis: I am going to give the minister samples of the medicine in question, and there is a chance that the minister might be able to make it available through his department.

Supply-Health and Welfare


Paul Joseph James Martin: I shall be glad to.


William Joseph Browne: With regard to the Food and Drugs Act enforcement which we referred to the other day, will the regulations apply to radio announcements of sure cures for backaches and so forth?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Most certainly.


William Joseph Browne: And feeling fit in the morning, and all these other advertisements we hear over the radio?


Murdo William Martin: Every form of representation save political.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
262.	Administration of the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act, $157,773.
Howard Charles Green: Item 262 is for administration of the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act. I should like to give the minister a few suggestions with regard to this particular problem. It is of great concern on the west coast, as the minister is doubtless aware. In his annual report, at page 130, I find a list of the convictions under the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act for the judicial year ended September 30, 1951. In that period of twelve months there were 376 convictions under the act in Canada. Of that number 205 were in British Columbia. I presume that is because of our proximity to the Orient. No doubt it is easier to get the drugs in by way of the west coast of Canada than it is by the east.
However, the situation there has hecome quite alarming. As a matter of fact within the last two or three weeks 31 suspects have been picked up for trafficking in drugs. This is the largest group of su'spects rounded up at any one time in Vancouver. I have here the figures showing the numbers of convictions down through the years. In 1941 there were 58 convictions in Vancouver. In 1948 that was up to 158. In 1951 there were 222; and for the calendar year 1952 there were 334.
I am told on reliable authority that the Vancouver police narcotics squad claim personal knowledge of 1,400 addicts in the city of Vancouver. The situation has become so serious that last year the community chest and council set up a special committee to study the drug situation. They made extensive investigations, and eventually submitted a brief to the minister.
What they are asking is clearly set out in a letter I received from Dr. Wallace Wilson, who was then president of the community chests and is a past president of the Canadian Medical Association. While this is a private letter I believe it would be helpful if I were


to read one or two paragraphs from it, because in it Dr. Wilson outlines the thinking by the committee on this problem. He says:
We do want the maximum penalties increased for the trafficker whose sole purpose is to make money, and who often or usually is not an addict himself.
What he is referring to is penalties under the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act. He says:
We do want the drug addict whose only offence is addiction treated as a medical case and not as a criminal.
That, I think, is a significant recommendation. Then he says:
We do want to see established a treatment centre where suitable screened volunteers can receive treatment. But in order that treatment may be satisfactory there must be authority whereby, once the addict volunteers, he can be detained in the treatment centre for the required period of time. We do believe that if an addict who was found to be incurable could receive his maintenance dose at a supervised government clinic at a comparatively few cents' cost it would eventually knock the bottom out of the black market traffic.
Those are very far-reaching recommendations. I believe that in Great Britain they now have a system in line with the last recommendation, that is, a government clinic at which drugs are sold to these addicts at a very low price. The recommendations of the committee were approved in practically every respect by the British Columbia medical association last year, so the full weight of medical opinion on the west coast is behind these recommendations. But nothing whatever can be done along these lines unless there are amendments to the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act; because that act makes it a crime, for example, for a doctor to carry out some of these recommendations. Steps of this kind simply cannot be taken without amendment to the act.
We have been hoping on the west coast that the minister would see fit to bring in an amendment at the present session. Obviously that is now impossible. But I had hoped that something could be done to study this whole situation, so that at the next session of parliament, no matter who may form a government, amendments could be made to the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act.
There is also the suggestion in the brief that provision should be made for research into the problem. The provincial government has offered to permit research in the provincial jails, and I believe that the University of British Columbia is prepared to carry on the actual work. But this will require a grant from the dominion government. There would seem to be no reason why that part of the recommendation could not be carried out, without legislation. As one of our magistrates in Vancouver put it to me in a letter received within the last

few days, the crop of addicts seems to be growing daily; yet the thinking here in Ottawa on this problem continues to run in the same old groove.


Murdo William Martin: I hope I can show my hon. friend that that is not so.


Howard Charles Green: That is the opinion that has been formed on the west coast, and I hope it is wrong. However, I am told there is a feeling that nothing is being done here in Ottawa, and that the tendency is here to follow the same old line that has been taken for a great many years, to remain oblivious of the seriousness of the problem.
According to press dispatches the minister promised action last July, over nine months ago. But we believe a new approach is required, and that action must be taken quickly. I am afraid that the attitude of, perhaps, the whole of eastern Canada indicates that there is no clear realization of the menace contained in this situation. It is only a matter of time until other seaports in Canada will be faced with the same problem. As the country grows, and as international trade increases, more and more shipping will be entering our ports, and the problem will become more serious.
Younger and younger persons are becoming addicts; the drug is reaching younger groups all the time. It is a problem which cannot be ignored. I would hope that the minister could give the committee some assurance today that he realizes the seriousness of the situation.


Mr. Maclnnis:: Mr. Chairman, I shall hold up the committee but a moment, but I do want to say that I support in a general way the remarks made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra. The people of Vancouver and I imagine of the rest of the province of British Columbia are alarmed over the growth of the drug traffic in our province. Both the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra and I were invited to become members of the narcotics committee which was set up last fall, but unfortunately-for us, not for the committee-we have not been able to attend and thus have the benefit of the discussions that took place.
It was found last fall that the drug traffic had got into our high schools. I do not want to give the impression that great numbers of children attending the high schools were becoming drug addicts, but a certain number were found to be victims. I appreciate that there are two schools of thought as to the proper way to deal with these unfortunate victims of drug addiction. There is a new school which believes that in order to bring about a cure the drug addicts should be given small doses of the drug. I think that is the
Supply-Health and Welfare proposal referred to in the report endorsed by the medical association of British Columbia. However, strong exception was taken to that by a man named Wilson, who I believe is a retired R.C.M.P. officer with considerable experience. That being so, one would have to give serious thought to what he said.
I am not expressing any opinion as to the method that should be adopted, but something should be done. I appreciate that the act cannot be changed without considerable research being carried on. I was going to ask the minister if it was contemplated to change the act in the near future. I am sure the people of British Columbia will be looking forward and hoping-it may get beyond hope and reach the stage where they will be demanding-that something be done to help them.


Mr. Murray (Cariboo):: Mr. Chairman, no doubt the reason for this increase in drug addiction in Vancouver is due to the fact that so many ships come into that port after crossing the Pacific ocean. Because of our increased international trade we are exposed to things like this drug addiction. This is something which should be taken up vigorously by the United Nations. Probably they are dealing with it at the present time. I am sure that all members of the United Nations would join in a campaign against the sale and distribution of narcotics. I think even Russia would show an interest in joining with other nations in trying to stamp out this evil.
Of course Asia is the centre of production of opium, and has been since time immemorial. We have heard of the goings on in Indo-China and the need of certain military action, but I do not think it is generally known that the sale and distribution of opium is openly tolerated in Indo-China under the French government, or was until quite recently. It is not generally known that the sale and distribution of opium is legalized in Malaya. The stuff is sold in vendors' stores just as liquor is sold in Ontario. I think the same is true of Hong Kong, or was until recently. There were stores there where these drugs could be obtained.
If those conditions exist on the other side of the Pacific ocean it is quite obvious that the ports of British Columbia will be exposed to trafficking in opium and its derivatives. That is just what is happening in Vancouver. Our trade with Asia is increasing, and this is part of the penalty we have to pay.
One thing we can do to stamp out this traffic is to increase our efforts in the way of education. This is something that should be taken up by the churches and the schools so that our children may be warned of the dangers of narcotics. I do not think the

Supply-Health and Welfare Asiatics are entirely to blame for flooding our country with this stuff because there are people here who are glad to make money from the sale of painkillers and sleeping potions and tablets which are supposed to be harmless and which have to do with encouraging sleep.
We should be wary about allowing our children to have anything in the way of painkillers or these tablets that are sold and advertised, possibly over the radio. Education should be carried on along these lines. Somebody mentioned cigarettes this afternoon. When boys and girls of juvenile ages indulge in that habit they are making it easy for someone to come along and give them some other form of sedative which might lead ultimately to the use of narcotics.
There are two ways to approach this problem. One is through education in the schools, in the churches and in the homes. This iniquitous habit of parents leaving their children of tender years at home nights in the care of baby sitters while they go gadding about may very well be a source of difficulty in regard to this. There is always the temptation to give a child something to make it sleep so it will not be an annoyance. I say that education should be started in the homes and carried on through the schools and churches. A great stroke of work could be done by the United Nations, and I think men like the minister who are familiar with this narcotics problem should marshal the representatives of the other nations so this evil may be stamped out.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, this matter is so important that I feel I should say something. I agree with the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, that the basic cure for this problem, as for all problems involving human beings, is the character of our people. Character is moulded by the right kind of influences. The United Nations, following what was done by the league of nations, is attempting to deal with the world opium and narcotic drugs traffic. We have had Colonel Sharman as our representative on that body for many years, the former chief of our narcotic division. He is recognized as one of the most eminent men among the many countries who are signatories to the convention. His work is now being supplemented by the head of the division, Mr. Hossick. I may tell my hon. friend that at the first meeting of the economic and social council of the United Nations, one of the first things done was to plead with certain countries, notably the Soviet union, not to allow political ideology to stand in the way of their adherence to the convention on the


international restraint of the opium and drug traffic.
To come to the specific matter, all hon. members from British Columbia have at one time or another mentioned the problem now introduced by the hon. member for Vancou-ver-Quadra. Last summer when this question was brought to a head and when extraordinary interest was displayed in Vancouver, we had an immediate conference with the government of British Columbia. I think the way we will solve this problem, if it is going to be solved, is by way of recognizing its difficulty, as the hon. member for Vancouver East did today. It is an extremely difficult problem, one that civilization has been dealing with for a considerable time. No amount of impatience will bring about a solution. What has to be done is explore every avenue, and that is what is being done.
The problem is criminal in its aspects, and health is involved in its direction. The direct aspects of health, of course, come under the provincial governments. The problem has been approached in this way. Immediately after the action taken pursuant to the community investigation the head of the legal division of our narcotic division and the head of our mental health division journeyed to Vancouver and conferred with the committee, with the provincial government, with police bodies and with others in an attempt to bring the question into focus for discussion and consideration, and if possible for decision.
As was announced in this house over a year and a half ago, in the narcotic and opium division we have been paying special attention to some work that is being done, notably in two institutions in the United States. I can now give some conclusions about our visits and discussions in connection with those two institutions. The problem is not going to be solved, in our mind-there is disagreement on this point, but we might as well be frank-by putting more drugs at the disposal of addicts. We would think that would be as unwise an approach as it would be to put more alcohol at the disposal of alcoholics.
The best practical opinion we can get in all these countries where the problem has been considered supports the view that I have just indicated. Experiments have been attempted in this country and in other countries with that very matter, with inconclusive results. In one of the European natrons the problem has been very carefully examined from that point of view, but the abuses were so great as to require that a change of policy be made at once.

The other suggestion is that drug addicts -and I am now talking of the non-criminal drug addicts-should be placed in institutions where, under medical and other supervision, the greatest degree of attention can be paid to them. There are two such institutions in the United States, one at Fort Worth, Texas, and one at Lexington; and a smaller institution in New York city which attends to young addicts. I have visited both institutions, the one at Fort Worth and the one at Lexington, and so have my -officers. Within the last six weeks I have conferred with two gentlemen who have had great experience in this particular work at one of those institutions. Since one has to exercise responsibility, we have come to the conclusion that the cost of maintaining an institution in this country similar to the two I have mentioned would not be justified by the experience of those institutions.
They were set up for the laudable and ideal purpose of trying to cope with this problem, but I am safe in saying that they have not measured up to expectations. One should not close one's mind completely, and I am not closing my mind completely. I am saying that the best possible technical assessment that can be made of the problem does not justify the conclusion that this is the way to deal with the problem. We are continuing our observations of the two institutions, and considering other suggestions that are being made.
The other suggestion is that the criminal addict should be controlled, segregated, and brought under the direct attention of doctors and others who have had experience with this problem. I can only say that we have yet to make a final assessment of that phase of the whole problem, and I would not want to make a final prediction on it. I do know that in other countries where it has been attempted the success of the measure has not been what one, a priori, would think would have been the case.
Well, that is the problem. It is not as serious as it is sometimes made out to be, but it is an important problem and we all recognize it- as such. It is one of the most unfortunate things in the world to see healthy human beings resort to drugs for one purpose or another. One does feel, particularly in the position that I hold, not helplessness- that would not be the word; perhaps "baffled" would be better-and I have given it the greatest personal attention, but one would be very happy if one could in some small way contribute to the solution of this problem.
We do have some views on the matter and on what for the present we have decided to
Supply-Health and Welfare do. We have already advised the government of British Columbia that,we are undertaking a survey in that province almost forthwith. I use the word "survey" although I do not know that it is the accurate word, but it will be an examination of this whole problem. We are seeking to get the history of every patient, of every drug addict, criminal or non-criminal, and to go into the byways and do other things which I would not want to speak about publicly. The government of British Columbia has been so advised. The survey will be made with their assistance and at our complete expense, recognizing that we have a responsibility in this matter. They too recognize, of course, that the health aspects are primarily theirs. I may only hope that our combined efforts in this field will enable us some months hence to say that we have made some advance. Whether we do or not, I want my hon. friend and others to know that it will not be because we have not continued to try.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the minister if he would be willing to comment on the system which is in use in Great Britain? I have here a press dispatch concerning an interview with Sir Allen Daley, who is apparently a famous British doctor and one of the leading authorities in Britain on this question. The report reads as follows:
Today he spoke with detachment of English drug taking, which is a controlled affliction. The British system, which has been under close study here, provides for registration of addicts and distribution of drugs to them almost at cost.
Will the minister comment on the British system?


Murdo William Martin: I know that in Britain they do not give drugs in increasing quantities to drug addicts. There are experiments here, too; I do not want to identify these too carefully. All I can say is that there is no country in the world of which I know that does indulge in the practice of giving drugs to drug addicts in minimum amounts. There are hospitals where doctors treat certain patients, and where the principle of withdrawal is followed. Generally speaking, there is no institution in the world where that practice is successfully carried out. There are individual experiments being carried out by our research people, but generally speaking no drug addict in Canada should expect that any health department in this country will encourage his addiction by giving him or her any more drugs.


Howard Charles Green: The minister did not comment on the need for amendments to the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act?
5002	HOUSE OF
Supply-Health and Welfare


Murdo William Martin: I would not want to recommend an amendment until I was sure what the amendment should be.


Donald MacInnis: I certainly do not find fault with the minister for having his own views on this matter. There are many people who have similar views. There are others, however, who take the opposite view, and I do not think the minister put their case fairly when he suggested the way to cure drug addiction is not by giving more drugs. Then he went on to refer to "unlimited drugs". I have not come across anyone who has advocated that sort of thing. My understanding is that for the cure the plan provides for a minimum amount.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The word "minimum" is better than unlimited.


Donald MacInnis: That is my reason for rising at this time. I did not think it fair to the people in Vancouver who are working on this committee to leave the impression that they want to supply unlimited drugs to addicts, because nobody in his right senses would want to do that.
There is only one more word I want to say about the method, and that is that certainly no method that is used now is any more effective. If you arrest these people, both the criminal drug addicts and those who are merely dupes of the criminal drug addicts but who are not criminally inclined, and put them both in the same jails, you find that when these people come out they are more confirmed drug addicts than when they entered the jail. That is what we have to try to get away from. I would like the minister to feel that what I am saying is not any criticism. The situation is too difficult for that. I am trying to help.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Can the minister state what is the knowledge of his department as to the incidence and use of marijuana in Canada today?


Paul Joseph James Martin: There is really very little. Marijuana is being used, but not in large quantities.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Has it been grown in Canada?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, it has.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Where?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Well, I prefer to tell my hon. friend privately.


Gordon Francis Higgins: I do not want to use it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Of course not. There are several areas in Canada, and I shall tell my hon. friend privately.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]

Indians and Eskimos health services-
263.	Operation and maintenance, $13,567,830.
Mr. Harkness:: During the past seven years, year by year, we in this house have voted a constantly increasing amount of money for Indian health services. This general increase in the grants made has been reflected in a gradual improvement in the Indian health service, the provision of hospitals for our native population and the amount of medical aid they have received. This has resulted in a considerable improvement in the general health of the Indians, a reduction in the tuberculosis rate, and so on.
During the past year, however, I have received complaints that the provision of health services to Indians has been terminated in some cases, and in other cases lessened to a certain degree. In other words, there appears to have been a tendency recently on the part of the Department of National Health and Welfare to gradually withdraw health services from our more prosperous Indian bands. I would cite what has happened in the case of two or three bands, and ask the minister to answer specifically as to why these services have been withdrawn and just what is the general policy.
As I say, the tendency appears to be a gradual withdrawal of medical services from the bands that are more prosperous than they were a few years ago. If that is the case, I think it is a backward step which will cause deterioration in the health of the Indians and get us back to the condition which existed seven or eight years ago, before this improvement took place. One of the bands in which this has happened is what is known as the Enoch band, or the Stony Plain, of Alberta, west of Edmonton. I do not know whether or not oil was actually found on their land, but at any rate they received certain payments from an oil company. Following that, orders were issued that only those services which are ordinarily free to Alberta white residents, such as maternity care, tuberculosis treatment and so on, were to be continued free to the Indians of this band, and that it would be necessary from now on for those Indians to pay for all medical attention other than that to which I have referred.
The situation is that these Indians are not in a position to pay for these services. If a white man cannot pay his medical expenses, he is able to fall back on the municipality. These Indians have no municipality to fall back upon, and when this department refuses to look after them they are without medical services. They have no other place to go.

Another point is that along the shores of Lesser Slave lake where there is no Indian hospital, there is a Roman Catholic hospital at High Prairie which looks after a certain number of these Indians; but Lesser Slave lake is quite a long lake, and many of these Indians are a long way from medical attention in the towns or villages. They are required to pay for this medical attention themselves. Once more, these Indians are poor. They are in no position to do so.
We come now to the position of the Black-foot band east of Calgary. The Blackfoot band were in a better financial position than any band in Alberta, perhaps in Canada, at one time. They had a certain amount of revenue, and they built a hospital themselves out of their own funds. They provided the money to run this hospital, although I think the Indian department paid for a doctor. Apart from that, the Indians paid for the building and running of a hospital. These Indians have encountered the same problem that other people operating hospitals have encountered. In other words, costs have increased for them just as they have increased for other people, and the running of this hospital has now become a burden greater than they can readily carry. Their revenues are not as buoyant now as they used to be, as a matter of fact. The operation of this hospital worked out at a cost to them of $30 a head per year for those Indians.
Most of those Indians have little income. The thing has therefore become too much of a burden to them. They cannot understand why they, of all the Indians in the west, should be the only ones to have to maintain their own hospital. They have made this request several times. I am sure it has been brought to the minister's attention. I know I myself have brought it to the attention of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, and no doubt it has come to the attention of the minister. These Indians on various occasions have requested that the government should treat them in the same way it treats other Indians, and should pay at least part of the costs they now have to meet in operating this hospital. In fact, they think they should be on the same basis as the others, and that the government should take over the hospital and run it the same as they run other Indian hospitals. I think the time has come when some action along that line needs to be taken.
As to the policy that appears to be followed now in Alberta, namely that of throwing the Indians on their own resources in matters of health, the only result can be a deterioration 68108-316
Supply-Health and Welfare in the health of the Indians and hence an increase in the death rate among those people. Their death rate is already much higher than that among the rest of the people of Canada. I fervently hope this development will be brought to an end, and that the department will move back to the policy it followed up to at least last year, as far as I can make out. If the minister will comment on some of those matters, particularly this matter of policy in public health, I have some questions I should like to ask him.


George Matheson Murray: I should like to ask the minister whether there is co-operation with the Department of Transport as to communications away back in the hinterlands where Indians reside. At Finlay Forks there was at one time a radio station which provided communication between that point and the nearest doctor, who would be perhaps 200 or 300 miles to the south. That radio station has been discontinued. I do not know whether it was operated through co-operation with the health department. But where those communities are back in the wilderness, many miles away from a hospital and medical care, I think we could afford to maintain those telephone and radio services.
Finlay Forks is a central point there. While the health of the Indians has been greatly improved in the last few years, especially where they are easily accessible from the highways, the rivers and so on by which the doctors and health nurses go in, farther back, in places like Finlay Forks, the matter of getting in is a costly one. Transportation is usually by aircraft. The existence of a radio station there would be highly necessary to the health of those Indians.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: There is something I wish to say just before the minister answers. I think I have exercised commendable restraint under the circumstances. I just want to say that I listened with interest to what the hon. member for Calgary West had to say, because I have been interested in this question. Recently I heard a discussion on the facilities the minister was providing at Moose Factory island on James bay. On that occasion I asked for an order for return and asked quite a number of questions. Since then I have obtained some further information. I must say that I want to compliment the minister on what his department is doing for the Indians in that area. It is excellent.
Mr. Chairman, the Progressive Conservative member to my right objects to my complimenting the minister, but I do not care what he thinks. I want to bring to the attention of the minister the fact that in my constituency there is one Indian reserve and
5004	HOUSE OF
Supply-Health and Welfare one Indian-one squaw-which I think present a somewhat unusual problem. This squaw lives at times with the Okanagans and sometimes with members of the Kootenay band and then comes and sees us occasionally; I mean, she comes to the Arrow lakes. What arrangements are there for a lone Indian like this to receive medical services from the minister's department?


Gordon Francis Higgins: Before the minister replies, may I say that neither my colleague the hon. member for St. John's West nor myself have any Indians in our constituencies. As there is no member for Newfoundland to speak for the Indians and Eskimos, may I ask the minister what is the present set-up for Indians and Eskimos in Newfoundland?


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend will be glad to know that this government, with characteristic efficiency, is looking after the Indians in Labrador, some 1,500 of them, just as we are seeking to do in the rest of Canada.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Are they to have a vote?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is a question that will have to be asked of more politically-minded ministers than myself.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Howard Charles Green: Who are they?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I want to thank the hon. member for Kootenay West for what he said. I think what we have done in James bay, at our hospital at Moose Factory, is perhaps the most effective answer. I note the wellmeaning observations of the hon. member for Calgary West. We have made an endeavour, as our budget indicates, to try to do something about Indian health. Both my predecessor and those who have served in the department under me have, I think, a record of which we may be extremely proud. By an increased budget, which began at $800,000 and is now over $14 million, we are seeking to improve the health standards of our native population. A United Nations publication recently referred to Canada's health services for Indians as the most outstanding in the world. That is an appraisal of which we are very proud.
As to the particular case which my hon. friend mentioned, if that lone Indian could not afford it and was not in a place where she could get immediate attention, we would see that she got it. That is not our constitutional obligation, but we regard it as our moral obligation.
With regard to Indians who can pay, may I say frankly that we are embarking on a policy of asking them to pay for services rendered. I think that is only common sense. There are not many Indians in that category. But this situation was brought to my attention one


day in British Columbia. An Indian father whose income, on his own admission, was over $30,000-he was an extremely rare individual, but this is an actual case-was insisting on and was actually getting free medical assistance at our hospital for himself and his family. I did not regard that situation as being fair to the people of Canada generally or to other Indians in Canada who are not yet given the services that we want to see given them. This policy does not cover very many. If my hon. friend can bring forward any case of any Indian who is in necessitous circumstances and is unable to get the best of treatment, I should like to have his name. I may assure my hon. friend that such a case would receive our immediate attention.
I said that we were achieving something in what we were doing to try to improve the health of our Indian population. Five years ago we began a program to try to cut down the incidence of tuberculosis. That was the reason for building that hospital of ours up in the wilds of James bay; and we have followed that one with hospitals that we have built elsewhere. In 1948 the tuberculosis death rate per hundred thousand for Indians was 488-5; in 1949 it was 399-6; in 1950, 298-8; in 1951, 268-2; in 1952, 253. Gradually year by year we are cutting down the tuberculosis mortality rate among our Indian population. It is not as good as it is among the white population because we began late, but my hon. friend may be sure that we are embarking upon a policy of bringing improved health to the native population of our country.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The minister did not answer my specific question in connection with these three bands.


Murdo William Martin: I do not know the particulars. We made it a general principle that nobody who could not afford care would be denied the best of care. If my hon. friend will bring the particular case to me I shall be glad to look into it.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The general policy which has now been adopted for the Indians is that they are going to be required to pay for medical services if they are able to do so. I would then ask this question. How is it going to be determined who can pay and who cannot? Who is going to make that determination, and on what basis is it going to be made?


Murdo William Martin: In most instances we can do no more than rely upon the individual, or extraneous evidence. We shall do our best. That is all we can do.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is the reason these cases which I have brought to the minister's attention have arisen. The minister asks me to bring to his attention the name of any

Indian who cannot pay and he will see that he gets attention. By the time I or anyone else did that the Indian might very well be dead, and it would be too late. The time to have these things looked after is before the Indian takes sick, and have provision made so that when he does take sick he can be looked after, not after he has taken sick and perhaps passed from the scene.
In regard to bringing the names to the minister's attention again, I have already brought the names to his attention. I have not named them individual by individual, but all the Indians in this Stony Plain band just east of Edmonton have been brought to his attention, and also the Indians living along the shores of Lesser Slave lake. In both these instances the Indians have been denied medical attention except for the things I mentioned.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No one has been denied medical attention at all, My hon. friend should not convey that impression.


Douglas Scott Harkness: My information is to the effect that they have been denied the ordinary medical attention and have been required to pay for all medical attention they get except for these maternity benefits and other things which the white people generally in Alberta get free. Apart from that they have had to pay their own medical expenses-I refer to the Stony Plain Indians-on the basis that the band receives certain funds from their oil rights. That money did not go into the hands of the Indians generally, in any event; it went into the band funds, and the band funds again are under the control of the government. They are not able to spend these band funds as they want to.
This is the first case. The other case is that of the Indians of Enoch's band that I bring particularly to the minister's attention and ask him to investigate as well. I take it he does not know what the situation is in these particular areas. If he does I wish he would say on what basis these Indians are not being given their ordinary medical benefits. I wish he would look into these particular cases and get their medical benefits restored to them. He did not say anything about the Blackfoot hospital.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is a question that I would want to look into. That hospital has already been paid for by the band. I would want to give that more careful consideration.
In regard to the question of the hon. member for Cariboo, I shall be glad to see that the Department of Transport and the department of Indian affairs are made aware of the situation.
68108-316i
Supply-Health and Welfare


Douglas Scott Harkness: In connection with the Black-foot hospital, I do not think it is sufficient for the minister to say that he would like to give it further consideration. It has been brought to his attention as I said before, and the situation is that no action has been taken. The matter has been brought to his attention for at least the last two years. No action has been taken, so it is useless for him to rise in his place and say that he would like to give it further consideration. That is. just what is known as passing the buck* Mr. Chairman.
I would like the minister to give some definite undertaking that these Indians will be put on the same basis as other Indians. They have not been put on the same basis as the other Indians in Alberta, or anywhere else in the country. There are only two places in Canada where Indians have to pay all their medical expenses. One is at the Six Nations reserve at Brantford and the other is this Blackfoot reserve east of Calgary.
The excuse which has always been given to me as to why the Blackfoot have had to pay for all their own medical attention was that they had some money to do so, and they were in the same position as the Six Nations. They were not, because they are in a position by themselves. To try to put these two groups of Indians on the same basis is just ridiculous. The Indians at Brantford have been in touch with white men for some two or three hundred years longer than the Indians east of Calgary. It is only for the last 75 or 80 years that these Indians have been in contact with white men at all, except for the odd traveller or fur trader who went through that country. As a result, they are at least 200 years behind in the development of contacts with white civilization and the adoption of white ways and so forth. They are that much behind the Six Nations Indians. It is absolutely unfair, and it is no argument at all to say, well, the Six Nations have to pay for their own hospitalization, why cannot these people?


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend quarrels with my reply. It is the only reply I can give him. This particular band started this hospital, and before we could say we would take it over I would want to be able to complete a program to cover Indians in many parts of Canada, particularly in the remote areas, who have no hospitalization whatsoever. I have to operate within a budget. I think we are doing remarkably well with that budget, and I can only say to my hon. friend that, in the light of the over-all obligation, I can do no more than give the reply I have given him.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am sorry; I do not think that reply is satisfactory. In view of the
5006	HOUSE OF
Supply-Health and Welfare fact that this matter has been dragging on for so long, if the department has a policy- and the minister announced it was a policy of having Indians who can pay for their medical expenses, do so-if they are going to follow that policy why do they not follow it with this reserve? Why do they place an undue burden on the Indians of that reserve and make them carry all their medical expenses? We know there are people today who do not carry all their medical expenses.


Murdo William Martin: They do not carry all their medical expenses.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes, they do.


Murdo William Martin: No, they do not.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I think the minister agreed with this a while ago. The only thing that they do not pay for is the doctor.


Murdo William Martin: And public health.


Douglas Scott Harkness: What does the minister mean?


Murdo William Martin: Any service that is open through the public health unit of any community towards which we contribute. If one of these Indians was a real tuberculosis case we would care for him the same as we do for any other Indian in the country, unless we are satisfied beyond doubt that the Indian can pay for the services; and that is a fair policy toward the Indians and toward the white people of our country.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I must say that the minister is evading the question, because these Indians are not being treated in the same way as the rest of the Indians of the country. They are required to pay their medical expenses, in respect of these things which all white people get free, except for one expenditure, the cost of the doctor, and of course the sending of contagious diseases to hospitals. Other Indians throughout the country are not required to pay that. It is quite apparent that these people are not being treated in the same way as the rest of the Indians. And, as I say, owing to the fact that their revenues have not increased in proportion to the increased cost of hospitalization, they are now in the position of having to carry an undue burden.
As the minister said, these Indians built this hospital at a time when the general health care of the Indians across the country was deplorable. The only way in which they could get any health treatment was to build their own hospital. That is why they built it. Because they took that initiative is no reason they should be saddled with this cost. Their ability to meet the cost is not as great as it was. Because they did show some initiative in that regard they should


not be saddled with this cost which other Indians throughout the country are not required to pay.
As I said, the time is long past when the minister, instead of temporizing about this matter and allowing it to drift along-that is what has happened; the thing has just drifted along-should take some definite action, and these people should be dealt with in a more equitable manner.
The minister made reference to a matter to which I have referred in the last eight years, namely the tuberculosis rate among Indians, and the progress made in connection with its treatment. I am glad to see that the total rate has dropped from 268 last year to 253 this year. Would the minister tell us the death rate among the white population?


Paul Joseph James Martin: In 1948 the white death rate was 32-4; in 1949, 26-7; in 1950, 22-0; in 1951, 20-7 and in 1952 it was 18.


Douglas Scott Harkness: These figures show that the Indian death rate is ten or fifteen times as great as the rate among the white population, so far as deaths from tuberculosis are concerned. This indicates that a great amount of work is still required.


Paul Joseph James Martin: But I am sure my hon. friend will admit that what has been done is remarkable.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I think the department is perhaps doing the best it can, so far as dealing with this matter is concerned. Could the minister tell us whether by this time the X-ray examinations for tuberculosis have been completed? There was a lengthy discussion last year, and my recollection is that the minister said at that time that within a year the X-ray examinations would be completed for all Indians, with the exception of a few in remote areas.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Sixty-five per cent of the native population were given chest X-ray examinations last year.


Gordon Francis Higgins: What has been the result of B.C.G. inoculations among Indians and Eskimos?


Paul Joseph James Martin: There has been tremendous success with B.C.G. As the hon. member knows, we were perhaps the pioneers in its use in our Indian hospitals, particularly the one at Qu'Appelle.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Indians and Eskimos health services-
264.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $1,130,700.
Ernest George Hansell: I have had correspondence with some people in my constituency concerning the development of an all-weather road through the Indian reserve there.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That would come under the estimates of my colleague the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.


Ernest George Hansell: I want a road in the reserve.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I will speak to the minister for you. Help me to get these estimates through, and you and I will go to see him tonight.


Douglas Scott Harkness: What new hospitals will be covered by this year's vote?


Paul Joseph James Martin: We are completing a hospital at Coqualeetza and a laundry building at the Charles Camsell hospital, about which I spoke before. We are completing the hospital at Qu'Appelle, in Saskatchewan, and completing accommodation for the female staff at Hobbema in Alberta, and a large health centre at Masset on Graham island. They are mostly small.


Douglas Scott Harkness: No new construction is involved?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It is for the completion of buildings already under construction?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Correct.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Indians and Eskimos health services-
265.	Special technical services, $432,281.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Under this item I should like to ask an annual question. We find in the details that various services are included, one of which is the nutrition division. Checking through the estimates for bygone years I find that in 1951-52, $144,069 was appropriated for the nutrition division, while in 1952-53 the item was $122,358, and that this year it is $115,422.


Paul Joseph James Martin: There is a decrease of $6,000.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And last year there was a decrease of $22,000. It seems to me that this is a field in which expansion might be a good idea. Why are these reductions made each year? Is the division able to carry on all the work it would like to carry on with this appropriation?


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend may be assured that the purposes of the division are not in any way affected. Last year we cut out about $6,000 of expenditure on certain educational material we did not require because we had overestimated the year before. But I can say that the general service given by the division is not in any way cut down.
Supply-Health and Welfare


Ernest George Hansell: The hon. member for Lethbridge has mentioned the subject of the fluori-nation of water.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I told the hon. member that I would answer that question under the item for the research grant.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: There is reference here to dental surgeons. I have received letters indicating that there is a shortage of dentists in the interior of British Columbia.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would my hon. friend raise that question under the professional training grant?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I believe we would save time if I were permitted to go on now.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Very well; I have no objection.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I know that the licensing of dentists comes under provincial jurisdiction, but perhaps the minister would tell us what his department is doing to assist in providing dentists, or those who would work with dentists.


Paul Joseph James Martin: This could be discussed more properly under the vote for professional training. However, the problem connected with dentists in Canada is one which gives some concern. We believe there are enough doctors, if there was a proper system of distribution. One of the purposes of the radiological and laboratory service grant is to improve that condition. But there are not enough dentists to take care of the needs of the Canadian people. I can only say that in conjunction with provincial governments and universities, through our own professional training grant and assistance of that kind, we are seeking to find ways and means to improve the picture.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.
Mr. Speaker:: It being five o'clock the house will proceed to a consideration of private and public bills.



PRIVATE BILL


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 360, for the relief of Lionel Jobin-Mr. Winkler- Mr. Robinson in the chair.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
Mr. Knight:: Mr. Chairman, I can assure hon. members who are interested in the passage of this divorce bill that I am not going to use my traditional right to prevent it passing the house, but I do have a word or two to say in regard to it because there are certain circumstances which I think should be placed before the house. In the first place,
5008	HOUSE OF
Private Bill-Divorce
so far as I can judge this is one of those divorces which has been inspired by the fact that the petitioner, after a long number of years of separation, has now been compelled to pay a living allowance to his wife. Of course that has no effect upon the law of the land. I want to relate the facts of this case to emphasize the inadequacy of the divorce machinery that we have in this parliament.
This bill was contested and for that reason it held some interest for me because, as I have stated before, when a contested divorce bill comes before this parliament and no evidence in connection therewith is produced, as a matter of principle I will vote against it until I see evidence which justifies me voting for it. Perhaps these things are hurried along because we are nearly at the end of the session, but at any rate we had a notice sent to us that the committee on miscellaneous private bills would meet to consider this bill.
We did meet and there was a small attendance at the committee. I pointed out on that occasion that the evidence had not been distributed. It is true that there was one typed copy of the evidence in the hands of the clerk, but no member had received a copy nor was the evidence available to counsel who wished to plead the case. When the committee met I suggested an adjournment until we had an opportunity to study the evidence, but my wish did not prevail. Most members of the committee decided to proceed and the committee proceeded. Both counsel were invited into the committee room. The main argument of counsel who was looking after the interests of the respondent was that he had no evidence in his hands, that he had nothing to refer to and therefore had nothing to plead.
In spite of that the majority of the members of the committee decided to proceed and they did proceed. To the astonishment of some of them, when the chairman put the preamble to the committee it failed to carry. I think the vote was 7 to 5. The bill was killed by that vote. There was a bit of a stir in the committee, but I was sitting next but one to the chairman and I heard him say, "Well, that is the end of that". I assumed that that was the end of that particular divorce bill, and that the divorce was killed.
Therefore I was astonished that evening to receive another call to a meeting. I telephoned the chairman and he told me, "The purpose of this meeting is that I omitted to say to the committee when it rose this morning 'Shall I report the bill?' You are being brought back to regularize the action of the committee this morning." When we


got down to it we discovered that the situation was largely as it had been before. One member of the committee got up and moved that the committee revert to consideration of the preamble, which as hon. gentlemen know simply meant that we would reopen the whole matter. I opposed that action, but the committee decided to consider this divorce plea again. I again moved the adjournment of the committee until such time as we had the evidence and had had an opportunity to study it. This time I found my colleagues friendly to that idea. There was no doubt that the evidence would be available and they would be able to consider it next morning at ten o'clock.
We did consider the matter again next morning at ten o'clock, and I was surprised to find that many more members of the committee were taking an interest in this divorce. We had had little time to study the evidence. The evidence had come to my hand just ten minutes before dinner time, and that was why I had moved the adjournment.
We must go on to the third meeting of the committee. The evidence had been distributed. Someone had taken good care of that. Someone had even had the evidence mimeographed downstairs so no one could .say that he did not have it. By a coincidence the regular booklet of evidence came in from Toronto or from wherever it was being printed just a few minutes later, so at the final meeting of the committee we had the evidence.
I should like to point out that this error of the chairman-I do not mind using that term because he admitted it-was a particularly fortuitous omission. Of course I would never suspect the chairman of the present committee of doing anything like that deliberately but I would point out that it might be possible for a chairman who believed in the minority side in that first vote to have omitted to put that question to the committee and so force another meeting of that committee, compel it to reopen the matter and have it considered by people who were in favour of his own side of the case.
Let me make it perfectly clear that I make no such charge. My simple purpose is to show the fallacy and foolishness of this whole business of trying to handle this matter of divorce in such an inadequate way which does not do justice to anyone. You can see how the fate of individuals sometimes hangs by a thread. Here was a woman who had received news from her lawyer saying that her case was won. Then the next day she hears that the decision has been reversed. Does that look to anyone here like sensible

business, to have a decision reversed by what was largely a different group of men? It is true that there were a few who had attended the previous meeting, but on the whole it was a different group of men. It was at an entirely different meeting of the committee that the decision was reversed. This is an important case in so far as this is concerned.
And now in conclusion, for I must hurry along; I want to be democratic in the matter -as I said I know that I could have connived to hold up this divorce, but I do not think that would have been democratic procedure. At the last meeting of the committee-and it was the last one after all-it was decided that the divorce should be granted, and so be it. But I want to point out that this whole system is wrong. Incidentally, I was interested and surprised to see that some of my hon. friends from the province of Quebec, who have never before, as far as I have observed, taken part in divorce cases, were yesterday advocating the passage of this particular divorce. Let me say to them that we would by no means ever wish to force a divorce court upon any province which did not wish to have it because of religious beliefs.
However we do, as members of parliament, want to get rid of this thing, this iniquitous thing; because I believe it is that. Personally, and I know that some of my friends do not agree with me, I do not see how one's conscience would be violated any more by having a court try divorces-for instance the court across the road, the exchequer court in Ottawa-than it is by having the present procedure which makes this parliament, to all intents, a divorce court for the province of Quebec and for Newfoundland.
Another thing is that I feel, if I am to be asked to judge divorces, that I should consider the cases and give them some thought. This year we have not done so. Last year some people in this party, and it is not a party matter or a political matter, did try to examine some of these things in the house. It was simply impossible. This year we have passed three or four hundred of them- I do not know what the exact figure is- but outside of this case and one other I know of, no divorce case has been given any individual consideration.
I wrote down the length of time it took in the committee to pass 67 divorce cases, or 58 of them

I would not want to be quoted as to the number-and they were going through at the rate of half a second each. That is all right if we are not supposed to consider these cases; but it is part of our duty to decide whether or not a divorce should be granted. As far as I am concerned
Private Bill-Divorce
I do not want to have this thing on my conscience any more.
I was reminded frequently by one of my hon. friends that I am not a lawyer. Granted; but may I suggest to him that this is not supposed to be a committee of lawyers, it is supposed to be a committee of ordinary men who represent the people of the constituencies in this country. As such a representative I admit I have no legal talent, but at least I have a certain amount of common sense.
Well, that is the situation. Each session I protest against this sort of thing but up to now, and I presume now too, I have protested without avail. That is my case. This thing should be removed from the House of Commons-apart from the particular method by which this divorce was handled, the decision made, the technical error on the part of the chairman, and the reversal of that decision.
Well, there it is.


Ernest George Hansell: Mr. Chairman, I am happy in one way to follow my hon. friend from Saskatoon and support him in his argument in respect of the manner in which this bill went through the committee, and in his protest in respect of the way these bills are dealt with in this house instead of in a separate court. On the other hand, I am rather unhappy to have to get up here and talk about such divorce bills as come before us. However, we are on the private bills committee, and our parliamentary procedure, such as it is, makes us duty-bound to attend and do what we can when we once submit to our names being placed on committee.
Mr. Chairman, while this bill was in the process of discussion in the committee, and when the peculiar incident took place of being recalled to reconsider our decision, I told the committee that I did not think I could permit the bill to go through in the manner in which it was being handled without having something to say in the house. The particular reason I rise on this occasion is to protest the action of those in the committee, some of them in particular, in attempting to reverse the decision that had previously been made.
My hon. friend from Saskatoon has told the story. I am just going to tell the story again in perhaps, if I may say so, a little more picturesque way. The committee was called together in the morning-pardon me, I have got it wrong. I think the bill was presented to us at the evening session, but it does not make any difference. We discussed the bill. The chairman of the committee called section 1-, section 2, and so on. Then he came to the part "Shall the preamble carry?".

Private Bill-Divorce
That, as we all know, of course, is the crux of the whole bill. If the preamble is rejected, that is tantamount to killing the bill. However, just as the chairman called "Shall the preamble carry?" the bells calling us to this chamber began to ring. We looked at one another and said, "There are the bells; we will have to go. If we do not deal with the preamble we will have to come back again and deal with it later." The cry went up from the members: "Let us have the vote now. Let us have the vote now." Let me say that cry came from some of those who demanded that the thing be reconsidered later. They said: "Oh, yes; let us have the vote now". So the chairman said: "Shall we take the vote?" and "All right; those in favour of the preamble raise your hands". Well, some raised their hands. "Those opposed put up your hands". And what happened? The preamble was defeated, to the surprise of some of those who had said: "Let us take the vote now". So of course the chairman said, "Well, that fixes it" or "That is the end of it" or a phrase of that kind. We did not even stop to listen carefully to the phrase which the chairman used. The bells were ringing and a vote was to be taken so everybody scampered out, and that was the end of that.
Well, to our surprise in the mail we got our usual little notice calling the private bills committee together with the comment on the top: "To consider the Jobin case". I said to myself: "Why, we considered that before. That is all done. That bill was killed in the committee". So we went back and the chairman asked the clerk to read the minutes of the meeting, which he did; and the chairman began to indicate that he had failed to use- and this is it-the little phrase "Shall I report the bill?"
That was all; he had failed to say that. The fact of the matter is that the bells were ringing and he said, "That is the end of that; that killed the bill." Well, someone rose and said we must consider whether the chairman is to report the bill and "I therefore move that we reopen the preamble." Here was the same committee sitting on another day with a slight change in personnel because there were more members attending the meeting that day than there were previously when the vote was taken. My hon. friend says there were twice as many.
What does that represent to you, Mr. Chairman? It is obvious that some members got together and said, "My, that bill should go through." Some members said it had been killed, so they scratched some hair out and said, "What are we going to do about this? We have to get this thing through." Someone

grasped on that very slim thread of technicality in that the chairman had not said, "Shall I report the bill?" It was then decided to call the committee together so he could say, "Shall I report the bill?"


Mr. Winkler:: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, I would ask the hon. member who is speaking if he means, by the words he has just used, that I called the meeting together in order that this bill would be put through in the manner he has just outlined?


Ernest George Hansell: I say that the committee was called back, and as I understand it that was done because the chairman had not, at the time, said, "Shall I report the bill?"


Howard Waldemar Winkler: That is correct.


Ernest George Hansell: All right. Then I asked this simple question, and it must be obvious to everyone-I asked it in the committee-supposing that preamble had passed the previous day and the decision was in favour of the bill but the chairman had not said, "Shall I report the bill?" do you suppose we would have been called back?


An hon. Member:: No.


Howard Waldemar Winkler: Yes.


Ernest George Hansell: My own impression is that that thing escaped the chairman's mind altogether. I am not blaming the chairman. I would do the same thing. The bill had been killed, and what did it matter whether or not he used the phrase, "Shall I report the bill?" It is a matter of form. I am saying that it did not occur to him. I have no doubt that he was urged by someone else to call the committee back not in order that he might repeat the phrase but in order that the decision might be reversed.


Howard Waldemar Winkler: On a question of privilege-


John George Diefenbaker: Will the hon. member allow a question? I have been following the hon. member closely, and will he say whether or not that procedure has ever been followed before?


Ernest George Hansell: I indicated that I did not think it had. The hon. member for Halton rose


Howard Waldemar Winkler: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, I believe the hon. member is again stating that the meeting was called for the purpose of permitting this procedure which he has fully described. I must explain, because the hon. member has repeated it twice, that the meeting was called because the clerk of the committee had reminded me that the technicalities had not been complied with. It was not only because the question "Shall I report the bill?" had not been

put. There were still further things that had to be put, which did not come up because the decision of the committee was reversed.


Ernest George Hansell: The chairman of the committee has explained his position, and that is all right. Whether or not he called the committee together in order to regularize the procedure, I am not debating that. That is what he did. But in reality the committee was called together to reverse the decision. The hon. member for Lake Centre asks if this procedure had been followed before. I say that, to my knowledge, that has never happened before' in the private bills committee. The hon. member for Halton rose in the committee and said that he had been chairman of many parliamentary committees, and they often reversed a previous decision on a clause or something of that kind. Perhaps that is so, particularly if they reversed the decision on the same day. But when a bill has been killed in a committee and the committee adjourned because a vote was being taken here, and then was not recalled, it is understood that the end of the bill has been reached and a decision made. This procedure of recalling a committee and reconsidering the preamble of a bill which had already been turned down has never happened before to my knowledge.


Howard Waldemar Winkler: It did not happen this time, either.


Ernest George Hansell: It did happen this time, Mr. Chairman. There is no question in the world in my mind-I do not want to cast reflections-but that someone was instrumental in getting the committee recalled with the one purpose in mind of changing the decision.


Howard Waldemar Winkler: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, I believe the hon. member is again imputing motives to me which certainly never existed.


Ernest George Hansell: I am not imputing motives to the chairman of the committee. I do not like to impute motives to anybody.


Howard Waldemar Winkler: But you said "somebody", and who else is there?


Ernest George Hansell: Someone was motivated to do it, and I do not care who it was. If my hon. friends want the bill to pass, they ought not to keep interrupting. I am not going to oppose the bill so far as its passing is concerned. I do want to put this on the record, because if I am going to act on committees and do my duty on committees, I do not want anyone to come along behind the scenes and, by pulling a lot of wires, reverse decisions that have been made. That is laying it right on the line.
Let me say this. There might be some real reason why a thing of this sort should 68108-317
Private Bill-Divorce
be done if it were the reversal of some government policy, but this is a private bill. The government is not going to stand or fall upon some individual getting a divorce. I say once again that if we are to conduct the business of this house in committee as we should, then these things must not happen or they are going to destroy our faith in one another, our faith in committees and our faith in the work going on in this house. I vigorously protest the action that was taken in respect to this bill. I did so in committee and I raise my voice in protest now.
I have said enough. I think the chairman is a fine fellow. I think he conducts the business of the committee very well. I am not even saying the chairman made a mistake. If he made a mistake, he should not have called our attention to it. Nobody would have known. Nobody would have gone to him and said, "You made a mistake." He did not need to confess that he made an error. He did not make an error. I say that with all honesty of purpose in this discussion, and with some conviction.


Mr. Gauthier (Porineuf):: I wish to say just a few words on this bill. First of all, being a Catholic, I do not accept any dissolution of marriage vows. I would accept an annulment given by the proper authorities of my church, but nothing else. In the second place, I was not a member of this committee; but if there were members from the province of Quebec on this committee, they certainly did not vote for the annulment of the marriage vows. According to the constitution, divorce bills must be dealt with by the federal authority. Of course our civil code in Quebec does not admit dissolution or annulment of marriage. Those who were in this committee on divorce, if they participated in the voting, voted for the dissolution of the civil contract, not of the marriage in itself.
The hon. member for Saskatoon took notice of the fact that members from the province of Quebec were in this committee. What I wanted to tell him was that we do not believe in the annulment of marriage vows. If those members voted, they voted for the dissolution of the civil contract and nothing else. As to the second clause of the bill, it says that this man has the right to remarry. We cannot accept that clause of the bill.


Ernest George Hansell: You passed it in committee.


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: I was not there myself.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall the clause carry?


Mr. Noseworthy:: Mr. Chairman, as a member of the committee I want to voice my protest at the procedure which was followed. I

Private Bill-Divorce
think what has happened in this case is simply another example in favour of the plea which we in this group have been making over the years, namely that it is high time this whole question of divorce was removed from the jurisdiction of this parliament.
I am not going to argue for or against this case. I am satisfied in my own mind that one of the parties in the case set out deliberately to trap the other and succeeded in doing so. I am satisfied that if this case had ever come before a regular court of law, the divorce would not have been granted. However, what I want to say is that the situation was rather unusual. Let us grant that the chairman had made an admission that he had omitted calling out whether he should report the bill, and let us grant that he was right in calling the committee back the next day. There was a minority of those who were there on the first day who were as interested in this case as if they had been paid to interest themselves in it. I am not saying that they were paid, but it was rather unusual that whereas, on the previous occasion, I think there were about 9 or 10 members of the committee present, on the next morning there were somewhere about 27 or 30 present. Someone was certainly interested in getting out a fairly full membership of this committee.
I want to say this to my French-speaking colleagues from Quebec and members of the house who have opposed steadfastly in this chamber the suggestion to set up a divorce court in Canada. I want to ask them this question. What is the difference between any member of parliament from the province of Quebec voting in favour of divorce in that committee and voting for it in the house?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
William Alfred Robinson: Shall the title carry?


Mr. Gagnon:: On division.
Title agreed to on division.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall the bill carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall I report the bill?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Bill reported.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the bill be read the third time now?


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: On division.


Howard Waldemar Winkler: the third reading of the bill.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: Carried on division.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the third time and passed.



REGULATIONS ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, May 5, consideration of the motion of Mr. Knowles for the second reading of Bill No. 365, to amend the Regulations Act.
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North
Centre):	Mr. Speaker, as I indicated when
this bill was given first reading, and as I started out to indicate on Tuesday of this week, the purpose of this bill is to abolish the right which the government now has to pass secret orders in council. I think it should be made clear again that this right to withhold orders in council from publication, although it has been used in relation to an order in council passed under the Emergency Powers Act, is to be found in the Regulations Act. The Regulations Act was enacted in 1950 and it includes section 9, subsection 2, which reads as follows:
The governor In council may by regulation exempt any regulation or class of regulations from the operation of section three, section four, subsection one of section six, and section seven, but every regulation made under this subsection shall be published in English and in French in the Canada Gazette within thirty days after it is made and shall be laid before parliament within fifteen days after it is published in the Canada Gazette or, if parliament is not then in session, within fifteen days after the commencement of the next ensuing session thereof.
The effect of that subsection is that if the governor in council has passed an order in council which it desires to withhold from publication or in other words which it desires to keep secret, it carries out that wish to keep that order in council secret by passing another regulation exempting the previous order in council from publication. That exempting regulation has to be made public, but all it contains is the number and the date of the order in council which has been kept secret.
There is one other reference in the Regulations Act by way of a cross-reference to section 9, subsection 2, which would have to be dealt with in any bill seeking to abolish this right; but the main requirement, in order to get rid of the right to pass secret orders

in council, is that section 9, subsection 2, of the Regulations Act be repealed.
When this matter was before parliament in 1950 there was very little discussion on it. There were a few questions when the Prime Minister was putting the bill through on June 12, 1950, but in the main it would be only fair to say that the house did not realize the full import of that legislation, and let it go through giving the government the right to withhold orders in council from publication. As I say, that right is in the Regulations Act; therefore it refers to orders in council passed under any other statute that is in operation.
There is only one order in council which has been kept secret. It is the one passed on July 4, 1951, under the provisions of the Emergency Powers Act. But it would be possible under section 9, subsection 2, of the Regulations Act for an order in council passed under any other statute to be kept secret. For example, suppose there was a report under the combines act which the government desired to keep secret. At the present time the Combines Investigation Act requires the publishing of reports under that act within a certain time limit. But if it is possible under the Combines Investigation Act to pass an order in council that a certain report does not need to be published, then that order in council could, by virtue of section 9, subsection 2, of the Regulations Act, be kept secret. Therefore we could have the performance repeated that we had in 1949 of a document like the flour milling report being kept secret, only this time it could be regularized because of this right to pass secret orders in council.
I feel, Mr. Speaker, that parliament made a mistake in 1950 when it passed this provision, and I think parliament's view that it was a mistake has been demonstrated by the opposition to secret orders in council which has been voiced in this parliament on many occasions since that time. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that parliament should now withdraw the right it gave to the government in 1950 to keep orders in council secret.
There are many other aspects of order in council government which we do not like and against which we register protests from time to time. We had an instance not so long ago when the Emergency Powers Act was used to pass an order in council despite the fact that parliament was right here in session. Our views on that matter were expressed. This does not deal with that. We voted against the extension of the Emergency Powers Act, but we were beaten on that.
68108-317J
Regulations Act
This question as to whether or not the government should still have the right to keep orders in council secret has not been before us yet this session. In fact it has not been before us since it was enacted in 1950. In my view the least this parliament should do before the end of this session is to pass this measure and take away this right to keep orders in council secret.
If parliament is to do that, there is one little problem that faces us, namely the question of the one secret order in council that is now in existence, the one which was passed on July 4, 1951. It seems to me that parliament is in no position to decide whether or not that was a proper subject for a secret order in council, because we know nothing about it. That being the case, it appears that parliament would simply have to take the position that any bill such as mine should not affect any order in council or any regulation now in effect. My bill does that by two sections, section 3 and section 6, which provide that nothing in this bill shall affect any regulation made before the coming into force of this act. In other words, this bill would be in effect from now on.
I do not wish what I have just said to be interpreted as being any approval on my behalf of secret orders in council at any time, not even the one that is in existence. But since we do not know the facts about that one we cannot pass judgment upon it. But it does seem to me that the whole principle of secret orders in council, particularly in peacetime, is completely contrary to democratic processes, and that parliament should give effect to its opposition to this practice by passing this bill before this session ends.
I should like to speak longer, but in view of the limited time that is left for private members' bills obviously I had better not take any longer. The bill itself is drafted in what might appear to be a complicated manner because of the cross-references in the Regulations Act itself. But the main section of Bill No. 365, which is now before the house, is section 2 which reads:
Subsection (2) of section 9 of the said act is repealed.
In other words, that would remove from the Regulations Act the right to keep orders in council secret, and I believe that it is the sense of this House' of Commons. I think we have had evidence that there is some concern about this order in council business even on the government side of the house, and I think it is the sense of this House of Commons that it is a job that we should do before this session ends. As we go into the
[Stage Direction]
Regulations Act
period of a general election we should not leave this government, of all governments, with the right not only to govern by order in council, but to pass secret orders in council. Therefore I urge the house to support this bill.
Howard Charles Green: I should like to say just a very few words in support of this measure. We had extensive discussions at an earlier stage of the session with regard to order in council government, and I believe the time has long since passed when this power to legislate by secret orders in council should be done away with. They are entirely contrary to the whole Canadian background, in fact to the background of any truly democratic country, and they smack altogether too much of dictatorship.
Here we have the opportunity for a government to pass an order in council which orders Canadians to do or to refrain from doing some act. Then that order in council can be declared to be secret by means of passing a second order in council, and the people have no way whatever of knowing what the law is and whether or not they are contravening any law. It is fundamental that people in Canada must be able to find out what the laws are. As a matter of fact, the great majority of the people should be behind the laws if they are to be effective. How can that possibly be done when the law is made by an order in council which is kept secret?
I am firmly convinced that this power is just a case of the government being spoiled by the powers it had during the war. It is another example of a power-mad government. I quite agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that the time has come when this power should be taken away from this government and any future government.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: One cannot help but feel that the hon. gentleman who introduced this bill has misconceived the whole purpose of the sections of the Regulations Act which he is proposing to amend. He seems to think of them entirely in terms of what he refers to as secret orders in council. But I am sure if he will cast his mind back to the time when the Regulations Act was introduced in May, 1950, he will recall that before that time there had been a good deal of urging-I will not say agitation-upon the part of members of the opposition for an amendment by which the large mass of federal legislative orders in council might be published in the Canada Gazette in an orderly manner, in a manner

which would enable the citizens affected by them to refer to the Gazette in about as convenient a way as they would refer to the statutes of Canada, in order to see how they would be affected by these legislative orders in council.
The hon. member will recall that on that occasion the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) reviewed the arrangements which had preceded the Regulations Act which, as he pointed out were, in one sense, of a rather experimental character, in that we were attempting to find at that stage how these arrangements would work, before we introduced a bill to have the procedure enacted by statute. The Prime Minister at that time, after reviewing the previous arrangements at some length, said as reported at page 3040 of Hansard for May 31, 1950:
We feel that the time has now come when we can bring to parliament something that should be practical and workable, and which may not have to be varied too frequently or too soon. This does provide unequivocally for the compulsory publication and tabling of all instruments made under the delegated legislative powers; that is the sole purpose of this measure. Although largely based on the statutory orders and regulations order, 1947, this bill will further clarify and extend the procedure, in order to ensure that it covers the whole field of delegated legislation.
Now, what was the central idea?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think the minister will agree that that statement was qualified by the Prime Minister later in that same session.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I shall come to that. I shall cover the point my hon. friend has in mind.
What was the central idea of this measure? It was, as I apprehend it, to make provision for the publication in the Canada Gazette of all of those legislative orders in council which were of general public interest, and at the same time provide, as it does provide, that the Canada Gazette, for the purposes of those who wished to refer to it to find out what these legislation orders in council in the general public interest were, would not be cluttered up with a lot of other orders in council which either were not of general interest, or the publication of which was provided for by some other means such, for example, as under the Canada Grain Act, where the department is required, under the terms of its own statute, to publish all orders that are in force every year, and distribute them among those people who might have an interest in the operations of the Canada Grain Act.
The purpose of this Regulations Act was also that the Canada Gazette would not be cluttered up with orders passed under the Department of Defence Production Act which would be addressed, we will say, to a single manufacturer in respect of a single order or

contract he was carrying out directing him to do such and such a thing within a certain period of time.
To that end it was provided in the section my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre now wishes to amend, namely section 9 (2) that-
The governor in council may by regulation exempt-
And I would ask hon. members to follow these words.
-any regulation or class of regulations from the operation of section three, section four, subsection one of section six, and section seven, but every regulation made under this subsection shall be published in English and in French in the Canada Gazette within thirty days after it is made and shall be laid before parliament within fifteen days after it is published in the Canada Gazette or, if parliament is not then in session, within fifteen days after the commencement of the next ensuing session thereof.
To listen to the hon. member's remarks this afternoon one would think that the only order in council to which section 9(2) refers is this secret order in council. Actually it has a very wide reference to a very large number of other classes of orders in council.
I can remember that at the time the drafting of this measure was being undertaken in the Department of Justice, there was a very extensive examination of the procedure followed in other countries, in order to achieve the purpose of the legislation, which was to provide in a compendious form in the Canada, Gazette, for the public of Canada, all of the orders in council of a legislative nature, by themselves, and that they should not be cluttered up with administrative orders, routine orders, and orders which are of a special interest, let us say, to the grain trade and the like.
We, as we thought, went to an enormous amount of trouble to try to produce in the statute	a means	by	which	the	objective,which I have just stated, could be achieved in a way that was accommodating to the citizen who wished to know what the order in council	now was,	in	order	that	he mightobserve	it; and also	in a	way	in whichthose who might be charged with a breach of the	order in	council could,	when so
charged, be protected adequately in their defence.
Therefore it was provided in section 6 (3)- and this is one of the other sections with which my hon. friend is dealing-that:
(3) No regulation is invalid by reason only that it was not published in the Canada Gazette, but no person shall be convicted for an offence consisting of a contravention of any regulation that was not published in the Canada Gazette unless-
And this covers the point made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra.
Regulations Act
(a)	the regulation was, pursuant to section nine, exempted from the operation of subsection one, or the regulation expressly provides that it shall operate according to its terms prior to publication in the Canada Gazette, and
(b)	it is proved that at the date of the alleged contravention reasonable steps had been taken for the purpose of bringing the purport of the regulation to the notice of the public, or the persons likely to be affected by it, or of the person charged.
So no person in Canada could be convicted under any of these orders in council which had not been published unless it was proved that at the date of an alleged contravention the purport of the order in council had reasonably been brought to his attention.
Now, the Regulations Act contemplated that, in relation for example to an order made under the Department of Defence Production Act and served on a manufacturer to the effect, say, that his work was to be stepped up within 30 days, no one else would be interested. The service of the order would be the publication, so far as the manufacturer was concerned; and nobody else would be interested in the order. And it would not be in the manufacturer's interests at all that this order, addressed to him, should be published perhaps for the benefit of all his competitors.
I think perhaps, Mr. Speaker, I had better ask that it be called six o'clock. May I adjourn the debate?


Mr. Speaker:: I can call it six o'clock without the necessity of the hon. member adjourning the debate.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: As long as I am sure that I do not lose my place.


Donald MacInnis: You will get it next Friday.


Mr. Chevrier:: Next Tuesday.


Mr. Speaker:: I am calling it six o'clock.
At eight o'clock the house will resume the business which was interrupted at five o'clock
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock. SUPPLY
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
266. Health insurance studies and administration of the general health grants, $86,694.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, item 266 is the annual vote for health insurance studies. Associated with it is the provision for the

Supply-Health and Welfare administration of the general health grants. I shall reserve any further remarks that I have to make on the health grants until we get to item 267 where they can, I think, be just as appropriately made.
Right now I would like to say a few words about the first part of item 266, namely health insurance studies. The first question on my mind is this: How long do these studies have to be carried on before we get action on health insurance? Another speaker here this afternoon expressed the fact that there was some confusion in his mind about what health insurance is. I am sure there is no confusion in the mind of the minister or in the minds of those who are working on this question in his department. He and they know that for many years it has been said that the aim of the government, the aim of the Liberal party, is eventually to establish health insurance in Canada.
Mr. King in May, 1948, when he first announced the health grants program, said that one of its purposes was to lay the foundation for health insurance. When some of us have asked for health insurance, namely for a financial arrangement to enable people to pay for hospital and medical care, the reply on some occasions has been that there is no use having a health insurance program until there are sufficient facilities, until hospitals are built and so on. There is no point, say the opponents of health insurance, in enabling people to demand and pay for health care unless that care is there for them.
Well, that argument may have had some validity in 1948-1 do not think it had even then-but certainly it has far less validity now in view of the government's own claim to have made so much headway in connection with the building of hospitals. As a matter of fact, a week ago today the minister boasted of the fact that the target for hospital beds set in 1948 had been surpassed. Well, as I say, Mr. Chairman, it is the clear understanding of those in the department that health insurance is the aim of the health grants program. The aim of that program is to establish sufficient facilities so that it will then be possible to provide health insurance, to make it possible for the people to procure the services that are available.	_	_
I indicated this afternoon that this is spelled out in the last available report of the Department of National Health and Welfare, the report for the year ending March 31, 1952. On page 13 we are given half a page about the purposes of the national health program. Those purposes are listed as four basic aims, and the fourth and last of the basic aims is: "to lay sound foundations for health insurance".
tMr. Knowles.]
Now, under this item of health insurance studies the matter has been studied across the years. The benefits of those studies, to some extent at any rate, have been made available to members of parliament in a number of documents giving the results of research on health insurance plans of other countries. However, I find in this same annual report for the year ending March 31, 1952, that there is another reference to health insurance studies over on page 47. There is about half a page there on work done 'on health insurance studies. The last sentence reads:
Meanwhile, work on tabulation of the sickness survey and of the provincial health survey reports is expected to provide extremely valuable information-
Note this:
-for the long term planning of health insurance in Canada.
Well, Mr. Chairman, those words were certainly well chosen so far as this government is concerned, "the long term planning of health insurance in Canada". That term started in 1919 and it is already the length of 34 years. I would like to know how much longer it is going to go on; how many more years we will have studies, how many more years we will have long-term planning, before-


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I have listened to his speech intently. I also have his speech of May 1 before me, and I have been consulting pages 4691 to 4698 of Hansard, and I find that the general structure of what he has been saying so far is the same.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The same speech.


Louis-René Beaudoin: It is substantially the same speech. I notice at one point, where he gives the history of the subject as treated by the government or the Liberal party, that he said that he had a file of documents referring to the studies that were made on health insurance. Perhaps he is giving the house different quotations at this time, but the other day he did give the story of the statements regarding health insurance which were made by Mr. King and the Liberal party generally. But the point is this. The hon. member will realize that when we have a general discussion on the administration item, that general discussion is to embrace all the activities of the department. At that time the hon. member availed himself of the opportunity of making a general speech. He not only referred to health insurance; I believe he will admit that in that speech, which appears in Hansard on pages 4691 to

4698, he devoted a large amount of time to the particular problem of health insurance. This afternoon, when we were still discussing the general item, the hon. member attempted to make another general speech, and that of course was not in order.
If by practice we are to have a general discussion on the first item, each member should reserve only one period of 40 minutes for himself; otherwise what would be the point in having three, four or five 40-minute speeches and never considering the details of the items? I know there was some sort of agreement that the hon. member would speak on health insurance at this time, but I would ask him not to give us again all the details of the past history of this measure as he did in his earlier speech.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, you will find me most co-operative. I could not be otherwise after you have paid me the compliment of informing me that you have looked over my speech of a week ago. I am highly honoured over that fact, and I shall show appreciation for it by not repeating that speech now. In fact what I have to say at this time will take just a moment or two. I agree that there is considerable merit in what you say, Mr. Chairman, that having had the privilege of making a full-dress speech on the first item, we should not make a full-dress speech again on the individual items.
Perhaps I have been a little long in my preamble. What I am doing is working up to a couple of questions I want to put to the minister under this item for health insurance studies. I am not surprised that you, sir, and the house generally find it a bit tedious to listen to the long history, as you put it, of health insurance studies. That is my complaint. It is too long a history. It is a 34-year history.


Alphonse Fournier: The hon. member is just repeating what he said the other day.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I may tell the Minister of Public Works that he will find the subject matter of this speech not only on the pages referred to just now by the chairman, but he will find it in Hansard for June 5 and June 6 of last year.


Alphonse Fournier: That was last session.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I should be glad to have the necessity for these speeches cut off by the government introducing a program of health insurance.
Supply-Health and Welfare


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will the hon. member permit me to help him? Will he put the specific questions he has in mind right now?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, after one more quotation.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Never mind the quotation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is a quotation in which I am sure the minister will be interested. It is from a newspaper advertisement that appeared in the Western Producer of June 23, 1949. It is like many others I have, but I picked this one because it was inserted by the national Liberal committee, and therefore has official standing as being a Liberal party proposal at the time of the last election. Listen to this paragraph. It says:
Then there is the Liberal health program. Already federal grants are helping the provinces to increase their health services. But the Liberals' aim is a nation-wide contributory health insurance plan which will end, for everyone, the tragedy of inadequate health care and the financial strain of lengthy illness.
The minister knows that if that promise to "end the financial strain of lengthy illness" is to be implemented there has to be the introduction of health insurance. I want to know when the government is going to implement that promise to bring in health insurance. I want to know when this money we are spending on health insurance studies is going to result in a health insurance program in Canada.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Is that the only question my hon. friend has?


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is a 34-year-old question. Mr. Chairman, that is the only question I have on health insurance, subject to whatever the minister may reply. I have questions on the health grants which I am leaving until the next item.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member has stated his case three times now in this debate. I do not quarrel with that, except that the tradition and custom of the house, as is well known to him-perhaps better known to him than most members because of his interest in traditions and in the rules of the house- is to have one speech on the general item. The hon. member asked me a question. He holds up an advertisement that was put before the people of a particular province, in which the government is supposed to have said that we would want to end the financial strain imposed upon the people of Canada because of the expense involved-


Stanley Howard Knowles: By a health insurance plan.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -in health matters. I want to say this, and I say it in the kindliest way, to use the phraseology of a late colleague we

Supply-Health and Welfare all loved, that the hon. member would sometimes seem by monopoly of debate-perhaps that is too strong a word-to be the only one in the house who was interested in that kind of objective. I stated quite frankly last year, and my hon. friend repeated my words this year so I may repeat them tonight, that there is no question where this party stands. From reading the platforms of other political parties, there is no question where they stand on this matter. But because we have the objectives stated in our various platforms that is not to say we mean to be so dishonest with the people that we are going to bring this measure in regardless of the preparatory stages or regardless of whether or not we can afford to do so immediately.
What I wish the hon. member would do is to appreciate-he has said that he does, but I wish he would indicate this by more than general words-the significance of what has been done since 1948. This program announced by a former prime minister, with the approval of this house, is a tremendous program. When one realizes that in one year the federal government spends more on health than it spent in the last 28 years, one realizes the significance of this program. I have confirmation of the value of the program in the words of every minister of health in Canada and the words of four of the provincial premiers. Now, that achievement-


Stanley Howard Knowles: You have my word too, so far as it goes.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -as a result of the co-operative efforts of the federal and provincial governments is an effort that must not be passed by as insignificant, because it is of the greatest significance. Everyone knows where I stand on these matters, but I say this. The most dishonest thing that can be done in this particular field-in the absence of the preparatory stages, including the building of hospitals, providing the personnel required and so on-would be to impose a hurried and incomplete system of this kind. It would both defeat the purposes and not be really in keeping with responsible government.
This country is committed now to a great expenditure for the prosecution of the defence of the freedom of the civilized world. If I were to introduce a proposal now which would cost this country an additional $600 million, I should like to know what the judgment of the people of Canada would be. I think most people in Canada who give this matter careful thought recognize that this is a problem that must be approached as an objective if ultimately it is going to be soundly dealt with. It may be slow. We

may be cautious. But it is better to consolidate our gains as we go along than ultimately have an objective which we have suddenly created and which is impossible to maintain. I for one would not make such a proposal to this parliament or to my colleagues in the government. That stand I think will commend itself to most people in Canada.
Another thing my hon. friend always fails to mention is that this is a responsibility in a federal state that cannot be discharged only by the central government. When this program was announced, the federal government provided funds to all the provinces to make a survey of their needs in terms of health standards and health facilities. Each of the provinces has made this survey and they are monumental documents, generally speaking. I do not know whether or not those documents have been carefully examined but as Minister of National Health and Welfare I would certainly have to put before parliament and before my colleagues the recommendations contained in the ten provincial surveys in respect of this particular matter; and that I would do.
My hon. friend-with the best of intentions, I know

talks about these matters. If he' sat where I sit, he would want to know what the cost would be. There is no one in this chamber tonight and there is no one in this country today who could tell me what that cost is. I hope that very soon after the assessment has been made of the national sickness survey that is now being tabulated we shall have a good idea. When we have that, we shall then be able to give this matter further consideration.
Some hon. gentlemen say that I brought in this program last week for election purposes. I think that is fair comment; but it is not correct comment. I will not say there are no occasions when, like every other hon. member, I am guided by political interest. But I will say this. I have given my best over the five years of this program. I am sure my hon. friend, with the chivalry which I know he possesses, would be the first to say

if he does not find it against political interest- that this national health program of ours has been pursued as has perhaps no other program, and with less political purpose in mind.
I have given credit to the provinces at every interval. I must say that they in turn have given credit to us. Only in today's morning paper we have a statement of the minister of health in Ontario. I shall not repeat what he said because he makes a personal reference, but I will say that in

addition to the personal reference he spoke of the co-operative consideration of this government; and that is also true of the minister of health in Saskatchewan. One has to note the words of the premier of Quebec, only last Saturday, when he referred to the help this program meant to the province of Quebec.
My hon. friend talks about health insurance as though it were sickness insurance. We have health insurance now, at this very time, and in a concrete way. My hon. friend shakes his head. Let him examine what we have done in the field of public health. Let him see what we have done in the field of tuberculosis- control. Let him look at what we have done to counter crippling conditions in children. Let him look at what we have done to try to direct cancer control in this country. Let him look and see what we have done in the field of mental health, in hospital construction, in medical and scientific research and in professional training. Those are all necessary conditions. To use the language of Sir Stanford Cade, one of the outstanding authorities in his field in the world, we have embarked upon a responsible system, taking into account our financial opportunities and our over-all obligations, and taking into account the basic context of the constitution of this country.
I know my hon. friend will agree with me when he thinks of what the situation was in this country seven years ago and compares it with the situation today. As a result of the co-operation we have had between the two senior levels of government in the pursuit of the objective which I think all of us in all parties have in mind, I would have hoped he might say that we have made a significant start in the realization of that objective.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, there are just three things I want to say. First of all, the minister knows that I was amongst those in this chamber in May, 1948, who applauded wholeheartedly and generously when the then prime minister announced the health grants program and that we in this party across the years have welcomed and appreciated everything that has been done under the health grants program. We welcomed the extension of that program announced by the minister last Friday night.
But, Mr. Chairman, that does not deny to us or to the people of Canada the right to point out that a health grants program is not health insurance, and that we are asking for that further step which this government and the Liberal party have been promising
Supply-Health and Welfare across the years. I continue to applaud and to appreciate the health grants program, but it has not paid a single Canadian's hospital bill. It has not removed the burden of the cost of illness from the shoulders of a single Canadian family. Until we take that further step, the program is not complete by any manner of means.
The next thing I want to say is this, Mr. Chairman. I am startled at the minister standing up tonight and saying that these grants, these facilities and these services that are being provided are health insurance. He knows that health insurance involves a fund to enable people to pay for hospital and medical care. He knows that his own departmental report still says that the aim of the program is to lay sound foundations for health insurance. He has said that himself time and time again. He has said that health insurance-he said it tonight-has to wait until we have the facilities and, in his language, until we can meet the cost.
My friend the hon. member for Saskatoon is pointing out, as we have pointed out time and time again, that this is one case where the law of supply and demand might be put to work. If you had in the pockets of the people more of the money to pay for health services through a health insurance fund, that demand would in itself help to increase the facilities that are available.
There is just one other comment I wish to make at this time, and it is in the form of a question which I put directly to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of his statement tonight, and in view of the clear indication that, so far as he is concerned, he does not envisage the inauguration of a health insurance program at the present time, will he make sure that the Liberal party, in the next election, refrains from promising to the people of Canada health insurance which it is now clear the Liberals do not intend to bring in?


Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall this item carry?


Ernest George Hansell: Mr. Chairman, I was not intending to say anything on this item, but I heard the minister make his speech and for once in my life I must congratulate him for giving an excellent speech. I am going to suggest that it was one of the best antisocialist speeches I have heard him give in this chamber. He did it with vigour. He watched his words. It was a sensible speech, and my only hope is that it came from his heart and not his head. I want him to analyse his words. His plea was right. How can you go to the people of Canada today, with vast expenditures on defence, and ask them for

Supply-Health and Welfare another $600 million, as he says? You cannot do it. What I want to ask the minister is: When there is no defence expenditure, is he going to appeal then to his head and say: I am going to the people now and ask them for another $600 million? I hope at that time he will have a heart.
I am saying that I am not against a certain type of health insurance. I would rather use the word "assurance" than "insurance". I believe that we have to assure the people of Canada health and welfare, but I do not believe we must do it by imposing upon them economic slavery.
We hear a lot today about an over-all health insurance scheme. We have letters come to our desks; we have petitions presented to us; we have organizations, and some very prominent and large ones, come to us and present their views. But I am always tempted-perhaps I should not yield to the temptation; perhaps I should try to sing that old hymn: "Yield not to temptation, for yielding is sin"-to say: I wonder whether these views express the intelligent views of the rank and file of the people of Canada. I am tempted to ask that every time.
If the minister and his department should carry on any research in respect to health insurance, there is one little bit of research I wish he would carry on, and that is an attempt to learn the wish of the rank and file of the people of Canada. He has told us, for instance, that to embark on such a scheme would cost about $600 million. How does that figure out in taxes in this country of 14 million people? Well, it figures out at approximately $50 a person. Here is a man and his wife and two children, we will say, a moderate family. If it figures out at $200 a year when you investigate and carry on your research, I wonder what would happen if you placed a plebiscite before the people and not merely asked them "Are you in favour of an over-all health insurance plan," but laid all the cards on the table face up and asked this question: "Are you desirous of an over-all health insurance plan which is going to increase your taxes $50 a year for every person in your family?" I wonder what sort of a vote you would get on a national plebiscite of that kind. That is something to consider.
In my views I suppose I am a bit of a traditionalist. I suppose I am conservative in my views, not politically conservative; but I am not always ready to accept every sort of highfalutin scheme that may sound good and be pictured as a good thing. I am pretty steady when it comes to accepting new things. I think modern art is the art of crazy men; modern architecture is the

architecture of people who have no vision, or no appreciation of beauty, but I am not talking about that.
I see your eyes are fastened on me, Mr. Chairman, but I am not ready to accept all sorts of new schemes. I say we need to find out exactly what the people themselves want. The people do want health; they do want services. What they want most is an income that will guarantee that they can have those services and pay for them.


Mr. Blair:: It is not my intention to enter into any debate at the present time. I did not expect any debate on health insurance. Perhaps the minister was absent on the last occasion, namely the first week in December when this matter was fully discussed in the house and an amendment was moved by the leader of the C.C.F. party, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar. At that time I placed the feeling and policy of this party on the record, as I think every other party in the house did, and we have not departed from that up to the present time. That still stands as our party policy.
To get back to the item, I am interested to know where this money is being spent. I note that there is a director of health insurance studies, two medical officers, an executive officer, and then a certain number of clerks and stenographers which would be necessary. Then we come down to the items of travelling expenses, freight, express and cartage and educational and other informational publications. Then there is a large item of $12,000. What form do the educational and other informational publications take? The minister has assured us in his speech that at no place is there anything political. Can he assure us that at no place in this educational program going out from the department in the form of papers is there anything political? What is the form that these educational papers take?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The explanation of the $12,000 increase is the information obtained in Canada's sickness survey, $11,000; then the report on the operation of the health grants program for the provinces in the five years, costing $1,000.


William Joseph Browne: I have just one question. Have all the provinces sent in the results of their studies?


Paul Joseph James Martin: All but Newfoundland; it is in the course of preparation.


William Joseph Browne: Does the minister know how the study is in regard to Newfoundland, whether it will be received soon?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, very shortly.


Clarence Gillis: I would feel that I was remiss in my duty if I did not say a few words on

the estimates of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. If you will look at the record, Mr. Chairman, you will find that I have not said anything so far on his estimates.
On this whole question of health, health grants and health insurance I give credit largely to the Minister of National Health and Welfare for what has been done since the establishment of the department. He is the first minister, and there is no doubt that we have made more progress in that field since the department was established and placed under his guidance than we made in the previous 50 years, at least.
I agree with him that the steps the department is taking in establishing these provincial grants are necessary to the development of an over-all health program. I should like to bring to the minister's attention this fact. These health grants for the purpose of providing more bed space in the different provinces must be matched dollar for dollar by provincial grants. The province has to put up dollar for dollar.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Just in some grants.


Clarence Gillis: It does in the building of hospitals, for example.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In the hospital construction grant, in the cancer control grant, in the venereal disease grant at their request, and in the rehabilitation grant-it is only in those.


Clarence Gillis: With grants made in that way it is not possible to have uniform development across the country, for the simple reason that the provincial incomes of British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario and, perhaps, Quebec, enable them to take full advantage of the grants made by the federal government. In that way they are in a position to build faster and to provide more bed space.
I just mention this to point up the fact that the provinces with the low provincial incomes, and with very little chance of increasing those incomes, are going to lag behind for some considerable time unless there is a more equitable distribution based upon the ability of the provinces to take advantage of the grants.
Second-and this was what I had chiefly in mind when I rose to speak-I must say I cannot understand the attitude indicated this afternoon by the hon. member for Peace River, and again tonight by the hon. member for Macleod; because the record indicates, as has been pointed out by the hon. member for Lanark, that this group moved an amendment to the address in reply to the speech from the throne in which we asked for the development of a national health program. When that vote was taken both the hon. member for Macleod and the hon. member for Peace
Supply-Health and Welfare River, with the other members of that group in the house, voted for the amendment.
I wish to straighten out the record on this point, because only a moment ago the hon. member for Macleod suggested that a plebiscite of the rank and file should be taken on this question. Well, if the hon. member for Macleod cannot remember what he did in December of last year, if he does not know exactly what he voted for, so far as the introduction of a national health program is concerned, then surely it is not possible to go out into the country and take a plebiscite recording the opinion of the man in the street, who has had very little opportunity of discussing or understanding these problems. Surely it would be unwise to do that, when hon. members in the House of Commons are inconsistent enough to reverse their opinions and indicate a complete misunderstanding of what they are talking about, particularly after they have voted on a subject that was thoroughly debated in the house only a couple of months ago.


Mr. Johnston:: Of course that is not true.


Clarence Gillis: The record shows it; I just took a look at it.	'


Charles Edward Johnston: It does not show any such thing.


Ernest George Hansell: Read our statements.


Clarence Gillis: I certainly would vote the way I talked. You are admitting now that you double-talked when you voted the other way -and for what reason I do not know.


Charles Edward Johnston: You are all mixed up.


Clarence Gillis: I do not want to get into a prolonged debate on that, because when the amendment was moved I made a statement; and if the hon. member for Peace River is interested he may read it. This afternoon he asked someone to spell out exactly what we have in mind when we make reference to a national health program. Well, if he will look at Hansard for December 9, 1952 he will find that at page 493 I have spelled out the mechanics of a national health program. If he will read it he will have some idea of what we have in mind when we refer to a national health program.
I believe that such a program in this country is a must. The minister is right when he says the department has made a good deal of progress through health grants. But if anyone wanted to be frank about the subject he would have to admit that the facilities for the health of the people of this country have never been worse than they are today. Costs have gone up tremendously. And let no one forget that we are bringing in about 150,000 people each year through immigration,

Supply-Health and Welfare and that we have been doing this for the past five or six years. We are setting them down in organized centres where medical facilities have to be provided.
Take a look at any section of this country today and you will find that it is more difficult for the average person to get into a hospital and obtain medical treatment than ever before in the history of this country. You do not even have to leave this city of Ottawa to find that condition. Anyone who is interested need only take a look at the availability of doctors and dentists in this city, and the possibility of being admitted to a hospital, to have a clear understanding of what I mean. And that situation obtains right straight across the country.
Cost is a big factor. The Minister of Finance has indicated that there are 137,000 families in Canada who receive incomes below taxation level. Their incomes are not high enough to be assessed for tax. That being so, and in the light of today's costs of medical services, one can be assured that at least that group of people are not in a position from a financial standpoint to provide any kind of medical service for themselves.
In some of the low-income provinces it will be years before the people will be able to take advantage of the opportunities afforded today. Saskatchewan has a quite satisfactory hospital insurance system. It is working well. I agree with the hon. member who says that unless a scheme is established there will be no development of the mechanics, but that when the scheme is there the other things will follow rapidly. In Saskatchewan an extra tax of $10 per individual gives complete hospital coverage, with a $30 maximum per family. I know claims have been paid under the Saskatchewan scheme running from $7,000 to $10,000. Where would the average individual be if he were confronted with medical bills of that kind? The rest of his life would be mortgaged.
In British Columbia a type of hospital insurance is in use, and has been found most helpful. My information indicates that ward treatment can be obtained for about $3.50 a day whereas, without such a scheme, it would cost anywhere from $8 to $16. Then there is another type of insurance in Ontario. But in the other provinces we do not have that sort of thing; so in most provinces we are committed provincially to the acceptability of health insurance. This type of insurance is provided in the army, the navy and the air force. These services give complete coverage, with the best of equipment and the best of doctors. The same has been established in veterans' hospitals right across the country.
[Mr. Glllis.l
Most people who sneer at socialized medicine do not know what it means. They are content to repeat a slogan developed in Wall street, New York, without having the slightest idea of what it is all about. The veterans have complete coverage; yet we do not describe it as socialized medicine. We call it a service they earned, and the country has been big enough to provide the best for them. All through the armed services there is complete coverage. But the person who digs and works and pays the taxes which provide all these things has no protection when he hits a period of sickness. That is his position if he is in that 137,000 indicated by the Minister of Finance who pay their share toward the wealth of the country and make these services available to others.
We are told that we cannot afford it, but let us take a look at the question of cost for one minute. The statement was made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare that this country is paying about $600 million a year in medical services of one kind or another. In my opinion a good deal of that is wasted through maladministration and duplication. If the federal government through the federal health department would establish a system of national health insurance and rechannel that money now being spent by various organizations and individuals, there would be little additional cost involved. That is the way it would be done. It is a lot of nonsense to talk about more taxes, and the person who makes that statement is not thinking the matter through.
I agree with the minister that if I were sitting in his place I would want to know where the money was coming from, but I am reasonably sure that there are in the department today men who have the facts and figures of where that $600 million a year is going, and also those who can tell him how to rechannel that money through the services under his department in a way that would entail very little additional cost.
We are beginning to see a little daylight in connection with defence expenditures. I think the time has come when the federal government should indicate that they believe in a national health program and will establish it as soon as possible. Do not forget for one minute that in 1945 the prime minister made proposals to the provinces. He was not afraid of it. He made the definite proposal to the provinces that he would establish a national health program that was going to cost the federal government some $480 million. All he wanted the provinces to do was agree.


Paul Joseph James Martin: $200 million, but it was contingent upon tax agreements being signed.


Clarence Gillis: He wanted the co-operation of the provinces to carry out the administration and mechanics. Nine provinces agreed, and I think one more would be willing to agree at this time. The province of Ontario, which was largely instrumental in upsetting the dominion-provincial agreements in 1945, has established a provincial scheme of its own. Although it is quite inadequate at the present time it does indicate that they have accepted the principle. I understand that Ontario has also signed a dominion tax agreement.


Gordon Francis Higgins: They are wise.


Clarence Gillis: The hon. member has not been here enough to understand the mechanics of these things. You could get an agreement from the other province. If the prime minister in his wisdom felt in 1945 that we could do it, I am sure it is just as reasonable to think that we can do it today. The question of cost seems to be the big thing. Everyone who does not want to do anything and has not thought the thing through very far gets up immediately and says, "Are you going to tax the Canadian people some more?"
My experience is that the Canadian people are quite willing to pay taxes for anything from which they receive a benefit. You never hear anyone making much of a squawk about the 2 per cent social security tax. They accepted that and lauded it because it was for the benefit of people and in recognition of past services. It is an aid to people, to help them through their later years of life.
Go into any community from Vancouver to Prince Edward Island and you will find, despite what the hon. member for Macleod has said, that most people are asking, "Where are we going to get protection against hospital and doctor bills which may mortgage us for the rest of our lives?" That is the thing that is uppermost in their minds. Let me tell the minister of health and welfare that if he wants to be political in this next election, if he wants to get a lot of votes, this is the issue that should be settled.
In only two weeks we obtained over 100,000 signatures on a petition which was sent in here to the House of Commons. If we had had six weeks in which to circulate that petition across the country we would have got half the people to sign. It was done quickly, but it settled all doubts as to where the people stand. I tell you that when I am home in my community, and I think this applies generally to all hon. members, I find I am bothered most by men and women coming in and asking how they can get in hospitals without paying the admission fee. They
Supply-Health and Welfare are concerned about the cost of hospitalization. They want to know how they can get a doctor. That is what you hear morning, noon and night.
I know there is no doubt in the minister's mind. I know the minister is quite willing and he is going as far as the treasury board and perhaps others in the government will permit him to go.


Murdo William Martin: My hon. friend has been talking about hospitalization. Does he realize that under our program we have assisted in providing 2,400 additional beds in his own province?


Clarence Gillis: I realize that fully. I point out to the minister that while he has provided these extra beds he has not provided the means by which a large percentage of the population can get' into those hospital beds. The minister's department has helped to establish a wonderful institution in Halifax in the Victoria general hospital. It is second to none in Canada from the standpoint of equipment, service and staff. But there are thousands of people in Nova Scotia who need treatment which could be given by that centre but who cannot afford to go there. I contend that we should provide means to enable these people to take advantage of the facilities that we have established.
I am not going to say a great deal more on this matter, but I did think it was my duty to say something in the light of the statements made this afternoon by the hon. member for Peace River and this evening by the hon. member for Macleod. I think their memories required a little jogging on how they voted just a few weeks ago.


Louis-René Beaudoin: May I inform the committee that some of our colleagues have to attend the meeting of the standing committee on agriculture. Some of them desire to say a word on the next item and perhaps we could permit them to take the floor now and speak on this item. The next item has to do with health grants and this one has to do with the administration of general health grants.


Mr. Bryce:: Mr. Chairman, I thank the committee for its kindness in allowing me to say a few words at this time. I have taken up the matter I have in mind with the minister before, and for that reason I shall not take a great deal of time to say what I want to say.
I want to urge the minister to make a larger grant to the West Kildonan health clinic. We have had considerable correspondence on this matter, and I have also spoken to the minister about it. I ask him to give further consideration to granting
5024	HOUSE OF
Supply-Health and Welfare them more assistance. They are only able to have clinics twice a week, and there are a lot of the children there who still have to have their teeth examined. If we could get enough money to allow them to have three clinics a week I think we could catch up on the backlog.
The other thing I want to ask the minister about, or remind him about again, is this. We have about 800 retarded children of school age in Manitoba, and those children cannot go to school. I understand that it is a criminal offence to send them to school, but they could get a certain amount of education in a special school that might fit them in some kind of a way to perhaps make a living, or be some help to their parents. An organization has been founded there recently, and I shall just quote a little bit from their brief and let it go at that. Before I do so I will say that I know this is something the federal government could not do alone. They would have to have the co-operation of the province. With a sympathetic minister here at Ottawa, and I know that the people in Manitoba are good fellows, I think we would be able to do something for these 800 retarded children in Manitoba.
The petition reads like this:
That we petition the department of education and the department of health to provide day school and special training classes for mentally retarded children who are living at home by:
Extending the public school act to provide that in any school district where there are at least fifteen children of school age who are mentally retarded, but who are deemed by the provincial psychiatrist to be capable of benefiting from special instruction, it shall be compulsory for that district to provide the special instruction required.
Exploring terms of the health education and mental health grants now provided by the department of national health at Ottawa through the provincial department of health to see if some of these moneys can be spent to provide the supplementary grants required for such classes and to provide intelligence testing services so that there is proper screening of children for these classes and to pay scholarships to Manitoba teachers to take special training for this work.
I have met school teachers who have specialized in this, and I think there is a future for it. I would ask the minister to give consideration to these two items. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


Louis-René Beaudoin: The hon. member for
Kootenay West has also an appointment and wishes to speak now.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: My subject comes under the next item. Thank you for your kind consideration, Mr. Chairman. I wish to speak very briefly with respect to the hospital question. I listened to the minister very carefully when he made his opening remarks, and I was interested in the great gains that had
[Mr. Bryce.1

been made in the number of hospital beds; but as far as the district I represent is concerned the need for hospital extension and new hospitals and more beds is still very urgent, as it is in many other places. I know, Mr. Chairman, that it is a very urgent problem which is faced by several communities I represent, owing to old hospitals becoming obsolete, the high cost of building new ones, the increasing population, and so on. I know this question has been of very serious concern particularly to the communities of Nelson and Castlegar. For some three or four years they have been almost up against a blank wall. They cannot afford to build a new hospital and they cannot afford to build extensions.
While the present grants are very helpful I think under the present circumstances they are not sufficient. I was interested to note that the minister said the savings made in grants for hospitals could be used for other purposes, and I thought the purposes were excellent. However, I have been asked by various hospital boards in my constituency to bring to the minister's attention the fact that there is a very pressing problem in that the $1,000 grant for a hospital bed and $1,500 for a chronic bed is quite insufficient. They ask that he give consideration to their particular problems and their need for larger grants. I have met the members of the boards in question and they are hard-working people who give their time voluntarily, trying to solve their problems on a local basis. I have discussed their problems with them on many occasions and I know this is a matter of very great concern to them.
I just speak briefly because I do not want to take much time at this stage of the estimates, but I told them that I would mention it.


Ernest George Hansell: I do not wish to keep the matter going unduly either.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Do I understand that we have carried 267 and that we are reverting to 266?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Item 266 deals with health insurance studies and administration of the general health grants. Therefore, since two hon. members had asked to speak on health grants, item 267, I suggested that we extend that courtesy to them and that they be allowed to speak on the item which has to do with the administration of health grants.
While I am on my feet may I ask hon. members to consider that we have had a long discussion on the first item of this department-administration.	Some of the
speeches, particularly those made on item

266, have had much more to do with making a case for a health insurance plan, or with opposing a health insurance plan, than with the details which appear in the blue book of estimates. Normally, if we are to be strictly relevant to the item, we should be discussing the moneys that are included in this vote. Of course, if one member is allowed to make a case for one side it is difficult for the chairman to intervene and say that although one member has spoken, another will not be allowed to do so. I am asking hon. members for their co-operation because, if they continue to discuss health insurance which is not covered in this item-that is a health insurance plan such as they would like to see or against which they are arguing -at some time or other I will have to step in and say that they are out of order when doing so under this item.


Ernest George Hansell: I appreciate your position indeed, Mr. Chairman, and I am not going to keep the house at any length on this sort of general discussion. However, since the hon. member for Cape Breton South who is sitting right here at my side has spoken the way he has, I do not believe I can quite let it go. When he started out he said he was going to keep the record straight. The best way to keep the record straight is to keep it as it is and let it speak for itself, but he has messed it all up again.


An hon. Member:: That is right.


Ernest George Hansell: And now I have to kind of straighten it out. It is true that this group voted for the C.C.F. amendment on health insurance more than once, but over and over again we vote for things with a qualifying statement. That is all there is to it.
The hon. member referred to my suggestion of calling a plebiscite. I did not suggest that the minister take a plebiscite. All I was saying was that if he was doing any research under this item in respect of health insurance, as an illustration, he might go to the people and ask them what they would want and whether they were willing to favour a scheme, provided that it would cost what we contemplate it is going to cost, $50 per person.
There was just one other little point that the hon. member for Cape Breton South brought up. He was very much disturbed because some people talked about some of these things being of a socialistic nature. I am not going to emphasize that point except to say that there was one place where the hon. member fell down rather badly. He really took a tumble. He referred to the complete coverage in health that the armed
Supply-Health and Welfare services receive. Now, what a tumble that was. Mr. Chairman, there is no greater socialist institution in the world, at least socialist in concept, than the armed forces. Health services are provided, clothes are provided, housing is provided, food is provided, and they even get shaving brushes and tooth brushes. Let us go the whole hog. In so far as regimentation is concerned, there is no greater regimentation in the world than in the armed forces. Why, the members of the armed forces cannot go out to play without going to the commanding officer and getting a slip of paper to show that they are out on leave.


Stanley Howard Knowles: They have hobby horses to play with.


Ernest George Hansell: My hon. friend the member for Cape Breton South should not have chosen that illustration. However, we are good friends. Tomorrow you will find us together, drinking coffee, and if it is the same kind of coffee we sometimes get here it will wear out our stomachs and then we will both be wanting some sort of health assistance to get us well.


Donald MacInnis: I think these people who are worried about national health insurance had better ask that the item we are discussing now be deleted or reduced to $1, because the item is headed "health insurance studies". If that means anything, to me it means it is the forerunner of national health insurance. I am not going to cover that field. Like the hon. member for Lanark, I feel that we had our day on it when we were discussing it on the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
At that time we were accused by some speakers of not taking any notice of the reports that were made in connection with the health studies in the provinces. I am going to draw the attention of the committee to the report from the province of British Columbia, and the recommendations contained in it. The recommendations are brief, so I shall not prolong what I have to say by elaborating on them. I am quoting from "Survey of health services and facilities in British Columbia, in existence on December 31, 1948." A note attached to the cover of the copy sent to me has this wording on it:
This copy of the British Columbia health survey report, "Survey of health services and facilities in British Columbia, 1948" is being sent to you with the compliments of the health branch, department of health and welfare, Victoria, B.C.
Then under that is the name "G. R. F. Elliott, M.D., C.M., D.P.H., assistant provincial health officer." This is quite a lengthy study, and there are parts of it that I should like
5026	HOUSE OF
Supply-Health and Welfare to quote but I am not going to take the time of the committee to do so. After asserting that the principle of health insurance was sound, the report states:
It is felt, however, that certain general recommendations can be made which will allow further progress to be made toward comprehensive medical care with no financial barrier, which, although likely inevitable, must be approached with much study and care.
It is therefore recommended:
(1)	That comprehensive health insurance be not introduced at present, but receive further study:
(2)	That consideration be given to the introduction of plans which would cover some medical services and (or) certain groups of the population (see recommendations in following section) :
(3)	That in any proposed plan of health insurance federal assistance be available through a definite financial formula.
Then they deal with the question of children's health. The report states:
The medical profession today are in an enviable position regarding income, and this fact must be taken into consideration when final costs are established after the necessary consultations and advice have been sought from the medical profession.
It is therefore recommended:
That consideration be given to the introduction of a comprehensive health insurance plan to cover children.
There is nothing ambiguous about that. Then they deal with diagnostic services and the need for them, as well as the difficulties in providing those services. The recommendation is as follows:
It is therefore recommended:
That serious consideration be given to the introduction of a subsidized plan of diagnostic services (laboratory and radiology) and that the centres recognized by the British Columbia hospital insurance service be used for this plan.
They are going rather a long way. Then they deal with the matter of the high cost of drugs, about which we all know. I know about it from personal experience. The report reads:
As pointed out previously, such a system should be inaugurated for any health insurance scheme where government funds are used for the purchase of drugs and allied products. The use of such a system would be compulsory for all individuals for whom drugs are provided completely or partially by government funds. It should be introduced now for any government health insurance scheme in effect, including the social assistance medical service.
It is therefore recommended:
That immediate consideration be given to assuring that wherever government funds are used at present for the purchase of drugs or allied products, these purchases be made direct from the manufacturer.
We are getting rather close to socialization here. There is another recommendation concerning specialized services which reads as follows:
It is therefore recommmended:
That as the need becomes apparent, specialist services, similar to those in effect in such fields as


venereal diseases, tuberculosis, and cancer, be extended to other fields.
Then the last paragraph of the report reads as follows:
This suggested plan for comprehensive health insurance is being presented not as a clear-cut recommendation, but rather as one which has definite possibilities although requiring a good deal of closer study by the government.
It is therefore recommended:
That further close study be given to the medical services association pilot plan entitled "Report on community enrolment."
I would say to those who are -fearful of a national health insurance plan that they had better make for cover, because it is coming.


Gordon Francis Higgins: I should like to say one word, and not a very long word on this subject, Mr. Chairman. I have been listening to the hon. member for Vancouver East, for whom I have very great respect, and to whose voice I have listened very often with profit to myself. Speaking for the newest province, I do not think the time is ripe for the proposition he advanced. So far as I am concerned there may be a time in the future, but we have not reached it yet.
So far as I am concerned, health insurance still has to be a contributory scheme, and it has to be contributed to by all the people of Canada before we agree to it.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Mr. Chairman, I believe the churches could do a great deal to relieve the suffering of people for want of hospitals if they would just simply remind the people of Canada that the good Lord said "Six days shall ye work and rest the seventh". During the war we contributed through compulsory savings. Eighty per cent of the people, the recipients of those cheques, when they received them wondered where the money came from. But as long as we are going to keep hollering for shorter hours, more take-home pay, no savings, get it out of the rich or out of those who do save and give it to us for nothing, the worse things are going to be. We had better all remember what the Bible says, namely six days shall ye work and rest the seventh. We should deduct from every man, woman and child money for old age pensions, hospitals and all of these necessities. Then when we cannot make up the required amount, tap the rich; but don't go so deep that you get to the bottom of the barrel. Let us not work seven days a week in this country.


An hon. Member:: Six days.


An hon. Member:: Let us not break the Sabbath.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Let us work six days. Let us provide for our own protection and for our own old age. Let us do something instead

of all crying for something for nothing, shorter hours and more take-home pay. That is the reason we are suffering in Canada today. Everybody is demanding shorter hours.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
General health grants-
267. To authorize and provide for general health grants to the provinces, the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory upon the terms and in the amounts detailed in the estimates and under terms and conditions approved by the governor in council including authority, notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act, to make commitments for the current year not to exceed a total amount of $48,503,826, $30,000,000.
Ernest George Hansell: I am not going to speak, Mr. Chairman. I am going to remind the minister that he was going to answer a question on the fluorination of water.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have that under research grants.


Ernest George Hansell: That is under item 267 in the detail.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I will come to it. Let us pass it.


Ernest George Hansell: In the details it is under item 267.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am coming to it.


Ernest George Hansell: The details are at page 343. We find an item "Public health research grant".


Paul Joseph James Martin: I can give it now if it will save time, but there is another place for it. We have had experiments made in the city of Brantford. To these experiments we have contributed. We have also made studies of the town of Stratford and also of the city of Sarnia. The best view is that the addition of fluorine to water supplies in Canada promises not only to be an important event in the history of preventive dentistry but also one of the most important events in the history of the whole public health field.
Among researchers there is no argument as to whether or not fluorination reduces tooth decay. They all agree that it does so to a marked degree; and they also agree that ill effects, including unsightly mottling of teeth, do not occur. I can only say that the national health department has compared the teeth of children in Brantford, Ontario where the water is fluorinated, with those in Sarnia; and the Brantford children have been found to have 68 per cent less tooth decay. We presume that fact is due to the fluorination of the water supply in Brantford. Similar experiments have been carried out in New Jersey and several other communities in the united States, with similar results.
Supply

Health and Welfare


Charles Edward Johnston: With regard to that matter of fluorination, I noticed the minister said there was no mottling of teeth in Brantford, I think it was. Is that exactly true? Not so long ago I was talking to one of the officials-


Murdo William Martin: All I can say is that I am no expert. All I can do is pass on the findings of the technical assistants and the specialists we employ in those services. That is all I can do. I could not add anything to that.


Mr.   Johnsion@: It was to one of those specialists in the minister's department, I think, that I was talking. He pointed out that much important information had been obtained in that research that was going on at Brantford and Stratford. But he also pointed out to me that there was some mottling of the teeth, that up to the present the investigations had not gone far enough to make any firm decisions in that regard, that they were still investigating the cases, but that the results appeared to be promising. On the other hand, I think all members of the committee have received petitions, particularly from some chiropractors and others in the health field, other than medical doctors, who are much against the fluorination of water. There is therefore a rather decided opinion against it as well as for it. I think we should be extremely careful in this matter. I am not suggesting for a moment that the fluorination of water could not be a good thing.


Paul Joseph James Martin: This is an important matter to many municipalities. I do not want to prolong the discussion because I have not' the technical competence to discuss the matter scientifically. All I can do is to relate what officials tell me. But I may tell my hon. friend that the preponderant scientific information does not bear out the views he has expressed. The Canadian Medical Association and the Canadian Dental Association have issued joint official statements to the effect that it has now been established to their satisfaction that water fluorination reduces tooth decay and that no ill effects have been discovered at the concentration used for this purpose.


Mr. Henry:: Under this item 267 it is possible to review briefly the national health program in so far as it affects the province of Ontario. This I propose to do not only because of the deep interest of the citizens of Ontario in the program but because of the interest of Canadians from coast to coast in health.
I can congratulate quite frankly and sincerely the minister upon the action, vigour and imagination which he has shown in the prosecution of the national health program to
5028	HOUSE OF
Supply-Health and Welfare date. I say he is entitled to great congratulation, because he has been limited by the budgets and the war prevention program of the government. The eyes of Canada are on him. They have been on him in the past and they will be on him in the future, because Canadians hope for better health and a better Canada through better health.
Mr. Chairman, Canadians approve this program and in particular the idea behind the program, namely its objective. The objective of the program is that of the late Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King. He sought for Canadians, in the long-term view, national contributory health insurance. This program leads us there. In other words it leads to making the resources of modern medical skill and modern hospital facilities available to every Canadian citizen, regardless of means, and visualizes a contributory basis. We have made much progress to date. The objective is not yet attained but we are a great deal closer to the objective because of the vigour, the action and the advances of the present minister.
We ask: What of the future? Canadians, and those in Ontario in particular, want more progress. Has there been federal delay? I see no evidence of it. There has been no lack of action on the part of the minister. More than this, grants have been made in excess of what the provinces have been able to implement. We come then to the question of provincial delay, and on that question I say the provinces have been slow, and in particular the province of Ontario is guilty in this respect. Why so? Why the delay? The Korean conflict has not helped. The extraordinary expansion of the economy has been another factor that has hindered the provinces because there have been shortages of material and personnel which have prevented the provinces from doing what they should do in taking up these grants.
The conclusion is obvious. There should be greater use of the grants in Ontario. We hope this use will increase within the immediate foreseeable future.
Why do we turn to the provinces? Not all Canadians understand fully that we have, as the minister stated, a federal system under British parliamentary law. The provinces have the primary responsibility for health. We grant the money and the provinces work out the details.
The benefits of such a system are obvious. In particular we have come to the conclusion in Canada through the long years that if you wish to look after local needs and local traditions in the best possible manner, then you do so by using the federal-provincial


system. But here we are preparing for the objective of the program and seem to become impatient. We can understand this. But remember, other countries have found to their sorrow that there was not enough preparation when they brought their health programs into force in the final phases. We need preparation, and we all agree on that, if we are going to ultimately have a program of complete health services for all, irrespective of means, on a contributory basis.
The preliminary steps are very clear, and the minister is taking them as rapidly as is within his power. We need the physical means of care and we need mobilized personnel such as doctors, dentists, public health workers and similar people to use the facilities. Our shortages at the present are hospital beds and more trained workers.
I turn to Ontario. Here we have the national health program and its grants for hospital construction and health services. Ontario has fallen short of accepting and acting upon the grants which are available under these two heads of hospital construction and health services.
I have a report from the department here in Ottawa which indicates that as of February, 1953, there was available for Ontario $28,119,003 for hospital construction. There was approved $20 million for hospital construction as between the two governments, but at that date there was spent only $11,684,785. Here we have a marked discrepancy between that which was approved and that which was implemented.
I come to the field of health services. Here you have grants to cover such things as crippled children, professional training, venereal disease control, mental health, tuberculosis control, public health and health surveys. Ontario has fallen short of the allocated sums in these fields also. In the fiscal year 1951-52 the allocation for health service grants was $6,541,862; but Ontario took up and accepted merely $3,095,834.
In the light of these figures, Mr. Chairman, I conclude that we aim to see to it that no Canadian need suffer disease or injury which can be prevented, and that Canadians are willing to go ahead with this program and pay the costs. Furthermore, turn your minds to the volqntary health schemes. Those schemes draw many people into them annually and the membership mounts. Canadians are interested in the Blue Cross and similar schemes of that kind. Canadians do want better health standards for all.
We thank the government and the minister for their action at the federal level, and we urge the provinces to do their part on the provincial level, and let us get on with

the implementation of these health service and hospital construction grants.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. Perhaps right at this moment I should mention that while the hon. member for Rosedale has made a speech which was more or less relevant to the item, it was in the nature of a speech that should have been made on the first administration item. Since I gave him the latitude to make the speech, hon. members understand that if other hon. members wish to make similar speeches about the results of the general health grants in their own provinces, the chairman will be put in a very difficult position.


Mr. Casselman:: Is it permissible to read them?


Louis-René Beaudoin: That is not strictly in accordance with the rules either. I merely point this out in order to bring it to the attention of hon. members. On the one hand, it is difficult to curtail the discussion to what it should be. On the other hand, if latitude is given it may be taken advantage of and we would never end the discussion of these estimates. I leave it at that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If I sense the feeling of the committee, there are only about two questions, and then we could pass this item. That is how I judge the situation.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I want to ask one question. I am not going to proceed as the hon. member for Rosedale did and make a speech on health in Ontario, although I might speak with reference to New Brunswick. As a matter of fact, it seemed to me while the hon. member was making his speech that his only idea was to take a crack at the Ontario health legislation.
I have a question on item 267. The details are given on page 343. It mentions crippled children's grants. It is possible that the question I am about to ask does not come under this item. I should like to know whether anything is being done for those who are not crippled children, but are crippled young men and young women say in their twenties and thirties. It seems to me that in our whole set-up these are the people who are forgotten. I should like to know from the minister tonight whether anything is in prospect for this particular group who are most deserving. It is a disgrace to Canada that nothing has been done for them so far.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is the purpose of the rehabilitation grants. The crippled children's grant deals with individuals up to the age of 21, and the rehabilitation grant will deal with
Supply-Health and Welfare the rehabilitation of such groups as the hon. member mentions.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: That does not answer the question. Is there anything at all in our whole health estimates that deals with those who are over 21 years of age?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is what I just said. The rehabilitation grant that I announced last Friday does that very thing.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Will the minister give me the amounts in that particular item that are allocated to Newfoundland?


Paul Joseph James Martin: In the crippled children's
grant? I have many statistics on this.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Give me the major ones that you have.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You mean for Newfoundland or for each province?


Gordon Francis Higgins: Just Newfoundland.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The reports on Newfoundland alone run to about 80 pages. I shall be very glad to send them to my hon. friend.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Thank you.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Can the minister tell the committee where the money is coming from for the $5,300,000 which he announced last Friday night in connection with the three new health grants? They do not seem to be included in item 267 and they are not included in the supplementaries. Where is the department getting that $5 million?


Murdo William Martin: We expect that the amount of the new grants estimated for this year will be about all that we will be able to spend usefully in the course of the next eleven months. The amount actually asked for is the amount which it is estimated the provinces will be able to spend. It will naturally take some time, as we learned in 1948, to get the provinces geared up to these new operations. The principle of a sliding scale of grants adopted in connection with these three new grants is similar to that which we adopted in 1948 for the general public health, mental health and tuberculosis grants and so on. My hon. friend will note that we have safeguarded the maximum amounts of these grants by spelling out the increase to be provided in future years in the text of an order in council which I hope to be able to table as soon as our estimates are passed, as I suppose they will be. Strictly speaking, we know of course that this is a statement of intention, and that every succeeding parliament will be called to pass the necessary appropriation. But such statement of intentions for the future and indications of the
5030	HOUSE OF
Supply-Health and Welfare policy that this government intends to Hollow will serve a very useful purpose. In other words, we have estimated what we think we will have to spend. If we need more we will get it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You have estimated what you think you will be able to spend during the coming year, and I take it that the estimate is $5,300,000. That is the figure the minister gave last week as reported at page 4681 of Hansard.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My question is this: Where is that $5,300,000 to be found in the estimates? Where do you get the money?


Paul Joseph James Martin: As I said, when we announced this program we said we would review the hospital construction grant. We are now reviewing the hospital construction grant. We estimate we have assisted in providing 46,000 beds on the basis of present statistics, and with accumulated amounts of hospital construction grants-$13 million-together with the annually allotted half of the $13,500,000, we will have no difficulty in providing for future bed requirements.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Maybe I will have to try to answer my own question. The minister cannot seem to answer it. I still want to know where this money is coming from, since it is not specifically provided in the estimates. The minister made reference a moment ago to an order in council. He said last week that this is not an order in council government. But it is. Is that order In council going to vary the provisions of this $30 million so as to include the $5,300,000?


Paul Joseph James Martin: When parliament gives us authority we will be able to sit down and make regulations based upon the appropriation parliament has made, and based upon the estimates of expenditures which, in the light of our conversations with the provinces, we think we will be able to make.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But the appropriation by parliament is only $30 million?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In other words this $5,300,000 the minister announced last Friday night in such boastful terms is not new money at all. It is included in the $30 million.


Paul Joseph James Martin: As I said in my statement in chief, when parliament was told in 1948 that we were going to have a program the prime minister said that at the end of five years we would review the hospital construction grants with a view to cutting them in half. That has been done. We have built 46,000


hospital beds in the last 4J years-6,000 more than we targeted for.


Stanley Howard Knowles: "We" being the people of Canada.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am talking about Canada, of course. I am not talking about Great Britain. And, with that money, instead of reducing the grants, without adding one cent to the tax load we hope to take care of these new grants.
For instance, we have authority to spend in 1953-54, apart from the hospital construction carryover of $13 million, the sum of $35,510,000. In 1957-58 it will be $42 million, based upon estimated expenditures. We are proceeding with the same practice as during the last five years.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Now, if the minister will just be patient we will get this all straightened out. He says the estimated commitment for 1953-54 is $35,510,000.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The item we are now voting is $30 million. Now, to go back to the question I asked five minutes ago, where do you get the other $5,510,000?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have said twice-


Stanley Howard Knowles: What about the order in council?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The order in council does not provide for expenditures not authorized by parliament. I have said we estimate what we think we will spend this year. That figure appears in the estimate book.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, it does; $30 million. Our total obligation to the provinces based1 upon this program will be, for the fiscal year 1953-54, the sum of $35,510,000. If we need additional money over the $30 million requested in the estimates, we will get it as we have in other years. I would be open to criticism if I asked for the full amount when I know that the full amount will not be spent in the current fiscal year.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In other words you do not now expect to spend the whole $35 million during the course of the year?


Paul Joseph James Martin: From our commitments with the provinces it seems that $30 million would be the extent of this year's expenditure.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I gather, then, that this order in council which is coming in a few days will vary the terms of item 267 as described in the details at page 343 so as to include in that $30 million, in addition to the grants that are there, the other three grants that the minister announced last week.


Murdo William Martin: No. I have already explained the matter.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I have sat here and
listened to a great deal of talk on these items tonight, and I think a few of us should begin to look at the matter from a practical standpoint. I have listened to people talking about conditions which existed 25 or 30 years ago. Today we are not living in those times. We are not living in days when we take home all we earn, and where we can save a good portion of our salaries. We are now contributing a large part of our income to the national good. The time is long since past when the small community contributed to the welfare of its citizens who, by force of circumstances, through illness or for other reasons, were deprived of their rights.
Today we are living in a time when the cost of living makes possible only a poor existence. For people to stand in this house and talk about looking after themselves in their old age is a lot of balderdash; and it is about time we started to think that way.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Louis-René Beaudoin: The next group of items have to do with grants to health organizations. I refer to items 268 to 279, both inclusive. I should think they would be noncontentious. To make progress, could we take them as a group?
269. Health league of Canada, $10,000.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That would be perfectly satisfactory, Mr. Chairman. I would comment on only one of those items included in the group you have suggested we might consider together. As the minister knows many hon. members are interested in the very valuable work of the health league of Canada. The league feels that its work is such that it is now entitled to a grant larger than the $10,000 it has received for a number of years.
Representations have been made to us, and I am sure they have been made to the minister. May I ask whether consideration has been given by him to those representations in which they ask for an increase to $25,000 a year; and if so, what is the result of that consideration?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am aware of the great work of this organization, and I have explained to them that I would hope they could supplement some of their required financing by getting more assistance from the provinces than they have. We are carrying on discussions with the health league along those lines.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Welfare branch-
2S0.	Welfare branch administration, $32,785.
Supply-Health and Welfare
Stanley Howard Knowles: I am sorry the hour is so late and that we are so near the end of the session that it is not possible to deal with some matters as fully and as adequately as they should be dealt with. Therefore at this stage of the game I shall abbreviate my remarks with respect to this whole question of social security, which it is proper to discuss under the welfare branch of the Department of National Health and Welfare.
There are several items here, including family allowances, old age security, old age assistance, blindness allowances and the like. I wish to say as briefly and as forcibly as I can that we still have a long way to go in this country in the field of old age security. I do not wish to detract one iota from the credit due to this 21st parliament for having been the parliament which got rid of the means test in connection with the old age pension, at least for those 70 years of age and over. The minister and others will recall that in 1950, when the special committee on old age security reported its recommendation that that step be taken, together with certain other steps, I indicated that my feeling at that stage was that nothing should be done to jeopardize getting that new plan into operation. But I indicated also that as soon as that plan was in operation I for one would bring to the attention of the government the need for further steps that should be taken.
The fact that we must face is that it is four years since there has been any increase in the amount of the old age pension. It is still only $40 a month. I wish to draw to the attention of the government the urgent need for increasing the amount of the old age pension, both in the 70 years and over bracket where it is known as old age security and is free from the means test and between 65 and 69 years where it is known as old age assistance and up to the present is subject to the means test.
I know that if we get into an argument on this matter we will have the same sort of questions and comments that were raised in respect to that other aspect of social security, a health insurance program, about which we were talking earlier. Bearing in mind your suggestion, Mr. Chairman, that I have given the answers to these questions already, I will content myself with saying that we have dealt with this question of the cost of an adequate old age security time and time again. I will just deal with one aspect of it. At the present time we are devoting about 1 [DOT] 4 per cent of our gross national income to our senior citizens 70 years of age and over who constitute about 5 per cent of our population. I submit that
5032	HOUSE OF
Supply-Health and Welfare that is not good enough. In my view we should be increasing the old age pension to a figure of not less than $60 per month to make it commensurate with today's cost of living.
Hon. members may moan and groan if they wish, but I am satisfied that we can afford it. Indeed I am satisfied that we cannot afford not to go further in establishing a social security program that is adequate and that measures up to what our people deserve and what our economy can afford. As hon. members know from long experience, I could speak at length on this matter but I shall not do so at this time. I insist that this parliament, in spite of all the credit that is coming to it for what it has done in getting rid of the means test, has not finished the job. I regret very much that it appears that this government is prepared to go to the country this summer without increasing the old age pension to at least $60 per month. Indeed, I feel that the means test should be removed at 65 years, and I hope that even yet these steps will be taken before dissolution. When we get down to the question of blindness allowances I shall have something more to say.
These are not requests for something for nothing; these are not requests along the lines that were expressed a moment ago by an hon. member to my right; they are simply requests for social justice, for recognition of the fact that we live in the kind of world where we work together, where we produce things together and that it is only fair that the people who produce the nation's wealth should get back that wealth in an adequate standard of living during their working years and in proper old age security when the time for retirement comes.
I shall leave it at that for now. I strongly urge an increase in the old age pension in both brackets to not less than $60 a month.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Mr. Chairman, I listened with a great deal of interest to the remarks of the hon. member, and I believe he made a good sales talk. But the thing that always worries me when I hear talks like that, even though I agree with them and even though I would like to advocate these things, is where the money is to come from. I am not going to go further than that, because after all this is an election year and far be it from me to say that we cannot find it.
I really wanted to speak about something a little different, the payments made to orphanages. I understand that under present regulations those in charge of orphanages are not entitled to receive family allowances for the orphans under their charge. There is


some kind of weird regulation about which I am not quite clear-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would my hon. friend care to discuss that on the family allowances item?


Gordon Francis Higgins: I thought it was the same item.


Paul Joseph James Martin: There is the old age security item, the family allowances item and so on.


Gordon Francis Higgins: We can take it up tomorrow. I repeat that I agree entirely with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, but I just wonder when we talk about the payment of money where it is going to come from.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Out of the wealth that Canada produces.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Fine. I would like to advocate a pension for every hon. member of this house if I could. But I do wonder where the money is going to come from. I just ask hon. members when they deal with these great payments that we believe in and to which we think the people of Canada are entitled:	Where is the money going to
come from?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
282. Administration of the old age assistance and blind persons allowances acts, $108,893.
Stanley Howard Knowles: What consideration has the minister given to the representations which the government has received from organizations of blind persons asking for an increase in the amount of the blindness allowance? They have asked also for the removal of the means test from the blindness allowance.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend knows, of course, that we have provided through old age security for a considerable portion of the blind population of the country in terms of the elimination of the means test. The result would be that only about 5,000 blind pensioners would be involved. The matter is one that does not come entirely within the full competence of this government; it is a matter for the provincial governments as well. Representations are being made to them, and when we get their views we will be in position to give further consideration to the matter.


Stanley Howard Knowles: When the minister says that only a certain number are involved, is he limiting that to those 70 years and over?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Seventy years and over and those who get blindness allowances.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is, from 21 years up the number of people who would be affected is only about 4,000.


Murdo William Martin: In any event the point is that it is necessary to have consultation with the provinces.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I just say this to the minister-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Ten o'clock.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I just say this-


An hon. Member:: Ten o'clock.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Let me finish the sentence. If there are only 4,000 surely we can do that for them.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. As it is ten o'clock-*


Murdo William Martin: I do not think it is quite ten o'clock, and I was going to suggest that perhaps we could pass this item.


Howard Charles Green: The hon. member for Hamilton West wanted to say something on item 281 and I think she should be allowed to do so.


Ernest George Hansell: On a question of privilege, I wonder if I might ask you to instruct Hansard to place the speeches made by the hon. member for Selkirk and the hon. member for Kootenay West under item 267 instead of item 266. They were allowed to make their speeches under item 266 when they really referred to item 267.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I would point out that the speeches made by the hon. members he refers to had to do with health grants and the item we were studying at the time was the administration of health grants; therefore the items are in their proper place. The item before us now is No. 282. If the hon. member for Hamilton West wishes to speak on family allowances-


Murdo William Martin: No, she wanted to speak on old age security.


Louis-René Beaudoin: There might be another occasion on which we might agree now that she could ask her questions. Item 282 has to do with old age assistance and blind persons' allowances. Then we have two items on national physical fitness, an item for a grant to the Canadian welfare council and another covering the Canadian conference on social work. One item covers civil defence, and we have one supplementary estimate.
If hon. members wish to carry on for a few more minutes-


Howard Charles Green: No, Mr. Chairman.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we shall go into supply and I shall first call
Supply
my own supplementaries and then proceed with the estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare, veterans affairs, transport, mines and technical surveys, post office and finance.


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

[Stage Direction]
80.	To provide capital assistance for the construction, acquisition, extension or improvement of capital equipment or works by private contractors engaged in defence contracts, or by crown plants operated on a management-fee basis, or by crown companies under direction of the Minister of Defence Production, subject to approval of treasury board, $60,000,000.
81.	To provide for payment of grants to municipalities in lieu of taxes on crown-owned defence plants operated by private contractors, $400,000.
B-Crown companies-
82.	To provide for expenses incurred by Defence Construction (1951) Limited in procuring the construction of defence projects on behalf of the Department of National Defence, $4,242,000.
Canadian Arsenals Limited-[DOT]
83.	Administration and operation, $1.
84.	Construction, improvements and new equipment, $2,000,000.
National research council and atomic energy control board-
National research council-
288.	Salaries and other expenses, $13,536,529.
289. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $2,906,235.
Atomic energy control board-
290.	Administration expenses of the atomic energy control board, $59,240.
291.	Grants for researches and investigations with respect to atomic energy, $300,000.
292.	Current operation and maintenance, $8,437,438.
293. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment and to authorize Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to undertake construction of works at Deep River for Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, $3,670,210.
Atomic Energy of Canada Limited-
544. To provide for advances to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited in such amounts and on such terms and conditions (including the delivery to Her Majesty, in satisfaction of the advances, of obligations or shares of the company) as the governor in council may approve, to finance the construction of a new reactor and auxiliary buildings at Chalk River, works to provide services in connection therewith, and housing and other works to be constructed at Deep River; and to authorize Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to undertake construction of the said housing and other works at Deep River for Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, $7,111,980.
[Stage Direction]
Supply
545. To provide for working capital advances to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, subject to such terms and conditions as the governor in council may approve, $300,000.
National research council-
684.	Salaries and other expenses-further amount required, $70,000.
Atomic energy control board-
Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (research program) -
685.	Construction or acquisition of buildings,
works, land and new equipment, and to authorize Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to undertake construction of works at Deep River for Atomic Energy of Canada	Limited-further
amount required, $75,000.

[Stage Direction]
A-Department-
249.	Departmental administration, $1,001,677. National health branch-
Health services-
250.	Administration, $139,748.
251.	Administration of the quarantine and leprosy acts, $338,736.
252.	Immigration medical services, $1,176,009.
253.	Sick mariners treatment services, $622,723.
254.	Grants to institutions assisting sailors, in the amounts detailed in the estimates, $2,400.
Laboratory of hygiene-
255.	Operation and maintenance, $436,764.
256.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $709,000.
257.	Public health engineering, $172,001.
258.	Occupational health (formerly industrial health), $221,514.
259.	Civil service health, $264,351.
260.	Epidemiology, $88,580.
261.	Administration of the Food and Drugs and the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Acts, $1,016,884.
262.	Administration of the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act, $157,773.
Indians and Eskimos health services-
263.	Operation and maintenance, $13,567,830.
264.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $1,130,700.
265.	Special technical services, $432,281.
266.	Health insurance studies and administration of the general health grants, $86,694.
General health grants-
267.	To authorize and provide for general health grants to the provinces, the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory upon the terms and in the amounts detailed in the estimates and under terms and conditions approved by the governor in council including authority, notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act, to make commitments for the current year not to exceed a total amount of $48,503,826, $30,000,000.
Grants to health organizations-
268.	Canadian mental health association, $10,000.
269.	Health League of Canada, $10,000.
270.	Canadian public health association, $5,000.
271.	Canadian national institute for the blind, $45,000.
272.	L'Association canadienne frangaise des aveugles, $6,000.
273.	L'lnstitut Nazareth de Montreal, $4,050.
274.	Montreal Association for the Blind, $4,050.
275.	Canadian Tuberculosis Association, $20,250.
276.	Victorian Order of Nurses, $13,100.
277.	St. John Ambulance Association, $10,000.
278.	Canadian Red Cross, $10,000.
279.	Canadian Paraplegic Association, $15,000. Welfare branch-
280.	Welfare branch administration, $32,785. Family allowances and old age security-
281.	Administration, $2,494,548.
National health branch -
Health services-
678.	Sick mariners treatment services-further amount required, $100,000.
Laboratory of hygiene-
679. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment-further amount required, $300,000.
Indians and Eskimos health services-
680.	Operation and maintenance-further amount required, $800,000.
681. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment-further amount required, $86,000.
682.	Special technical services-further amount required, $30,000.
[Stage Direction]
Saturday, May 9, 1953