1954-06-01

[Stage Direction]
Eighth report of standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.-Mr. McCulloch (Pictou).


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, through you I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is it a fact that the government has appointed a board of arbitrators to mediate in the dispute in connection with railway wages which is attracting so much concern in this house and outside?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Minister of Labour might answer that question. No appointment has been made by order in council, and I do not know if there has been any departmental action.


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: No, Mr. Speaker; no action has been taken by the department.


George Alexander Drew: From the answers given it would appear that action is not contemplated. Can the minister inform us what the situation is? -because naturally we are all very much concerned with the solution which may be found for this problem.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I shall take that question as notice, Mr. Speaker.



PASSAMAQUODDY PROJECT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. W. Stuarl (Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has there been any recent development in connection with the proposed survey of the Passamaquoddy tidal project?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I will look into the question, but my recollection is that there have been no recent developments. The matter of United States participation in the survey is still before congress and has not yet been acted on.



ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY INQUIRY AS TO BRITISH TENDERS

Mr. H. A. Bryson (Humboldi-Melfori):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of a report by the president of the British board of trade, will the government give consideration to British tenders in connection with the St. Lawrence seaway project as a way of providing Britain with the dollars it needs to buy Canadian goods?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, the St. Lawrence seaway authority has not yet been set up, but the hon. gentleman knows that it is the policy of this government to encourage to the greatest possible extent the importation of goods from Britain so as to provide them with the dollars which I know they are anxious to acquire for the purpose of increasing their purchases of Canadian products.



TABLING OF CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION REPORT

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to lay on the table of the house a report of the civil service commission respecting the organization of the staff of the House of Commons.



TELEVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinlon):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of National Revenue what consideration the government is giving to expressions of opinion at the national meeting of young Liberals last Saturday concerning the licensing of television stations in areas where otherwise there is a monopoly at the present time?
Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National
Revenue): Mr. Speaker, I think the best answer I can give the hon. gentleman is that

Inquiries of the Ministry the estimates of the Department of National Revenue and the C.B.C. will likely be up this week and he will have the opportunity of asking all the questions and expressing all the comments he thinks necessary.



UNITED STATES SELLING POLICY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I directed a question to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) in regard to the fact that the United States was shipping barley and oats for foreign export at 10 or 15 cents per bushel less than the domestic price, and I asked what the government was doing with reference to this and whether a protest had been made to the United States. At this time I would like to ask the minister whether there is any hope of a favourable outcome to the meeting now taking place in Washington so that there will be a discontinuance of this type of practice by the United States.


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that the United States is selling oats and barley at 15 cents below the domestic price. It is my information that the United States has very little surplus of either oats or barley. I think it is hardly in order for Canada to protest to the United States about the price at which the United States sells its products, and while the subject matter has been discussed, nothing in the form of a protest has been entered by Canada.


Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question. Are Canada and the United States co-operating in a sales policy so that one nation does not undercut the other? I think that is the important thing.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Canada has a sales policy and the United States has a policy made in that country. I hardly think that the idea of forming a combine against the world would be popular in either country. I am sure it would not be popular outside of those two countries.
[Later: 1


Hon. W. Earl Rowe (Dufferin-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce a question supplementary to that which has just been asked. It is whether consideration of the price of


wheat and other grain was not on the agenda at the recent conference at Washington.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I am not entirely clear as to what conference my hon. friend refers to. People from the United States come to Canada from time to time to discuss a variety of problems, and Canadians go to the United States for the same purpose. I know of no formal meeting on wheat. I have not been informed of it.


William Earl Rowe: Mr. Speaker, it is true that there seem to have been a great many conferences. Maybe that is not the right term for me to use. According to press reports there was supposed to have been a meeting in Washington recently and naturally the grain growers of Canada were quite interested because of the persistent reports that consideration would be given to that issue. It was that meeting to which I referred.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


An hon. Member:: Not a speech.


William Earl Rowe: However, if we are not supposed to know anything about it, all right.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Minister of National Revenue has indicated that we shall later this week be discussing the estimates of his department, may I ask him whether any representations have been made to him with regard to the television broadcasting of certain prominent communists at a meeting in Vancouver early this month?
Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National
Revenue): Mr. Speaker, the answer is no. Representations are made to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation which is a selfoperating corporation.


George Alexander Drew: In view of the detachment indicated by the minister, may I ask him if he will inquire from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation if the C.B.C. television station CBUT at Vancouver televised a May day parade in which were Harvey Murphy, A. A. MacLeod, Bill Stewart, Homer Stevens and other prominent communists who were holding a meeting at that time?


Mr. McCann:: Mr. Speaker, I shall make that inquiry.



BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Donald Methuen Fleming: In the
light of the speech made by the Prime Minister last Saturday night concerning amendment of the British North America Act, may I ask him whether it is the intention of the government to reconvene the dominion-provincial conference with a view to arriving at an agreed method of amending the British North America Act in Canada?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No; not at this time, Mr. Speaker.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE ACT


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 464, to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
On clause 1-Appointment of deputy commissioners, etc.
Mr. Fulton:: This is the clause which provides for the appointment of one or more deputy commissioners. I do not think there should be any objection to the regularizing by statute of what has been done recently by order in council, as the minister himself pointed out in his remarks on the resolution stage on May 25. However, there is something which appears in clause 1 of the bill which, to my mind, is not quite consistent with what the minister indicated on May 25 would be done in this respect. I refer to his remarks as reported at page 5072 of Hansard where he said as follows:
This position-
Referring to the position of deputy commissioner.
-was established on the first of April, 1932 and since that time, as is obvious to all of us, the responsibilities and the strength of the force have increased greatly. The senior assistant commissioner, under the authority of an order in council dated March 26, 1953, now receives the same rate of pay as that authorized for the deputy commissioner and is performing duties of equal responsibility. We consider that it is desirable to regularize this situation by providing in the establishment for two deputy commissioners and by cancelling the establishment and salary provision of the senior assistant commissioner. There are, therefore, as is obvious, no financial implications involved.
1,	1954
Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act
Under clause 1 of this bill they are establishing the position of one or more deputy commissioners but we are still left with one or more assistant commissioners. It seems to me that it would be obvious that one of those assistant commissioners, if more than one, would be senior assistant commissioner. It is not quite the same as what the minister indicated in his remarks or at least according to the impression that I drew from the minister's remarks on May 25. I should like to ask him if he would elaborate a little bit on what it is proposed to do and what will be the effect of this bill.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, the meaning which I think is clearly indicated in the remarks I made on May 25 is that with the growth in the strength and responsibilities of the force it became necessary for there being two men who would carry out the responsibilities of deputy commissioner. At present we have a deputy commissioner and also another officer who carries out responsibilities equal to those of the deputy commissioner and who is designated as a senior assistant commissioner. As I indicated in my remarks on May 25, we desire to regularize that situation by providing for two deputy commissioners. Then we shall also have one or more assistant commissioners, but no one of them will be designated as a senior assistant commissioner.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Now I understand the situation. Therefore it will be necessary, will it, to repeal that order in council?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes.


Edmund Davie Fulton: And I take it that will be done as soon as this bill is proclaimed?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: We have to pass this bill first.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes; but that would be the intention, would it?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes.


Edmund Davie Fulton: As a matter of interest, while we have been discussing this matter I have been looking up the estimates and I cannot find the provision for these two commissioners, let alone the deputy commissioner or the assistant commissioner, in the details for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Where do we find provision for those positions?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I suggest that when we get to the justice estimates, when we have the estimates before us, the hon. member can raise that point and it will be cleared up.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I should like to know now so that I can understand what will be the effect of this provision being made whereby we are
5304	HOUSE OF
Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act going to provide an additional establishment for a deputy commissioner and cancel the order in council authorizing the appointment and the payment of a senior assistant commissioner. I can find no provision for such appointment or payment in the book of estimates. If the minister does not have the information readily available, I will not hold up the bill now.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My difficulty is that I do not have the estimates with me at the moment. However, I think that I covered the point that my hon. friend has now raised in language just as clear as it can possibly be when I said, as found at page 5072 of Hansard:
We consider that it is desirable to regularize this situation by providing in the establishment for two deputy commissioners and by cancelling the establishment and salary provision of the senior assistant commissioner.
That is a categorical statement, and a statement of what we intend to do.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am asking how you are going to do it.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I think my hon. friend would find, if he examined the estimates at greater length than he has done, that there is provision there for the two officers to whom he refers. I do not have the estimates with me, but this is a point which can be very easily raised by the hon. member for Kamloops when the justice department estimates are before the committee.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
On clause 3-Pension upon retirement for inefficiency.
Mr. Knowles:: Would the minister explain clause 3?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, I will be glad to do so, and I think I should do so because I wish to correct an inaccuracy in my previous explanation at the resolution stage. As I correctly pointed out then the purpose of the bill is to put all members of the force who, having served with the force for ten years or upwards, have been discharged for misconduct or inefficiency, in the same position of entitlement to a reduced pension whether they are retired under parts II and III of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act on the one hand or are retired under part V of the act on the other.
In explaining this purpose I inadvertently transposed the numbers of these parts and as a result said that the part V pension scheme did not provide for such a pension in the event of a member being discharged for inefficiency or misconduct and that the pension schemes under parts II and III did provide


for such a pension to members so discharged. The facts are the reverse, namely that part V now makes provision for this type of reduced pension for those who have served for ten years and are retired for misconduct or inefficiency whereas parts II and III do not provide for such reduced pension where the member has been discharged for these reasons.
The purpose of the bill therefore is to amend parts II and III to provide such reduced pension and thus equalize in this respect the position of Royal Canadian Mounted Police pensioners under parts II and III with the position of pensioners under part V. This purpose is accomplished by clause 3 of the bill.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Speaker:: Shall this bill, by leave, be read the third time now?


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



OPIUM AND NARCOTIC DRUG ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, May 24, consideration of the motion of Mr. Martin for the second reading of Bill No. 422, to amend the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act.
Mr. Blair:: Is the minister not going to explain the bill?


Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: This bill mainly seeks to do three things. It seeks to redefine the
present offence of trafficking and also endeavours to create a new offence of trafficking based on the illegal possession of drugs. It also provides for extending the powers of the governor in council to make certain regulations for the more effective enforcement of the measure.


William Gourlay Blair: Mr. Speaker, I think every person in the house is in agreement that this bill is necessary, because the regulations cannot be made too strong with respect to people who traffic in drugs. To destroy a person physically and mentally by the use of drugs is a crime that should carry a very heavy penalty. So far as the bill is concerned, the rights of those who are entitled to use narcotic drugs, veterinarians, doctors and druggists, seem to be protected.

The question then remains to put in legal terms what can be done to stop the horrible traffic in drugs.
I do not believe that the traffic in drugs in Canada has reached the height that it has in some countries, but we are a young and growing nation and as our population increases there is no doubt that we will be faced with greater difficulty in this regard. In central Canada the situation possibly is not as bad as in areas such as Vancouver and Victoria with seaports facing the Orient. The difficulty would seem to be greater there, and at those places there is the greatest possible chance of such drugs being illegally brought into the country. I am in complete agreement that the penalties should be made very severe. Possibly it can be argued that making penalties severe may bring about more evasion, but in my opinion the penalties cannot be too severe.
We make regulations in the Criminal Code with regard to manslaughter, murder and crimes of that type. Here we are dealing with something that causes the total destruction of people mentally and physically. Worst of all, we are led to believe that the people who illegally traffic in drugs try to induce young people to become addicts. Having that in mind, we should go over very carefully the clauses of the bill having to do with penalties. I am absolutely in favour of making the penalties as severe as possible in order that this traffic may be curbed. Possibly one of the worst of all the drugs in which these people traffic is heroin, and it is very easy for a person to become addicted to heroin. Therefore every possible channel should be explored of curbing this trade. I am in full agreement with the bill.


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roseiown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I should also like to say a word in support of the bill. I was very glad to hear the remarks that have just been made by a medical man who is in close contact with the problem in a professional way. It seems to me he is quite right in stating that the penalties for trafficking in drugs cannot be too severe. Traffickers must be penalized to the greatest possible extent, but I think that something more must be done than merely to punish them. In years past we have had the league of nations trying to deal with this problem internationally. We have the United Nations commission on narcotic drugs, and various agreements and protocols have been signed for the purpose of limiting the production and export of narcotic drugs. I believe that a protocol on the production of opium was agreed upon last June by the 83276-336
1,	1954	5305
Opium and Narcotic Drug Act United Nations Organization and that it is to come into effect when some twenty-five nations have signed. I was going to ask the minister if Canada is one of the signatories to this protocol? She was not at the time the report of the Department of External Affairs was published.


Paul Joseph James Martin: She will be.


Major James William Coldwell: But she is not yet?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No.


Major James William Coldwell: However, I am very glad to know we are signing that protocol. In 1946 I had the opportunity of representing Canada on the committee of the economic and social council which dealt with narcotics. I have a very vivid recollection of the discussion that occurred there, and the terrible effects of this drug on those who become addicted to it. I believe that is fairly well known. I agree with the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Blair) when he says one of the real dangers is that young people may become addicted to this very destructive habit, and that this is encouraged by people who are criminals and who should be treated as criminals.
What I really wanted to say was that I do not think this is enough. While we should imprison and penalize the trafficker to the fullest extent possible, what we need is some institution, not a prison, in which those who have become addicted can be treated. I do not think placing an addict in jail is the proper manner in which to treat him. What we need is a proper institution in which those people who have become addicted can be placed and can be looked after until they are weaned of the habit, whether that takes six months, a year or five years. This is a problem with which every country in the world is faced. We are no exception to it. I believe we have a very fine organization endeavouring to locate these traffickers in drugs.
It is so easy to bring these drugs into the country. I mean to conceal them, I do not mean it is easy in the sense in which that term might apply, but the quantities are so small there are various ways of bringing them into the country. I feel we should congratulate the narcotics enforcement branch on the excellent work that is done in this regard. What I feel is needed is not only a bill of this description, with the right of the governor general in council to make regulations that will help stamp out this traffic; we should try to do something further in the way of rehabilitation of the people who have become victimized. I do not think this bill perhaps does all that is required to be done, but I think the house should give

Opium and Narcotic Drug Act its warm support and approval to the increase in the penalty for trafficking in drugs, and so we support the bill.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: I should like to indicate our support for the measure that is now before us. While I am doing so, I should like to underline what was said by the leader of the C.C.F. party as to the need for some institution where addicts in this country can receive the kind of treatment they require. I do not look upon those unfortunate individuals who have become addicts as criminals at all. They are driven by extreme necessity when they form the habit; that is, people will do anything to get the required doses of the drug in order to satisfy their craving. They are driven by that necessity to procure the necessary drugs. They are driven to go amongst young people who may be completely innocent of the designs upon them.
There must be some place where these people can get what they require for the time being, no matter how long it may be, until such time as they are either weaned of the habit or become so confirmed in the habitual use of the drugs that they have to be confined. Something will have to be done along that line, otherwise we cannot hope to protect our young people. I am told that in some of the high schools in our country certain young people have been circulating amongst the students urging them to try the drugs for the first time. For each new one that they secure, the criminal who is behind the whole business will give the student the satisfaction of a cut dose of the drug itself; that sort of thing is going on in some of the schools in this country.


Paul Joseph James Martin: This is too important a subject to exaggerate. The teen-age problem has been greatly exaggerated, and I am sure my hon. friend would not want to give the impression that it is greater than it is.


Solon Earl Low: No, not for one second. As a matter of fact, it is bad enough if it only happens to two or three. It is so easy to make these students complete slaves to the use of the drugs that if there are only one or two that is bad enough. It is just as bad as murder, and in some respects it is worse. It is for that reason I am pleased to see a stiffening of the penalties attached to those who would extend the drug traffic.
I merely wanted to say that there is the necessity for some place, I do not know what you would call it, an institution of some kind where habitual users could get whatever supplies they required without having to go out and procure or earn the supplies. Whether or not that could be done, or

whether it is practical, I do not know. Certainly everything that could be done by the government to put a stop to the extension of the traffic ought to be done, and we will support them because it is a good thing. We like the bill as it now stands, since it imposes heavier penalties and we want to give the maximum backing to the enforcement officers in every way possible to control this drug traffic.


Mr. J. L. MacDougall (Vancouver-Burrard):: This is a problem that has been given very intensive study in my own city by a very competent committee under the chairmanship of Dr. Wallace Wilson. As you know, Dr. Wilson is the western medical supervisor for the Department of Veterans Affairs, and an outstanding man in his field. Gathered with him on that committee he had prosecuting attorneys, attorneys who specialized in defence, and men of outstanding calibre from the university who specialized in drugs, as well as a number of experienced business and professional men. This committee made a thorough study of this problem of drugs and drug addiction.
Unfortunately the last report issued by the committee is now some two years old. However, the poignant points of that committee report still stand. I should like to draw to the attention of the minister-no doubt he is aware of it-and to the attention of the house that, without exception, this crime of trafficking in drugs is the most heinous of which we could possibly conceive in our modern civilization.
I could not agree more than I do with the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Blair), the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) and the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) when they say that this is a problem of great magnitude and one that, in essence, requires considerable watching at all times, and additional increases in penalties for offenders.
There are some sections of the report to which I have referred that I do not think we could adopt in this country at the present time; but there are points in it that should be read. For instance, we all know that where you find perversions of various kinds, somewhere along the line drugs enter into the picture. Additionally, invariably the first offenders, who might be termed exhibitionists, and who have no criminal desires to murder or to destroy, eventually, with the continued use of drugs, with all their nefarious effects, not only become exhibitionists but also become more intense in their addiction to drugs. Consequently, as a result thereof, they are a greater menace and danger to the society we represent in Canada.

There have appeared in the press some objections to statements made respecting the degree of criminality existing in Vancouver. Unfortunately I must admit that the city of Vancouver leads the parade in the number of known drug addicts in Canada. It is followed by the city of Montreal, with Toronto in third place and Winnipeg in fourth.
It is easy to imagine why we have that condition in Vancouver. We are a seaport city, a great port to the Orient. With no desire to muddy the waters of good relations between the Occident and the Orient, I believe it is only fair to assume that in the past considerable quantities of drugs have come into Canada from outside sources. At the moment those sources shall remain unnamed.
However, of the 14,000 known drug addicts, the number given about a year and a half ago, we had in Vancouver about 4,000.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Did the hon. member use the figure of 14,000?


John Lorne MacDougall: Yes, 14,000.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Oh no.


John Lorne MacDougall: What would the minister say?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Slightly more than 3,000 drug addicts in the whole of the country.


John Lorne MacDougall: Then I stand corrected, and would use the figure of 4,000 instead of
14.000.	And of that approximate number of
4.000,	in Vancouver we have more than our share. Under the circumstances, that is quite understandable.
If we are going to deal adequately with this situation, it seems we should have increased penalties applying to the trafficker. In the past and in the present the trafficker has been and is the one who acts behind the scenes, who pulls the levers, and in the vernacular might be called the big operator. He is the man who invariably is not found on the street, and is not an addict. But his whole mission in connection with drugs is to get stooges to operate in their younger years. These stooges will become known addicts, and this adds to his income because he has an opportunity through these young people to add to the sale of his drugs.
The Wilson report did state in many instances in this drug business in Vancouver the big operator was not convicted, though they had a great amount of suspicion, and that in all probability the operator would have been convicted had they been able to arrest him. They felt-and they had evidence to prove it-that the trafficker carried around under his tongue phials of heroin plastically 83276-336J
1. 1954
Opium and Narcotic Drug Act sealed. In the event of meeting police officers he would immediately swallow the phials. Consequently, upon arrest there was no evidence upon which to convict him. The evidence was then in his stomach. But, if he were taken to a hospital, through the use of an emetic the evidence would definitely prove that the man was a trafficker.
The question that arises in such circumstances is one to which the law officers of the crown would have to give due consideration. Perhaps the step required to be taken, under our liberal democracy, would be considered drastic. However, the fact remains that we must not overlook the terrific damage being done to the younger population in Canada, in those places I have mentioned in particular, because of the more or less free run of the big operators in conducting their campaign.
I could not agree more with the statement that the maximum punishment is, in fact, minimal, so far as this offence is concerned. It should be the constant vigilance of parliament and the enforcement officers under the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act to see to it that on all occasions, if humanly possible, the guilty person is brought before the courts of the land. There is nothing in our whole national set-up more deserving of a maximum penalty than the operations of the trafficker who sells for profit and who, at the same time, is endeavouring through his villainous traffic to procure the younger generation of this country as potential addicts.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with much interest to all that has been said by the previous speakers. I certainly agree with them that this bill brings to the attention of the house a very serious problem in Canada and one which is most serious in the coastal areas. I am certain that all hon. members will be in agreement in their support of the intent behind the bill, especially as it deals with the increasing of penalties imposed against those who traffic illegally in drugs in this country.
The bill is comprehensive in that it covers the sections of the statute that deal with trafficking, licensing and possession. Therefore the amendments before us open up the possibility of a comprehensive study of the narcotics situation, and the kind of law we should have not only to deal with the traffic in drugs, but also with those who are in possession of them. I want to add my words to those of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) that perhaps under the amending sections there should be more accent on the curative instead of the punitive.

Opium and Narcotic Drug Act
As was pointed out by the previous speaker, there is undoubtedly a very serious situation on the Pacific coast. The hon. member said there were 14,000 known addicts in Canada, and he was corrected by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) who, I believe, said there were approximately
3,000.	However, Mr. Speaker, I was going to use the figure of 5,000, on the basis that that was the report which Canada made to the United Nations committee which is studying this matter.
This matter of narcotics very forcibly came to my attention about 15 years ago in the city of Vancouver when a friend of mine became a drug addict. As he progressed it cost more and more for his needs and he resorted to robbery, and he landed in jail. He landed back in jail upon more than one occasion because he was not cured. He got married, and unfortunately his wife also became an addict. Today, his wife is in a mental institution, as she has been for several years past, and she will never come out. I know from my own personal knowledge of the man that he resorted to robbery only because of his illness and he did not have the money to supply his needs. It can be easily recognized-when it is understood that when you have an addict who actually requires, because of his illness, several capsules a day and he has none, and on the illegal market in Vancouver it costs around $5.50 and $6 a capsule-why he resorts to robbery. That was this man's history for a while. He is no longer in jail. I think I can safely say that he has been a good, respectable and responsible member of society in Canada for a number of years. He still requires a minimum dosage of a narcotic, and he gets it. But because he does get it, as I said, he is a good member of society.
That experience, which started some 15 years ago, interested me in this subject, and over a number of years now I have interviewed a great many drug addicts in and out of jail, I have interviewed authorities, policemen and doctors on this matter. As a result, a special study was made in Vancouver by the member of the legislature for Burnaby, my father, and upon two occasions he got in contact with every doctor in the province of British Columbia on this matter. The reply in the main stated that we would never remove this curse of drug addiction and the problems it gives rise to unless it was handled in a different way. A great many doctors express the view that the law of Canada should be changed to allow them to treat addicts as sick persons, and under medical supervision to supply their medical requirements at cost.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Just so that we clearly understand this matter, there is nothing in the law now that prevents any doctor from treating a patient in the use of drugs along the lines that my hon. friend is suggesting.


Harold Edward Winch: And of carrying him at all times with his requirements.


Mr. Marlin:: If a responsible doctor says that a patient needs an unstated amount of drugs, there is nothing in the law to prevent that being done. All that the department does is to make sure the doctor acts responsibly, honourably and honestly.


Harold Edward Winch: That is correct, Mr. Speaker, but it is not generally known to the people of Canada; nor has there ever been, to my knowledge, an educational program to try to get the addict to go to a doctor and to take the care that a doctor can give, and to receive the minimum narcotic requirements. This study has been made, I know, in a great many countries of the world. It is rather remarkable to note the incidence of drug addiction in a great many other countries of the world compared with our own Dominion of Canada. I have noted especially from the reports that are issued annually by the economic and social council, as a commission on narcotic drugs under the authority of United Nations, that in the countries where there have been educational campaigns and where drug addicts do go to doctors and they get their prescriptions filled at cost, the countries know of their drug addiction and they know who the people are. They keep track of them and because-and this is important-of the registration of drug addicts and their care and treatment at cost price, it has taken the profit out of the illegal trade. When you take the profit out of the illegal trade you strike a body blow at the illicit traffic, because the peddlers are not interested in selling the dope unless they can make a profit, and they are certainly not interested in getting new addicts if they cannot get a profit out of them. I am certain from my study that where there is a concentrated program, as there is in a great many countries of the world, you not only reduce the number of addicts but you almost wipe out the illegal trade itself.
The illegal trade is of very serious proportions in Canada. The most recent figure that I saw was a statement by an R.C.M.P. officer in Vancouver who estimated that somewhere between $5 million and $7 million worth of illegal narcotics are entering Canada through the port of Vancouver. In my estimation, that should make all of us here with responsibility for policy and law give perhaps more consideration than we have in the past to

this problem. When I say that we should give more consideration, I am basing that opinion on the 1952 report of the economic and social council. In that section dealing with Canada -and I presume the report is sent in by Canada-we find on page 14:
It was estimated that there were approximately 5,000 addicts of whom roughly 70 per cent are males. Furthermore, it was reasonable to assume that addiction may be slightly on the increase, in view of the large supplies of heroin entering the country illicitly as evidenced by seizures of this drug and the steady prices maintained in the illicit traffic.
This is important. It goes on:
No definite program of treatment has been formulated.
I think we are negligent, Mr. Speaker- I say "we"-in our responsibility when in the 1952 report we find the statement by Canada that no definite program of treatment has been formulated, while at the same time we admit there are 5,000 addicts in Canada, and that the number is slightly on the increase. The hon. member who spoke just before me mentioned a committee which met in Vancouver over a period of years. I want to make reference to another committee in Vancouver composed of doctors which met under the auspices of the community chest. Under the chairmanship of Dr. Foulks they have been making a study over a period of three years of methods of curing drug addicts, and the other day when it was announced that the Senate had under consideration the appointment of a committee to study the narcotic problem Dr. Foulks, on behalf of this committee, made a statement, and I would like to quote a short paragraph from the press report of his statement. He said:
We have never agreed entirely with the law's approach to drug addiction. Medical men agree that changes are needed in the Drug Act to allow for treatment on a medical basis instead of on a punitive basis.
Now, that is the view of that special committee in Vancouver and, sir, it is in line, I think I can say, with the authoritative views of those who have made a study of this problem on the North American continent.
I would now like to quote, but not extensively, from a man in the United States who is recognized as an outstanding authority. He is Alfred R. Lindesmith, associate professor of sociology, Indiana University. In his book "Opiate Addiction", which I am told is considered almost as a bible on this subject, he has this to say:
The most important basic change which is needed in this country is legislation or the interpretation
Opium and Narcotic Drug Act
of existing legislation so that the prescription of drugs to an addict by a physician is defined as being within the field of medicine.
This would mean that a physician could legally prescribe drugs to an addict and it would give addicts a legitimate low-cost source of supply. This is the way in which English drug laws are interpreted.
At first glance it might seem that such a plan would make opiates more available than they are now and lead to a spread of the habit. However, consideration reveals that the opposite would be the case. In England, where, as has been indicated, doctors do prescribe for addicts, there is much less addiction than in the United States and there is scarcely any smuggling problem.
At present the new addict in this country usually obtains his drugs from illicit sources. Under the proposed plan he would have to obtain his supplies from a doctor registered under the act. Certainly one would expect medical men to exert more of a restraining influence on the spread of addiction than the underworld peddler does. The reduction or the elimination of illegal dealings in opiates would unquestionably remove the greatest source to new addicts now in existence.
The first step in any plan to alleviate this dreadful affliction should be the establishment of control and dispensation at cost of habit forming drugs. With the profit motive gone no effort would be made to encourage its use by private dispensers of narcotics and the drug peddler would of necessity disappear. New addicts would be speedily discovered and through early treatment some of these unfortunate victims might be saved from becoming hopelessly incurable.

a	l ijiuauuuon ana ilKe liquor
is not a police problem. It never has been and never can be solved by policemen. It is first and last a medical problem, and if there is a solution it will be discovered not by policemen, but by scientific and competently trained medical experts whose sole objective will be the reduction and possible eradication of this devastating appetite.
That is the end of the quotation, Mr. Speaker, and the only other quotations I wish to make are I think a substantiation of my statement that when this terrible problem is treated in a serious educational and regis-terial way there is conclusive evidence that these methods have a beneficial effect. Just briefly, therefore, I would like to quote from the economic and social council report of the United Nations for 1952, and I will deal with a few countries briefly. The report states:
IRELAND: There was no evidence of addiction. One case was discovered in which the accused obtained morphine under false pretenses; the case was dealt with by the courts.
ITALY: During the year, 68 cases of drug addiction (40 women and 28 men) were reported to the office of the high commissioner for hygiene and public health by the provincial health officers. They generally concerned persons using narcotic drugs in order to obtain relief from serious and incurable diseases.
Drug addicts reported by physicians are compulsorily cared for in hospitals or private clinics or, if they are treated at home, they are kept under the supervision of the local health authority until they are cured.

Opium and Narcotic Drug Act
NORWAY: The number ol registered drug addicts was estimated to be 200 to 300. Practically all of these were receiving drugs on prescriptions. Only in rare cases have drugs been obtained on counterfeit prescriptions. The registered drug addicts were all adults, evenly distributed in respect of age groups, sex and professions.
RUMANIA: Stringent measures have been taken by the government to prevent drug addiction. According to the annual report, the problem of drug addiction can be said to have been practically eliminated in the country.
A few years ago, Mr. Speaker, we wrote to Great Britain from British Columbia and asked them if they would tell us about their drug addiction problems. We were amazed to receive a reply to the effect, "We do not have any drug problem." That was the answer to the letter, so I was very interested-


Paul Joseph James Martin: I can assure my hon. friend without giving my source that this is true of no country in the world.


Harold Edward Winch: Well, that was the British government's reply and that is why I am interested in this report which I take as authoritative.


Paul Joseph James Martin: These are individual reports from certain countries.


Harold Edward Winch: But I am giving the names of the countries and the exact wording of the report. For example, here is what it states on Great Britain:
GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND: The number of addicts receiving drugs from medical sources during the year was 297. There is no evidence to suggest that addicts to manufactured drugs regularly obtain their supplies from illicit sources, although as in previous years several addicts were known to have supplemented legitimate supplies by unlawful means. These are included in the foregoing estimates.
I have already mentioned Canada so I will not repeat it, but there are one or two more.
ISRAEL: Eighteen addicts, whose ages ranged from 26 to 28 years, were apprehended during the year. Of these, five were physicians, two nurses, one a student in medicine and 10 persons with miscellaneous occupations.
I think, sir, that is sufficient to at least bring up the point I have in mind to the effect that there is a difference in the way in which this problem is being approached in other countries compared with Canada. Perhaps we can learn from them and I am certain that the matter is so serious that we have to try and find a new approach. I am speaking personally from my own studies and knowledge of the subject and from the very great help given to me in this by one on whom I rely for his study on this matter, and that is my father, an M.L.A. of British Columbia, who has made a very great study of it. However, I think I am safe in saying, at least as far as British Columbia is concerned, that the majority of physicians, of authorities and


of the people have reached a point where they are prepared to accept a change in outlook and to say: let us be as hard as we can on the peddler but let us tackle the addict himself or herself as a medical problem; let us find ways and means of trying to get them registered, to get them treated and, where no cure is possible, to enable them to receive their requirements in a minimum dosage at a minimum price. I am convinced that if we could get that idea over-I know there are obstacles but I am sure they can be worked out-we would not have, as was shown in the last report on prisoners, 60 drug stores broken into in a twelve-month period. In the majority of cases, when they go after a drug store, they are after narcotics. If we tackle this matter seriously and do something like what I have mentioned I feel strongly that without a doubt it would go a long way toward taking the profit out of the illicit traffic and in that way would go a long way toward wiping out the illegal entry of dope into Canada.
I realize what the problem is, Mr. Speaker. If my memory serves me correctly, in the United States there were either two or three states which endeavoured to give a try-out to establishing centres where an addict could get his requirements. The experiment failed. I know that at least one state has closed up the experiment. However, there is a good reason for that result, namely that addicts from all the surrounding states poured in, thus creating a terrific problem. That is something that should have been expected, Mir. Speaker, because there are no customs or immigration lines between the various states of the United States; and naturally a person who required the narcotic and who did not have the money with which to buy it on the illegal market went into the state where, by registering as an addict, he could get his requirements.
I would be the last one to suggest that anything in the way of a new approach be made in only one province in Canada because that attempt would be just as much doomed to failure as it was in the United States. Action will have to be taken on a national basis, with the procedure the same all across the Dominion of Canada. I know it might be said that we shall have addicts coming up from the United States. That might perhaps be so to some extent, Mr. Speaker, but not to a major extent, in my opinion. Although we have no immigration or customs barriers between our provinces, we do have an international boundary between our country and the United States. Hence it would be far more difficult for any invasion into Canada of drug addicts from the United States. Be

that as it may, the problem is a most serious one. I think we must tackle it with renewed vigour and understanding, and recognize that it should be treated as a medical problem and not one involving punitive measures. Therefore, although I most certainly support ;he endeavours of the government to strengthen the existing act and to make it tougher on the peddlers, I sincerely hope that the minister can see his way clear in the near future really to tackle this problem on a scientific and intelligent basis.
(Translation):


Mr. Raoul Poulin (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to add a few words to the remarks of the members who spoke before me to indicate that I wholeheartedly support the bill before us, because I think it would help to solve the problem of the illegal traffic in drugs.
I also take advantage of this opportunity to say that it is not enough to prosecute the drug traffickers and treat the addicts, even if the proposed means are excellent. I think that an intensive educational campaign should be undertaken all across this country, and especially among our youth.
There is something that amazes everybody in this country, and it is the ease with which those drug traffickers come into contact with young people in some parts of this country. According to the press, one finds that quite often, in a number of places, in Vancouver, for instance, young girls and boys attending school are contacted by drug traffickers who eventually succeed in convincing them to try that marvellous drug that can bring them the greatest possible degree of happiness on earth. I cannot understand how such a situation can come about and how it is that young people are willing to take the risk of convincing themselves that the use of such drugs can be an excellent thing? It is true that morbid curiosity, which is practically natural in young people, may explain such a state of affairs. It is for that reason that we should undertake an educational campaign to inform our youth of the ill effects of drug addiction, that would make them understand the woes that will befall them if they become incurable drug addicts. I believe that a preventive campaign would greatly help the enforcement of this excellent legislation now proposed by the government to solve that problem.
In my opinion, in this field as well as in that of alcoholism and other addictions, prevention is much more important than cure and more particularly the suppression of the vice.
1,	1954
Opium and Narcotic Drug Act
Those are the remarks I wanted to make, Mr. Speaker. I put much stress on the importance of prevention and I believe that the minister, who is very well disposed I know, could perhaps add, to the numerous and laudable steps he has taken in this field, a preventive campaign designed to bring home to our youth the danger of taking steps from which there could be no retreat once they accept the proposals of infamous people wishing to benefit from the sale of narcotics.
(Text):
Mr. 0. C. Trainor (Winnipeg South): Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words about this problem. In the first place, I do not think there is any easy solution for it. If it is to be solved, it will require a comprehensive and co-ordinated attack from many angles. Not the least is the aspect raised by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. MacDougall), the question of the countries of origin of illicit drugs. He refrained from naming those countries. I do not think he should have refrained. They are well known. It is not difficult to spot the source of illicit drugs, and there is a rather shrewd suspicion that in the main the great proportion of them originates in communist countries. There is also a suspicion that there may be a certain amount of deliberation in this illicit supply. I should like the minister to comment on this particular point.
With respect to the question of treatment, the suggestion has been made that doctors be allowed to prescribe freely for drug addicts. I do not think that is any solution because-[DOT]


Paul Joseph James Martin: Let us clearly understand that there is nothing in the law that prevents a doctor from treating any patient in the matter of drugs as he does any other patient.


Mr. Trainor:: I understand that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We insist that he be honourable, responsible and honest in the matter. Those are the only limitations.


Owen C. Trainor: I understand that thoroughly. I should merely like to point out the reason why a good many doctors do not take advantage of that privilege. It is chiefly because they realize that the drug addict who honestly and sincerely wants to be cured is rare indeed, and actually all they would be providing would be a convenient source of supply.
Another point on which I think most authorities agree is that addicts cannot be adequately treated unless they are under constant control and supervision. That means confinement to an institution. There is no
5312	HOUSE OF
Opium, and Narcotic Drug Act point in trying to treat addicts on an ambulant basis where they are not under adequate control at all times. The United States has instituted adequate control probably more than any other country, and they have found that their percentage of cures is rather small considering the enormous expenditure required.
Therefore I say that there is no simple solution to this problem. It requires a co-ordinated effort on all fronts. In the first place I think there should be more control of manufacture on the international level. We know of course that in various oriental countries and also in some European countries there are large factories devoted to the illicit manufacture of drugs for export. We also know that this is done with the full knowledge and consent of the governments of these countries. Unless something can be done on the international level it is futile for us to try to tackle the problem in Canada. The supply is coming into the country and the profits are huge. Therefore there is no really good chance of controlling the problem in that way unless we can eliminate illicit manufacture.
In the second place, I think it is quite true that the police are not the proper agency to handle addiction. I think there should be at least one institution or possibly a wing or portion of an institution in every province devoted to the curing of addicts, and if we do these things I think there is a reasonable chance that we can at least lessen, if not eliminate, the problem of addiction.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker,-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. If the minister speaks now he will conclude the debate.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, there is one phase of the problem to which I wish to refer. The question of rehabilitation has been dealt with particularly by the medical men in the house, and I want to deal with the penalty sections and to secure from the minister an explanation with regard thereto. I think it is generally agreed, and it needs no repetition, that trafficking in narcotics is one of the most terrible offences that can be committed. Indeed, it has been described as murder by instalments. In many ways it is a more serious offence than homicide although not regarded as such in our law.
I agree with putting teeth into the law. I think that what has been done represents a very considerable step forward in assisting the authorities to enforce the law and to secure a conviction where a crime has been committed. The record for the years 1951 to 1953 inclusive indicates that there have been 1,062 convictions of which 990 were


convictions for illegal possession and 72 were for trafficking. Having regard to the tremendous returns available to the trafficker, I suggest to the minister that the penalties provided are not in keeping with the enormity of the offence.


Murdo William Martin: My friend means that they are not severe enough?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.


Murdo William Martin: If the hon. member is only going to deal with penalties, does he not think that he could do so when we come to the sections? I am interested in what he is saying.


John George Diefenbaker: I appreciate that. I was going to ask the minister to make a general statement on the subject. I believe that the penalties are inadequate. They are no deterrent to a wrongdoer who can make a fortune out of the operation of trafficking. The records show that a narcotic worth $10 or $12 often brings $5,000 to $8,000 when ultimately sold to the individual users. I do not know whether we have any Lucky Lucianos in Canada-


Murdo William Martin: We have got one of them.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister says that we have. My opinion is that the penalty, even though now being increased, is not in keeping with the seriousness of the offence. I think the provisions made for enforcement go a long way toward plugging many of the loopholes available today to those who engage in this despicable traffic. I believe that while we are at it we should make the mandatory penalty a good deal more than a minimum of six months.


Mr. Ray Thomas (Welaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, I will not delay the minister long but I do want to add my congratulations to those already offered with respect to the introduction of this legislation. In my opinion the dope or narcotic problem in Canada is becoming more and more serious all the time. Until a short time ago I think the main centres of trouble were in the coastal cities but I believe that the dope problem can be found now in almost every large city of Canada. The worst aspect of the whole thing is that it is affecting the youth of our country more than the older people.


Murdo William Martin: But that is not true.


Ray Thomas: It is coming to that. The minister says that is not true, but it is coming to that point.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If my hon. friend knew the difficulties of enforcement he would understand why I am so concerned about such a

statement being made. I assure my hon. friend that is not the fact, and when we come to certain sections of the bill I will be able to indicate that. It would not be fair to lead the world to believe that the youth of Canada are now more victimized by this depravity than the older population of our country, because that is not the situation.


Ray Thomas: Possibly if the minister had let me complete my statement, I would have clarified it. I did not intend to say that at the present time there are more youths than older people taking this drug, but the fact remains that the problem, so far as the youth is concerned, is getting worse. It is getting worse for the very reason that the dope peddlers are getting children started in order to obtain further outlets. In many cases these youths are started when they are quite young, they become addicted and have to have the drug. The peddler simply says, "All right, you go out and find more people to take it and sell it and we will furnish you with whatever you need." In that way, the problem is becoming more and more serious so far as the youth of this country is concerned.
As a matter of fact, I do not know how true it is but not long ago I was told that if you want to get any narcotic in Edmonton you go to one of the better-known high schools. I could give the minister the name of it in private, but I do not want to make it public. It is said to be the centre of the dope trade in the city of Edmonton.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I can assure my hon. friend that is not the case. We know where the centre is.


Ray Thomas: I am glad the minister
assures me of that. As I said a moment ago, I am not sure of the reliability of the source of my information, but that was told to me and I pass it on to the minister in case he wants to take another look at it.
I shall go along with the member who spoke last when he said that he believes the penalty should be more severe. So far as I am concerned I think it should be more severe. I feel that the maximum of fourteen years should be made a minimum of fourteen years. In any event, if anyone is caught peddling dope to a minor in this country, I think he should be sentenced to life imprisonment, because he is killing that youth as surely as if he took a knife to him, and in a whole lot dirtier way. Such a young person will be condemned to a sort of living death for many years. As previous speakers have done, I should like to urge the minister to consider consultation with the provinces in the setting up of clinics across the country. I know the hon. member for Winnipeg South
1,	1954	5313
Opium and Narcotic Drug Act said he did not agree that was a solution. It is not a solution because you cannot reform an addict if he does not want to be reformed.
The last speaker said that these drugs are being cut down until they reach the point where ten cents' worth is sold for about $10, or about 100 to 1 profit. If the people who used the drugs felt that whenever they had to have them they could go and get a minimum shot at some supervised clinic, then they would not have to go to these illegal peddlers and pay such enormous prices. It is not the use of the drug itself that causes the crime, it is the need for it; that is what drives the addict to commit robbery and so on. Many of these addicts could be a credit to society. They could lead useful lives if they could be kept on a minimum dosage. Such a scheme has been tried, as was pointed out earlier, in many European countries. These European clinics also offer medical and psychiatric treatment, and in some cases perform cures. However, if they cannot cure the addict they can at least help him to lead a normal life.
I do not think I can usefully add anything more. I do not want the minister to think I am condemning the youth of Canada for using drugs. I do not want to overemphasize the situation so far as the youth of Canada is concerned, but I would remind the minister that the most fertile ground the dope peddler can find is amongst the youth of this country. I would urge that the death penalty or life imprisonment be imposed upon anyone caught peddling drugs to minors.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the minister speaks now, he will close the debate.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I thank the hon.
member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) for his words of tribute to the law officers who are responsible for the enforcement of this very important measure.
First of all, I should like to take this opportunity of announcing that Canada will, as of January 1 next year, prohibit the legal importation of heroin into this country. This decision is in accordance with the terms of the resolution unanimously adopted by the world health organization in May, 1953, which provided that the manufacture and use of heroin for any purpose be abolished. Canada, of course, supported this resolution which was unanimously approved at the meeting of the narcotics commission of the United Nations a month ago. The implementation of this resolution will not work any

Opium and Narcotic Drug Act hardship or inconvenience on medical practitioners, since other less dangerous drugs with equally effective properties are available in substitution for heroin.
The prohibition of the importation of heroin will not, of course, affect the legitimate use of such stocks of heroin as are at present in this country. It will mean, however, that no further importations of this drug will be permitted, and as heroin is not manufactured in Canada there will be no further supplies available once the stock as of January 1 is exhausted by legitimate agents. While no immediate effect on the incidence of addiction can be expected from the prohibition on the importation of heroin, an eventual reduction in world supplies of this drug will undoubtedly substantially help in reaching a solution of this portion of the problem.


Major James William Coldwell: What is the chief source, the legitimate source, of this drug?


Paul Joseph James Martin: There are several legitimate sources. I do not think it is desirable that I should name the areas at this time. As the hon. member for Winnipeg South said, in at least one instance the drug is supplied with the knowledge of the government of that nation.
It is impossible to say exactly how many persons in Canada are addicted to the use of narcotic drugs. The number is not likely much more than 3,000. The geographical distribution is confined mainly to the larger cities, with the majority being located in Vancouver and the substantial remainder in the cities of Toronto, Montreal, Hamilton, Windsor, Winnipeg, Edmonton and Calgary. In the discussion that we have had thus far, I think the house has indicated that there is a keen interest and a strong desire to cope as effectively as possible with this unfortunate human problem. I cannot agree that there is any country much worse than another. I think that the enforcement agencies on the continent of North America are more effective, however-and are recognized as such-than in any other countries of the world. As the United Nations itself has indicated, the statistics of some countries do not really represent the situation in those countries, whose reporting quite obviously is inadequate. To suggest, as is said officially, that there are only 300 addicts in one country when I happen to know, on the admission of the minister responsible, that there are many thousands, is not to give any indication of what the real situation is.
And so this is a human problem, and the solution is by no means an easy one. It is one for which mankind has been striving


for a long time. I might say to the house that there has been no other problem in my department that has given me more concern, and about which I have spent as much personal time, as this one. It is a very difficult problem and, so far as I am concerned, it is my desire to make as great a contribution to its solution as I can.
Valuable as it has been, the discussion this morning has revealed that there is a great deal of confusion and misunderstanding with respect to the kind of people who are addicted, their motivations, and what we can do to help them. Nothing was said this morning about the decision taken by the government a year ago, which I announced in the house, in our efforts to try to do something not only on the punitive but on the curative side. It will be recognized that under our constitution the punitive aspect is clearly the responsibility of the federal government. Constitutionally, the curative is the responsibility of the provincial governments who, alone, have the primary responsibility for health policy.
Recognizing however that the problem is national, I announced a plan of action a year ago in the house in an effort to try, in cooperation with the provinces, to cope with this matter. As a result we now have operating in British Columbia a committee headed by one of the most distinguished mental health authorities in the country, Dr. George Stevenson, formerly head of the London mental hospital, who is engaged in a most vigorous study of this problem in British Columbia at the present time.
The decision to set up such a committee was arrived at as the result of agreement with the government of British Columbia. The full cost of the committee's operations is being borne by the federal government. The aim is to see whether, from a careful study of the individuals in that province and elsewhere who use drugs, and from a consideration of other situations connected with this problem, we can learn what has not been learned in other jurisdictions in other parts of the world. And just as quickly as that group has made its findings, and they have been submitted, I have told all the provincial governments in Canada that we will be prepared, under the national health program, to consider proposals-which, basically and constitutionally, mind you, are provincial- in an effort to deal with this problem on the curative side.
What the results will be, I do not know, but I do know that the committee will be interested in doing what I, myself, did a year and a half ago when, in company with officers of my department, I visited two

institutions in the United States where an effort is being made to deal with this problem on a curative basis. I told the house about this a year ago. However, this morning's discussion revealed that apparently on that occasion I did not stress sufficiently what I had said.
The effort made in those two institutions was to get drug addicts under their control- control of the doctor, control of the psychiatrist, control of the social psychiatric worker, and the like-to see what could be done. I think I should say that the results have not been very satisfying in those two institutions-the only institutions of their kind in the world.
However, the achievements or the results of this kind of control and treatment are being considered carefully for study here at home. We are also studying the experience of clinics established in a certain number of states in the United States. I am thinking particularly of clinics in Los Angeles where a drug addict could go and, under the supervision of a doctor, receive treatment in given quantity. I can say that those who have given this matter study are wholly convinced that that certainly is no solution. To give unlimited quantities of drugs to addicts is not to help them, and certainly it is not going to result in any successful mitigation of or reduction in the incidence of crime or the amount of addiction. Those clinics were closed because the bitter experience was that they increased the drug addiction habit.
And so, while it may look easy to suggest that one way to control this problem is to give an addict all he needs, until he is satisfied, in the absence of a place where he can be controlled and continuously supervised that solution is one Which does not commend itself to us at this time.
In the two institutions to which I referred there is an abridged form of the unlimited-use procedure. But there the results, likewise, have not been, as I indicated a moment ago, as successful as we had hoped they might be. And so we are faced with this very human problem, this very difficult human problem, that has taken hold of other countries as well as our own.
We are fortunate that our situation is by no means among the worst. I think it is sufficient here to reiterate what I said before, that in spite of the publicity that from time to time has been given to an occasional-I will not say "indiscretion" because the word is not strong enough-to an occasional action on the part of some minors in our country, they do not represent the youth of this land.
In Vancouver, the city where the number of addicts is greatest, in the last two and a



I, 1954

[Stage Direction]
Opium and Narcotic Drug Act half years the number of minors under the age of 21 using drugs was much less than 25. I do not want to give the exact number, for a reason that may sound odd, but which is in fact a very good reason, and has to do with a particular case that is now current. But this does not in any way reflect some of the newspaper accounts that have been given-[DOT] newspaper accounts that have gone outside this country, which I could show to hon. members and which, as they do not really reflect the true situation in this country, do not do our country much good.
Someone will suggest that the role of the police officer is one which does not suggest a cure or a remedy for this problem. I quite agree that, on the curative or medicinal side, there can be no doubt about that. But we must not let our interest in humanity run away with the practical situation that attends us, because the greater number-and I say this advisedly-the greater number of drug addicts in this country are individuals who, before they began using drugs, were certainly individuals who came within the reach of the law officers of the crown. And the amount of trafficking that goes on among so-called innocent drug addicts is, I am sure, much greater than the house would think was the case. Therefore we have to try and appreciate what we are seeking to do in the bill now before us. We have to try by effective enforcement measures, which are not at the present time what we would like, to deal with certain situations that we want to get at, which I think with these amendments we will be able to get at in the course of the next few months.
This does not represent all that we are going to try to do. I hope that once the Stevenson survey has been completed in Vancouver and other studies in the country have been made pursuant to the activities we shall be able once again, in co-operation with the provinces, to see whether there is not something more that we can do on the curative side. I assure the house of my very deep interest in seeing that this is done. I should say also, contrary to common belief, it is not an easy thing to buy drugs in the illicit market in Canada, and the source of entry is not the city of Vancouver.
Vigorous enforcement has taught drug traffickers to be wary in their transactions. They deal only with persons known to them, and whose bona fides have been established. Hon. members will have read in the press that the police investigators who have lived with and as addicts in order to be accepted by the fraternity in their efforts to expose the traffickers have had a remarkable
[Stage Direction]
Opium and Narcotic Drug Act measure of success which we hope under these new amendments will be even greater.
I thank the house for its interest in this problem. I am sure that this general debate has been helpful. Regardless of where we sit in this house, we are all engaged in trying to arrest this problem. The amendments to the act which we are dealing with at the moment are relatively simple, but they will give us power more effectively to deal with the very serious problem of trafficking. We shall deal with the larger problem, as I say, when we have, as a result of our survey, a further opportunity of discussing this with the provincial governments. I hope that survey and that kind of co-operation will give us an opportunity of taking a forward step in this very vital matter.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.
On clause 1-Definitions.
William Gourlay Blair: Mr. Chairman, I find myself in complete agreement with what the minister has said about this. There has been a tendency to regard this as a problem that has been written up in the Sunday supplements and in some of the cheaper literature in a way that appeals to the morbid in our makeup. But I also find myself in agreement with my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg South, regarding the question of treatment, and the ability of doctors, druggists and so forth to obtain drugs. Under this first clause I want to say a few words on this matter.
Several times in the debate the minister had to pause to mention the fact that quantities of the drugs could be prescribed by doctors and were available for so-called treatment. In this I wish to pay tribute to the narcotics branch. They have done a wonderful job; but where an addict is registered with the department-and the minister will correct me if I am wrong in this-it is possible to obtain a sufficient amount of the drug to carry him on. Some of these unfortunate people-and they are not all the type we are talking about- become addicts owing to some chronic disease, or something of that nature. This clause will appeal particularly to them.
There is a matter of argument about treatment. Personally, I agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg South that, in so far as treatment is concerned, it is difficult to believe these people at any time. They are moral degenerates. Again I agree that unless these people are under supervision there is no chance of treating them as


ambulatory cases, so that the argument regarding total withdrawal versus this kind of treatment is a particularly difficult one. I do feel that they should be placed in an institution. To those people who are arguing against this sort of thing and the whole withdrawal of the drug, and who would like to obtain quantities of it outside, I say it is not a successful type of treatment.
I mention these facts on this first clause in order to correct some of the impressions that have been made. I also agree with the minister that this matter is not so severe in Canada. It is not such a large question, but it is a dangerous one. It is not as great as we would be led to believe by literature of the type I have mentioned. I do not believe that the young people are concerned in this matter. I also agree that those people were probably psychiatric problems before they ever became addicts of the drug. I am glad that the penalties for trafficking are so strong.
It is quite true that those people who sell drugs are making other addicts buy and pay a tremendous price for their drugs, which leads them to some other form of criminal act in order to obtain money with which to buy the drugs. But I simply want to clear up the matter with respect to this form of ambulatory treatment. The drug addict will once in a while write an article for some periodical in which he will complain bitterly that it would be far better for him if he were given a limited supply of this drug. Remember this: none of these people can be trusted. There is only one way in which to treat these people, and that is to put them in an institution, and the question of withdrawal or the cutting down of their drugs can then be considered. To treat them as ambulatory cases is just simply out of the question.
We do get the impression that this is a tremendous problem, and that the young people are faced with it. I was glad to hear the minister decry that sort of thing. I do not think it is so severe as all that, but it does exist. It can become a problem here. Any measure taken to cut down on the trafficking in the supplies of this drug is a measure well taken.
So far as heroin is concerned, there are uses for it, but we can get along very nicely without it. It is one of the most dangerous of drugs, a derivative of opium. Practically all of them come from the one source.
I am glad that every person has spoken in favour of this bill; every person is of the one mind, namely, that this is a dangerous thing; but let us get away from this Sunday supplement lurid thinking, as I suggested, and tackle this question on a common-sense basis,

recognizing that in some areas it does create a problem, particularly where there are traffickers who control some of these people who are led to make money out of it. Let us look at it on that basis. I do not like any suggestion that the youth of Canada has been concerned in this matter at all. I do not believe that. Our country is small; but, as our population grows, the traffic again becomes a problem.
I said I recognized there were uses for heroin, but there are other drugs that can be used in its place. We can get along very well without it. It is the most dangerous of all the drugs that we might consider under this act. The best thing we can do is to consider this act on the same basis and try to deal with the question as the act proposes to deal with the traffickers, those who are concerned in spreading opium derivatives throughout the country and inducing other people to use them. There is a tendency on behalf of the addicts to teach others. They do like to teach other people to become addicts. The whole question so far as this bill is concerned is this. Is the legislation adequate; does it provide suitable penalties; and is there anything further we can do to cut down this traffic in illicit drugs?


The Deputy Chairman:: It being one
o'clock-


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Chairman, shall we carry this clause?


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Is it the desire of the committee to hear the minister on this clause?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, Mr. Chairman, can we
pass this clause?


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall clause 1
carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Harold Edward Winch: But, Mr. Chairman, I would like to discuss some of the remarks made by the previous speaker.


Murdo William Martin: The hon. gentleman was really discussing the matter in a general way. Could we not pass clause 1? I think that is the general wish of the committee.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at 2.30 pan.
William Alfred Robinson: When the committee rose at one o'clock we were discussing clause 2. Shall the clause carry?
1, 1954
Opium and Narcotic Drug Act


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, at the time that we rose I expressed a desire to speak on certain statements made by the hon. member for Lanark. The minister asked if we could pass clause 1 and said that it would be all right if I could discuss what I had in mind on another clause. May I discuss now, under clause 2, the remarks that I had in mind?


Paul Joseph James Martin: What were they?


Harold Edward Winch: The remarks that were made by the hon. members for Lanark on clause 1.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member is referring to the doctors and so on?


Harold Edward Winch: Yes; and the abnormality which he mentioned.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps clause 3 is the more general one.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I would suggest that the hon. member go ahead. I should think that we should indicate now that the general discussion took place in the general debate before we went into committee. It is true that I did not intervene when the hon. member for Lanark was speaking. I refrained from doing so because he had been cooperative, as have all hon. members. However, I think we should, in so far as we can do so, try to be as specific as we can. It might be better for my hon. friend to wait until we come to the section dealing with the regulations later on.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall clause 2 carry?


William Gourlay Blair: When the house rose at one o'clock I think the minister agreed that the hon. member would have a chance to answer but was anxious to get the first clause through.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not think the committee would mind allowing the hon. member to go ahead, but we would not want to make this procedure the rule.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, on this clause, tying in with clause 1, I should like to say first of all that I appreciate greatly the statement made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare at the conclusion of the debate on second reading of the bill. But on the discussion of clause 1, which now ties in with clause 2, I should like to say that the experience of the hon. member for Lanark, in my opinion, does not tie in first of all with my own personal experience, not as a medical man, but in interviewing a number of addicts in the past fifteen years in British Columbia. It also does not tie in with the findings of doctors in the United States who have made an investigation of a number of cases.

Opium and Narcotic Drug Act
From the remarks of the hon. member for Lanark I gathered that a great majority of those who become drug addicts start from a position of being abnormal. Unfortunately there are not any studies that have been made in Canada on that phase as yet. I greatly appreciate the studies which are now being instituted by the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The only record to which I can go back is the record of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I cannot agree that, in the main, those who start on drug addiction are abnormal. If that statement is correct, according to the studies made in Great Britain it is a reflection on the professions and especially on the doctors' profession. I do not believe that the majority of the doctors' profession who unfortunately become addicts were abnormal when they started on the addiction.	*
I am going to quote from the report of the economic and social council of the commission on narcotic drugs issued by the United Nations and I am going to quote from the report on Great Britain and Northern Ireland. In the report that was made in 1951 by the United Nations, at that time there were reported to be 301 who were addicts receiving medical aid, of whom 75 were doctors, 1 was a dentist and I a pharmacist. I think the fact that that record exists is first of all because of professional pressure and, in the second place, because of the proximity of drugs.
In studying the report of the United Nations I find that in a majority of cases where there is a registration system, it is the professional services which are involved. I do not think they are abnormal when they start. I have had drawn to my attention only three studies of addicts made on the North American continent, and they were made in the United States. Unfortunately I have not the report of the three studies but I have with me a report made on two of the studies. Those studies were made by Dr. Lawrence Kolb of the United States public health service and Dr. Charles Schultz. May I say, sir, that they were investigating only whether persons, as they became drug addicts, were normal or abnormal. I am not going to take up the time of the committee by giving all the results. I shall give only their final conclusion, which was as follows: They admit that normal individuals not only become addicted but that once they are addicted they may have as much difficulty in quitting as does anyone else. Under their evidence it is shown that although the majority, in their estimation, are abnormal at the time they take to drugs, a high percentage are strictly normal at the time they start.


In view of the evidence in Great Britain that the highest percentage of those who take to drugs are from the professional services and from the doctors' services, I think we can take it as conclusive evidence that a great majority start as normal individuals but, because of circumstances, pressures and strains, use drugs as an escape.
I was most interested in one phase of the remarks made by the hon. member for Lanark. That ties in with the most interesting information given us by the Minister of National Health and Welfare with respect to the rights of the medical profession to take care of drug addicts under the present legislation. This is going to be my final statement on this phase of the matter. It may not sit very well with those members of the house who are of the medical profession, but I do want to make this statement because of my interest in the subject, my own experiences in British Columbia over many years and my conversations with a great many doctors in that province and some in other provinces.
I should like to tell the Minister of National Health and Welfare that there are a great many medical men in the dominion who do not realize that they have the right to treat an addict and, if necessary, issue prescriptions to him based on their diagnosis of the case. I know that for a fact because I have talked to a great many doctors. I should like to recommend to the minister that either his own department or the national association of doctors should see to it that the position of doctors under the law is made clear to all practising physicians in Canada. My personal experience is that a great many in the profession are not aware of their legal position.
There is one other matter to which I should like to refer. Contrary to the experience of the hon. member for Lanark, and I know he speaks from his own experience, as a layman who has discussed the problem with addicts in western Canada I have found that there are many who want to be cured. There are many who do not want to resort to criminal activities, thereby landing themselves back in jail. On more than one occasion I have tried to refer such men and women who have come to me to the medical profession and I have come up against a very serious obstacle, the reason for which I can quite understand. Under the law as it now exists doctors can take drug addicts as patients and can issue prescriptions for their requirements day by day or week by week. But I want to emphasize that because of their understanding of the law a great many medical men who are humanitarian in outlook and by nature and who would like to look after drug addicts are afraid to do so.

The reason that has been given to me bymore than one British Columbia doctor is that if they started to issue prescriptions to drug addicts, even after their own diagnosis, the first thing that would happen if they issued more than a very few would be that the R.C.M.P. would come right to their offices-I agree with their doing that-and wanting to know why they were issuing that number of prescriptions and why these people required the amount of narcotics they were buying. Perhaps because of ignorance of the situation these doctors said that they might be subjected to investigation and inquiry on account of the narcotic prescriptions they had issued from the point of view of whether they were legal or illegal and whether they were issuing bona fide prescriptions or were actually, in a legal sense, peddling narcotics.
That is a serious situation to me, and I have been told that by more than one doctor in the province of British Columbia who believes that something should be done about addicts. I can understand their worry and their indecision. That is my experience as the result of my conversations with a number of doctors. I want to draw that to the attention of the minister to emphasize what I said on second reading, namely, that I believe that a more intelligent program of spreading knowledge among the profession, the general public and addicts will prove very beneficial to all concerned.


William Gourlay Blair: Possibly I was responsible for the use of the word "abnormal", but I was simply pointing out that people who are chronic invalids and are suffering from some chronic condition are led into the position where they do require further supplies because they find it very difficult to cut out the drug entirely. Possibly the physical condition which necessitated the drug in the first instance is still in existence. That type of patient would do very well on ambulatory treatment with a supply of narcotics given to them. That was the type of person to whom I referred. Other than that, the drug addict is abnormal only in the fact that he has terrific difficulty in exerting the will power necessary to do away with this terrible addiction.
So far as treatment is concerned, an argument may arise whether it would be better to have ambulatory or institutional treatment. I hold that institutional treatment would be better if you had the institutions capable of handling these people. One must realize that, having become addicts, they are really ill, and sometimes when they are thrown into jail and subjected to sudden withdrawal of the drug they go through the tortures of the
1, 1954
Opium and Narcotic Drug Act damned. I realize that these are sick people and I feel that if institutional treatment leading towards a complete cure could be provided it would be a desirable thing. The bill has given rise to this discussion although I think it was primarily meant to deal with the traffic in illicit drugs.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 3-Offences and penalties.
Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to ask a question or two on clause 3. I note that the penalties provided in the new subsection 1 of section 4 as it will be enacted by clause 3 of the bill have attached to them the phrase, "the court has no power to impose less than the minimum penalty prescribed in this subsection." I note also that no such provision is attached to the penalties provided under subclause 2 and subclause 3. Looking at the matter as a layman, it appears to me that the offences in subclause 2 and 3 are more serious than the offences in subclause 1. If that is the case, why should there be that difference so far as the penalty is concerned?


Murdo William Martin: We are dealing in the first case with addicted people for whom we feel that a minimum sentence of six months is desired.


William Gourlay Blair: For the purpose of cure.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is clear, is it, that in the first case we are dealing with people who may be addicts?


Murdo William Martin: That is right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Whereas in the second and third cases we are dealing with people who are, in one form or another, trafficking in dope.


Murdo William Martin: That is right. Our experience in the courts has a disposition to treat the addict more leniently than is otherwise the case, and that is why we are making sure we at least have a minimum of six months. Our experience has shown that often judges have a sympathetic heart, not fully appreciating the situation, and in some cases do not impose even the proposed minimum; but they generally do in the case of trafficking.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is it the view of the minister, that the minimum sentences imposed upon those who have become addicted should not be subject to the discretion of the judge- after all addicts are sick people-but that discretion should be allowed in the case of traffickers or peddlers? It would seem to me that the provision I have quoted should be attached to the other two classes, rather than to the first class.


Murdo William Martin: Our view is just the opposite.

Opium and Narcotic Drug Act


Mr. Philpoit:: I want to say a word on clause 3 with regard to penalties for trafficking. It seems to me we have had some interesting discussion here today about the necessity for institutional treatment of people who are addicts. I feel that in any enlightened society there should be every sympathy for the victims of the drug addiction habit. If anything, this bill errs on the side of leniency for the people who are guilty of trafficking in drugs.
I do not know, Mr. Chairman, whether in any civilized society the community is justified in retaining the death penalty. But if we are justified in any respect in retaining the death penalty for murder, for treason or for assisting an enemy-not long ago we passed a bill making it an offence to assist an enemy even with whom we are not at war- in my opinion the trafficker in drugs should be liable to the extreme penalty. The same is true of the person who deliberately organizes the sale of narcotic drugs. He is not only a traitor to his country, but he is a wholesale murderer. If anything is clear it is the fact that the victims of this drug habit are destroyed in their entire personality; they are destroyed physically; they are destroyed spiritually; and they are destroyed as human beings. In my opinion, as long as we are going to retain the death penalty, we should impose the death penalty upon traffickers in drugs.


Harold Edward Winch: Could you inform me, Mr. Chairman, whether we are considering clause 2 or clause 3?


William Alfred Robinson: We are considering clause 3; clause 2 has been carried.


Harold Edward Winch: I am not quite certain as to whether this question should be asked on clause 3, which deals with possession, or clause 8, which deals with occupier. If I may, sir, I should like to ask a question on clause 3 because it deals with possession. Can the minister explain to me what is meant by possession? I have in mind a case that occurred in the city of Vancouver. A known drug addict had a room in a hotel, to which he invited certain guests. There were two women and a man who had a criminal record, but no conviction whatever in respect of drugs. The room was raided by the R.C.M.P. who found in it a small amount of drugs.
When the case came to court the two women were discharged, and the one who was the registered owner of the room and a known drug addict was found guilty. The man who was known as a criminal, but who had no convictions with regard to drugs and who said he was only a visitor, was also found guilty under the narcotics act. I am not


saying a word on behalf of the criminal except to ask why a man who was a guest in a room, and who had no convictions under the narcotics act, should be charged under that act?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not know what the facts are. If my hon. friend will speak to me about it, I shall be glad to look into it. Of course, it is a judicial act.


Harold Edward Winch: Yes, I am interested now in the section on possession. Does the wording of this mean that if you happen to be in a domicile, whether it is a hotel, motel or a home, where there are drugs, you shall be charged as-


Paul Joseph James Martin: A charge could be laid under clause 8 of the bill; that would be the clause. It is what is called in law constructive possession.


Harold Edward Winch: That is very important. Does it mean a completely innocent person can be charged?


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is a matter of evidence. My hon. friend is putting a hypothetical case to me. Possession can be proven in many ways. There could be actual possession or what is known in law as constructive possession. If it is a matter of constructive possession and the crown wishes to base its case on the circumstances related by my hon. friend, it would be a matter for assessment and determination by a judicial officer. If it was a matter of constructive and not actual possession, it would come within the provisions of clause 8 of the bill.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 4-Licensed person not to supply drugs.
Mr. Mitchell (Sudbury):: In speaking on clause 4, Mr. Chairman, I should like to touch merely on that part of the narcotic drug act that has to do with the administration of this act and particularly the part that affects pharmacists in their everyday duties of handling narcotics and narcotic compounds. In this connection I might say that we prefer the use of the word "pharmacists" rather than the word "druggists" as set out in this bill. The word "pharmacists" is naturally the proper one inasmuch as the faculty in the University of Toronto is the faculty of pharmacy and students graduate with the degree of pharmaceutical chemist, pharmaceutical bachelor and so on. At no time does the word "druggist" enter into that particular faculty. I should like to draw to the attention of the department the fact that "pharmacists" should be used in the hope this will be corrected

at some later time. I think there is a suggestion that the word "druggist" will be altered in the act and the word "pharmacist" used.
The portion of the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act about which I was going to speak is the result of the fine co-operation between this department and the various pharmacist groups, particularly in the province of Ontario. I had the privilege of serving on a number of these, and the regulations that have been brought about by these co-operative meetings have been very much appreciated by the pharmacists. There were certain regulations and alleviations for which we asked. These were very thoroughly considered; and I might say that practically all the regulations have been written into this bill. In fact, the department has gone even farther and given us concessions for which we had not asked. I feel that this shows sound administration of what we believe is good legislation.
As you are probably aware, the pharmacists are the custodians of the larger stock of these drugs in their stores where they are kept under lock and key, according to regulations, for use when a prescription authorizing their use is received. When this order, or prescription, is received we are perfectly at liberty to dispense it, ascertaining, of course, that it is properly signed and dated by the prescribing physician.
Under the new regulations, which I would like to speak about particularly, some alleviation of the act is suggested which will be a great help to the public, the physician, and the pharmacist. It must be understood, of course, that the medication prescribed would be in the nature of narcotic compounds and not the straight narcotics as we know them. In other words, a written prescription is necessary for what we call the heavy narcotics such as morphine, cocaine, demerol and heroin. The act has not been changed with respect to them, and we will continue to handle them in the same way. These narcotic compounds are made up largely of codeine and in some cases heroin composition, and are used mainly in the relief of pain and coughs.
The regulations are not altered in respect to the straight narcotics which must be written by a physician and dated before being dispensed. But in the case of codeine compounds, and the like, the amendment suggests that an oral order can be acted upon and the prescription written and signed by the pharmacist receiving the order. I would draw particular attention to the word "oral". The onus, of course, is on the pharmacist to ascertain that he is talking to the licensed
1, 1954
Opium and Narcotic Drug Act prescriber, in each case a doctor, before he can deliver this preparation to a patient. The advantage of this procedure can be easily illustrated and will hasten medication to a legitimate patient at all times. Suppose, after office hours, a physician is contacted at home or elsewhere by a patient for relief of a complaint for which medication containing a narcotic compound would be effective: the physician can call a pharmacy and in a very short time the patient receives the medication so prescribed. The medication, of course, must be compounded with two or more other ingredients in therapeutic doses, and cannot be for hypodermic administration.
How many of us, for example, have received a bottle of cough mixture from a physician and on returning the empty bottle to the pharmacy for a refill have been told that it cannot be done without a new prescription from your doctor. This would entail another visit to your family physician to receive a new piece of paper authorizing the pharmacist to renew this medication. Under the new amendments, the physician could be contacted by phone and, if he felt it should be repeated, the order could be given at that time, to the pharmacist. It is indeed an improvement in service to the patient and certainly less trying on the feelings of both the patient and the physician.
As for the increase in penalties for unlawful trafficking in narcotics, I will leave this to the exponents of the bill, as we pharmacists are not concerned in this phase of the act. We have our rules and regulations to live up to, and our end of the act is being carefully adhered to.


Mr. Prudham:: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a
question of privilege related to the remarks made by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin before the committee rose for lunch. I sent him a note about half an hour ago indicating that I was going to rise on this question of privilege. I am sorry he has not been able to return to the house.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Why not do this after the bill has been discussed-not now.


George Prudham: I thought that if I were
to rise now the hon. member might want to answer my remarks before this debate is concluded.


Murdo William Martin: My colleague and I usually
co-operate in these matters, as members of the government. I would suggest to him that the more appropriate place to raise the question of privilege would be when we come to the end of the bill, and not on this particular section. Otherwise we would have a debate covering all sorts of things which

Opium and Narcotic Drug Act have nothing to do with the section. It my colleague does not mind I would suggest that his question of privilege be raised at that time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Can you not settle it out of court?


William Alfred Robinson: I understand that clauses
4, 5 and 6 have been carried.


Murdo William Martin: Just a moment, Mr. Chairman; I wish to make one brief announcement concerning the implications of clause 4, because of its interest to the medical profession and to the pharmaceutical profession generally, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Sudbury.
There are many medicines commonly in use containing small amounts of narcotic drugs, and which do not involve any danger or any possibility of abuse of the requirement that there must be a written prescription by a doctor. What I say does not apply of course to codeine, opium, demerol and that type of drug. What I refer to now are compounds in which these are used. Such things as cough preparations and mild analgesics containing small quantities of narcotic medication provide an illustration of this kind of preparation.
And so it is proposed under this clause to make provision by means of regulation for the prescription requirements necessary in this regard. In this connection preparations of the kind mentioned would be dispensed from now on, after the passage of the regulations, authority for which is given under this bill, on the basis of oral prescriptions or orders by the physician or other prescribing authority.
This is a concession which has been sought by the medical as well as by the pharmaceutical profession as being one which would facilitate their heavy responsibilities, and at the same time would not give rise to any possibility of abuse, nor would it permit the diversion of drugs into illicit channels. The regulations will provide of course for safeguards. A druggist will be required to reduce a prescription at once into writing. He must take steps to verify that the person giving the oral prescription was a person authorized to do so. But we feel that this is a practice into which we might venture, and it is proposed under this clause of the bill to give powers to make regulations to cover this particular situation.


Owen C. Trainor: Do the regulations concerning heroin, which the minister mentioned at the beginning of the debate, come under this particular clause?


Murdo William Martin: Not particularly, no. This
clause is purely procedural.


Owen C. Trainor: What clause would cover the regulations as to heroin? I would like to say a word on that subject.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Clause 3; but we have dealt
with it.	.


Owen C. Trainor: Does clause 3 mention it?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Not specifically, but it deals
with the matter of drugs.


Owen C. Trainor: According to the minister's remarks, at the present time, so long as the existing stocks last, it will be possible to use heroin. I have the greatest sympathy with the department in their efforts to control the use of heroin, because admittedly it is a very dangerous drug; but at the same time there are doctors, and there are occasions in medical practice when the use of heroin may be thought to be very desirable, if not an absolute necessity. I refer particularly to certain obstetrical cases, and also to cases of hopeless and incurable cancer.
Many doctors are of the opinion that heroin is the best possible drug to use in those circumstances. I wonder whether it is altogether justifiable to deprive patients, suffering from the conditions I have described, of the use of a legitimate drug for the alleviation of their suffering? Would the minister care to comment on that?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Nothing more than what I have said; there are alternatives, as my hon. friend knows. We are one of the few remaining countries in the world left to take the step of preventing the importation of heroin. We have discussed this with the Canadian Medical Association and the best medical skill that we have in the country, and that is their judgment. The decision was based upon that advice and on our obligation as a member of the United Nations.


Owen C. Trainor: Did that advice come from the Canadian Medical Association?


Murdo William Martin: We discussed it with the Canadian Medical Association.


Owen C. Trainor: I am satisfied.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 5 to 11 inclusive agreed to.
George Prudham: Before the bill is reported I should like to state my question of privilege. When the hon. member for Wetaskiwin was speaking I was called out to the telephone. On my return I heard the conclusion of his remarks and hence was not able to answer him at that time. My question of privilege is

that he made a very slanderous statement which casts reflection on the high school students, the high school teachers and the board of education of the city of Edmonton.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. I am afraid, from what I have heard so far, the minister is not discussing a question of privilege. He might be in order to carry on a discussion of this kind on the title, but it is not a question of privilege.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If any damage was done, this is going to make it worse.


George Prudham: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was able to get a transcript of what the hon. member said leading up to the remarks that I take violent exception to. He said:
Until a short time ago I think the main centres of trouble were in the coastal cities but I believe that the dope problem can be found now in almost every large city of Canada. The worst aspect of the whole thing is that it is affecting the youth of our country more than the older people.


Paul Joseph James Martin: But that is not true.


Ray Thomas: It is coming to that. The minister says that is not true, but it is coming to that point.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If my hon. friend knew the difficulties of enforcement he would understand why I am so concerned about such a statement being made. I assure my hon. friend that is not the fact, and when we come to certain sections of the bill I will be able to indicate that. It would not be fair to lead the world to believe that the youth of Canada are now more victimized by this depravity than the older population of our country, because that is not the situation.


Ray Thomas: Possibly if the minister had let me complete my statement, I would have clarified it. I did not intend to say that at the present time there are more youths than older people taking this drug, but the fact remains that the problem, so far as the youth is concerned, is getting worse. It is getting worse for the very reason that the dope peddlers are getting children started in order to obtain further outlets. In many cases these youths are started when they are quite young, they become addicted and have to have the drug. The peddler simply says, "All right, you go out and find more people to take it and sell it and we will furnish you with whatever you need." In that way the problem is becoming more and more serious so far as the youth of this country is concerned.
As a matter of fact, I do not know how true it is but not long ago I was told that if you want to get any narcotic in Edmonton you go to one of the better-known high schools. I could give the minister the name of it in private, but I do not want to make it public. It is said to be the centre of the dope trade in the city of Edmonton.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I can assure my hon. friend that is not the case. We know where the centre is.
That statement or implication, Mr. Chairman, is a slanderous reflection on every high school student and every high school teacher in the city of Edmonton and on the board of education, and for that matter on the police force. I believe that the hon. member should rise in his place and apologize for having made that statement. If the hon. member is aware of that condition, he should
1, 1954
Opium and Narcotic Drug Act have brought it to the attention of the authorities. I wonder whether he brought it to the attention of the attorney general of Alberta. If he did so, I wonder what action, if any, has been taken or what action the attorney general of Alberta intends to take.
As a representative of the city of Edmonton, I believe it is my duty to speak out in defence of the children of our public and separate high schools. I know that the parents of those children would want me to do so. I do not believe that the hon. gentleman gave much thought to what he said before he made the statement, and I believe that in his own interest and in the interests of everyone concerned he should rise in his place and apologize.


Ray Thomas: I do not think the minister heard the exact words I used this morning.


George Prudham: I quoted from a transcript of the hon. member's remarks.


Ray Thomas: That is fine. I did not make a direct allegation. I merely told the minister that it had been told to me, and I was giving it to him for what it was worth.


George Prudham: The inference could be drawn from the hon. member's remarks.


Ray Thomas: I made it perfectly clear before, and I am still not making any charge. I said:
As a matter of fact, I do not know how true it is.
And then I went on to say:
Not long ago I was told-


George Prudham: Did the hon. member tell the attorney general?


Ray Thomas: I have not had a chance to talk with him since.


George Prudham: The telephone is handy.


William Alfred Robinson: Order.


Ray Thomas: If the information is incorrect, the minister suggests that I apologize. I have no hesitation in apologizing. If the facts are not true I will apologize. I have no intention of passing any reflection whatsoever upon Edmonton or upon the schools or anything else; but I did tell the minister, for his own information, what I had been told, if he cared to act on it. I indicated that I felt he should be told that, and as I indicated before, I again said I did not know how authentic the information was. It was told to me casually and I passed it on to the minister for what it was worth.


Paul Joseph James Martin: To clear this up, the hon. gentleman says that having heard the facts are not as he stated them this morning he
5324	HOUSE OF
Disabled Persons-Allowances withdraws unreservedly. That is the case.
I say that for the good name of the youth of this country and of the schools, the mounted police have investigated every rumour and every suggestion that from time to time has been made that certain schools were the centre of dope rings, and in every case investigated-and there were over 20 high schools-the mounted police found no justification whatsoever for the charges.


Ray Thomas: Mr. Chairman, I am glad to hear the minister say that, and that being the case I shall certainly apologize. If he wants the name of the school, though apparently that may not be necessary, I will gladly pass it on to him. Meantime, I am glad that the facts are not as I heard them.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, may I just say a word in answer to the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar who asked me about the ratification of the opium protocol. I should have observed that Canada ratified the 1953 opium protocol during the first week of May 1954, the necessary instrument of ratification having been deposited with the United Nations by our permanent delegate at New York at that time.
Bill reported, read the third time, by leave, and passed.



DISABLED PERSONS


Paul Joseph James Martin: the second reading of Bill No. 462, to provide for allowances for disabled persons.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the measure to be introduced to the house at this time is one which, I think, will be marked by a singular approach to unanimity. Few groups of disadvantaged persons in Canada today command the interest and sympathy of the general public to an extent comparable to the disabled, and any measure which seeks to aid constructively those who are permanently and totally disabled is bound to attract the support of all sections of Canadian opinion. I am sure that what I have said is true of all political groups represented in this chamber and you will therefore, Mr. Speaker, readily appreciate the feeling of personal satisfaction which it gives me at this time to be the minister responsible for introducing one more in a series of important social welfare measures by which this government has built up through the years a comprehensive program of social security in a responsible way for the people of Canada.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Haven't you one good word to say for parliament?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am sure that almost every hon. member present has had some personal experience within his own family circle, or within the immediate circle of his friends or acquaintances, which will point up the terrible tragedy which invalidity or disability inflicts on the stricken individual and his family. Certainly all of us who represent the people of Canada in this house have personal knowledge of families in our constituencies who have borne unflinchingly through the years the heavy burden of caring for some disabled family member. In thousands of homes across this country Canadian families continue from day to day to carry this heavy burden of responsibility. Most of them carry it without complaint. Only those who have lived in daily contact with such distressing helplessness can fully appreciate the physical, financial and mental strain it can place not only on the helpless individual himself but on all the members of the family group.
To see a young man or a young woman in the full vigour of youth stricken suddenly with some heart-rending disability is a tragedy whose burden can never be fully lifted from the shoulders of those families on whom misfortune falls. Though we, the fortunate and healthy members in society, can do so little to help relieve a tragedy of this kind, and although medical science with all its miraculous accomplishments cannot as yet unlock the secrets of these disabling conditions, we can at least by this measure agree to share some part of the financial burden of caring for the afflicted member.
If we cannot help to ease the mental strain or share the physical burden of care, we can do something to alleviate the financial distress that comes from loss of earning, and to assist in meeting the added financial costs occasioned by invalidity, to ease the pinch of poverty in the home where lack of means accentuates the burden of total and permanent disability.
The measure, Mr. Speaker, now before the house seeks to achieve some part of that objective. It will bring some financial relief to thousands of individuals, and to thousands of harassed, distraught and overburdened families, weighed down with the constant load of caring, day and night, for some helpless loved one.
More than that, through the stimulus which it will give to rehabilitation measures for those who are disabled, this program of disability allowances will bring new hope, new comfort, and new confidence to many others who can be cured but who, failing

Disabled Persons-Allowances
early rehabilitation, face only a future of increasing helplessness and bleak despair. By turning the spotlight of enlightened and progressive legislation on this hitherto neglected area of social need, we shall achieve increasingly from year to year our twofold purpose of successful rehabilitation to lives of greater usefulness for large numbers of disabled persons and, no less important, a measure of comfort and security for the most helpless of our fellow citizens, the totally and permanently disabled whose welfare is this present legislation's principal concern.
When I spoke briefly on the resolution stage I referred to the interest of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) in this matter, and I am glad to see him in the house at this time. I would say to him that I am sure all parties will recognize that this measure is due to a large extent to his initiative. I also want to pay my tribute to hon. members on all sides of this house, notably the hon. member for Terrebonne (Mr. Bertrand), the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor), the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot), who moved resolutions from year to year urging the house to give this matter the consideration which we are privileged at this time to give.
I should also mention the part that has been played by a number of provincial governments in making the early enactment of this legislation possible. Three provinces have already passed legislation to provide assistance to disabled persons. Newfoundland passed their dependents allowances act in 1949, Ontario passed their disability pensions act in 1952 and Alberta passed their disability pensions act in 1953.
In the case of Ontario and Alberta, it is perhaps fair to remind the house that when the federal government announced its intention of taking over responsibility for old age security for people of 70 and over, the premier of Ontario indicated that, as a result, that province would be able to save several millions of dollars and he hoped that his province would be able to bring in the measure which is now on the statute books of the province of Ontario.
Since the announcement of the government's intention in the speech from the throne to enact disability allowances legislation at this present session, five other provincial governments have already passed the necessary enabling legislation. Those governments are British Columbia, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan. Therefore, eight out of ten Canadian provinces are now ready to take advantage of the federal government's offer of assistance in this
field. There have been no official indications as yet from the provinces of Quebec and Prince Edward Island as to their intentions, but I am confident that all the provinces will wish to take the earliest possible advantage of this offer of federal aid and make this program applicable to their respective jurisdictions. Certainly I have no reason to think from the recent dominion-provincial conference that it is not the intention of every government in this country to take advantage of the legislation the second reading of which I have the honour and privilege of introducing at this time.
This program which we are considering today is but the latest in a series of what I think are responsible, humanitarian measures introduced by the federal government during the past fifteen years to improve the social and health conditions of the people of Canada. As I indicated yesterday when I resisted a motion dealing with a proposed increase in one phase of social security, the action which I was taking then was in part predicated upon a desire to see realized other important and, I think, desirable social measures in Canada. When I refer to the progress of the last fifteen years I have in mind the Unemployment Insurance Act of 1940; the Family Allowances Act of 1944; the veterans charter; the national health program of 1948 whose significance, I think- and I accept responsibility for this-has not yet made its impression on the people of this country or, I think, on parliament; the Old Age Security Act of 1951; and the old age assistance and blind persons enactments passed in the same year. Hence we can refer to this new measure as another step in an extremely important program of responsible action taken to provide our people with those social welfare measures which, within our capacity, we feel we can from time to time provide.
At this point I should like to outline briefly the main features of this bill, the purpose of which is to provide a nation-wide system of disability allowances. As the house will recall, this measure was forecast in the speech from the throne. The proposed legislation authorizes the payment of $40 a month to needy persons 18 years of age and over who are totally and permanently disabled. I may say that the measure now before us represents the common denominator of agreement which it was possible to reach at the recent dominion-provincial conference on this matter.
The costs of the payments to be provided under this legislation, like old age assistance payments, will be shared equally by the federal and provincial governments. This

Disabled Persons-Allowances will require enabling legislation on the part of each of the participating provinces, and the bill makes provision for agreements to be negotiated by the federal government with each of the provinces concerned. If all of the provinces join in this program it is estimated that from 25,000 to 35,000 disabled Canadians will benefit. The total annual cost will run between $12 million and $16 million, with the federal share of this amount estimated at $6 million to $8 million annually.
In its general outlines, as many members of the house who have examined the context of this bill will recognize, the wording of the new legislation closely parallels that of the Old Age Assistance Act and the Blind Persons Act, both of which received the unanimous approval of parliament in June of 1951. In nine of the thirteen sections of the bill the wording is in fact identical with that of the Old Age Assistance Act except, of course, for the references to "disabled persons" and the use of the term "allowances" instead of "assistance" to describe the payments which will be made.
The four sections of the bill containing features differing in some respects from earlier legislation of a similar kind are sections 3, 7, 11 and 13 of the bill. Most of the points connected with those sections can best be discussed, of course, when we reach the committee stage of the bill but I might perhaps draw special attention at this stage to the following matters.
The maximum amount of the allowance is set at $40 monthly to correspond with existing provisions in Ontario's and Alberta's legislation providing for disability pensions. This amount corresponds also to the provisions of the federal Old Age Security Act, Old Age Assistance Act and Blind Persons Act. The age of eligibility is set at 18 years, the same as in the disability legislation provided for in the province of Ontario. In the province of Alberta the age of eligibility is 21. To meet the concern of certain provinces, some of whom may wish to set a slightly higher age of eligibility, we have provided in section 7 of the bill that any province may, by its own law, designate a higher minimum age if it considers it necessary to do so.
With regard to the amount of $40 I may say all of the provinces thought that was the proper amount and it represents an amount beyond which they were not prepared to go. The residence requirement is set at 10 years, the same as in Ontario's and Alberta's legislation and also in the federal Blind Persons Act.
The income ceilings provided for are the same as those in the federal Old Age Assistance Act and represent the most common wish of the provinces when they were assembled in conference with us here a few months ago. These income ceilings are generally in accordance, therefore, with the preferences expressed by the provinces when we met together.
Provision is made, as is usual in legislation of this character, for the avoidance of duplication between benefits payable under this legislation and comparable benefits paid under other enactments such as the federal Blind Persons Act, Old Age Assistance Act, Old Age Security Act, War Veterans Allowance Act and provincial mothers' allowances laws. Provision is also made, following the precedent established in provincial laws already in effect, for the avoidance of duplication between benefits payable under this legislation and care or maintenance already being provided in institutions of various kinds.
The bill provides for the definition of total and permanent disability to be prescribed by regulation. The definition of this expression "permanently and totally disabled" is, of *course-as was noted the other night by the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Blair)-a highly complicated and difficult one. In framing a definition for our purposes, we will draw heavily on the experience of other countries with similar legislation, as well as that of the provinces which presently administer such programs. But even so, the definition will be subject to change and adjustment in the light of our experience as we gain it from year to year. That is why it is proposed, just as in the definition of "blindness" in the Blind Persons Act, to prescribe in the regulations, rather than in the act itself, for "permanent and total disability" to be defined.
I may add that in our department we have done considerable preparatory work on the drafting of a suitable definition, on the basis of our consultations with representatives of the Canadian Medical Association and the senior health and welfare officers of the ten provincial governments. This matter has also been discussed during the past week at the meeting of the Dominion Council of Health, where all provincial deputies were present; and the definition there formulated will go forward for consideration and, we hope, approval by the conference with the provinces which will be called, following the passage of this legislation, for the drafting of the regulations. What we have in mind in the use of this phrase is a definition that will
[Mr. Martln.l

provide that an applicant must be permanently disabled in the sense that his disability cannot be corrected within the foreseeable future, and he must also be totally disabled in the sense that because of his disability he cannot carry out the ordinary activities of daily living and self-care.
I come now to a very important phase of this whole program, and one that is not related to benefits. That is the very important matter of rehabilitation. There are many in this country, social workers and people who are interested in social matters generally, who believe that we are a little premature in bringing in at this time a nationwide system of disability allowances because they feel that not sufficient has been done in the field of rehabilitation. However, we have given this matter our best attention and we feel that this is the appropriate moment to take the step that we are now taking.
So I come now to the matter that provides the background of this whole problem of disability. I have said that the people of Canada have always felt a special bond of sympathy for their disabled and handicapped fellow citizens. Prominent among these have been the blind, the deaf, the paraplegics, the amputees, those suffering from serious heart conditions or arthritis in seriously disabling form, and, in more recent years, the victims of multiple or disseminated sclerosis, muscular atrophy or dystrophy and other countless long-term ailments. Many of these permanent disabilities arose from illnesses for which medical science has not yet found the answer. Others result from accidents which strike with startling suddenness and in an instant maim and cripple able and healthy bodies.
The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) brought a case to my attention only the day before yesterday that comes within this very classification, and the fact that we will be able to give rehabilitation services for that particular case, removed thousands of miles from the locale of the particular individual, points out the importance of what I am now seeking to say by way of background of this whole measure. In Canada, as in other countries, we have acted in many ways to meet the social and economic problems faced by a good number of these various disabled groups.
Since 1944, when the province of'Ontario passed the first Canadian workmen's compensation act, provision has been made for payments to the victims of industrial accident and disease. Now all ten provinces have
Disabled Persons-Allowances legislation of this kind. In some of these provinces extensive programs of medical and physical rehabilitation have been developed, their purpose being to restore the injured workman to the full physical capacity and work ability which he enjoyed before his accident. If this cannot be entirely accomplished, everything possible is done to restore him to maximum capacity and to enable him to resume an active, useful life.
These rehabilitation measures in the field of industrial accidents have not been developed on a mere humanitarian basis, however justifiable that may be. Rehabilitation measures have proved to be a matter of plain dollars and cents. Successful restoration of work capacity in the case of injured workmen means a direct saving in pension or compensation payments. Experience has shown that every dollar spent on rehabilitation means a saving of several dollars in compensation awards. Out of this has developed the twofold approach to the problem of disability, with emphasis laid first of all on active treatment and rehabilitation measures, while compensation payments provide for those whose disabilities are more serious or permanent in nature.
The workmen's compensation field is not the only one to apply successfully this twofold principle of rehabilitation and compensation or pension payments. Since the end of the first world war similar provision has been made on a comprehensive scale, as we in this house all know, for our disabled ex-servicemen. Tens of thousands of disabled Canadian veterans have received treatment and rehabilitation services in veterans hospitals to restore them to the fullest possible measure of employability and usefulness in civilian life.
This program has been an outstandingly successful one. Thousands of veterans, as a result of the treatment and rehabilitation services provided through the Department of Veterans Affairs, have had their disabilities brought under control and have returned fit to their normal occupations. Thousands of others have equipped themselves, through carefully managed retraining programs, for new occupations in which they have made successful readjustment of their lives and careers as self-supporting Canadians.
The importance of this in terms of improved morale, the preservation of independence and self-respect, cannot be underestimated. No one can fail to realize the economic and social gain for our country as a whole in the restoration to useful productive employment of tens of thousands of Canadian ex-servicemen.

Disabled Persons-Allowances
What we now propose to do is to apply the lessons learned in respect of industrial accidents and war service disabilities to the benefit of our fellow citizens who suffer similar physical impairments and disabilities which cannot be attributed to war services or the hazards of industrial accident. Here, too, we have another example of what can be accomplished in dealing with the problem of specialized kinds of disability through this twofold approach of rehabilitation and maintenance payments, for we have been operating this twofold program for two decades now in respect of the blind. Since 1937 we have made special provision through blindness allowances for our fellow citizens who have lost their sight. Throughout this entire period, and indeed for a decade or more before, we have had this blind pensions program supported and reinforced by one of the outstanding rehabilitation programs to be found anywhere in the world today. I refer to the program carried on under the auspices of the Canadian National Institute for the Blind. This outstanding organization has earned for itself and for Canada a well-deserved reputation throughout the civilized world and has given us inspiration, leadership and experience for the measure which is now receiving second reading.
The C.N.I.B. operates a model rehabilitation program for the 20,000 to 25,000 blind citizens of Canada, a program of great variety, flexibility and versatility. It provides skilled educational and welfare services through its visiting teachers and field workers. It arranges medical care and treatment, including operative surgery for eye conditions. It operates its own blind workshops and home industries. It provides employment for many persons and finds employment for hundreds of others. In short, it provides all the constructive, preventive and therapeutic services which have come to be recognized as the necessary foundation and prerequisite for a program of disability allowances.
Not only the blind but the disabled of all kinds in Canada owe a great deal to the pathfinding services of this institute throughout these past thirty years. The other day the government of Canada was pleased to make a substantial grant toward the building of its new headquarters in Toronto and, as the house knows, annually in the estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare a grant for operational services is made to the Canadian National Institute for the Blind.
The preparatory steps leading to the extension of this twofold program have now been taken in the course of these last few years. Six years ago last month, to strengthen and


support the work being done by provincial agencies and by the voluntary groups, the federal government introduced a program of federal health grants amounting to some $35 million a year. At that time one of these grants was specifically earmarked for the development of services for crippled children. This grant has been used to assist the provinces in developing long-range programs for the prevention and correction of crippling conditions in children; to undertake more complete surveys to discover children in need of care; and to develop treatment clinics for the treatment of the cerebral palsy, hitherto one of Canada's most neglected health problems. It has been possible to take advantage of the financial assistance afforded by these grants to extend in many directions the possibilities of successful rehabilitation for thousands of disabled persons.
Other grants included in the national health program have been used, as the house knows, for the construction of hospitals for sick children, the provision of more adequate facilities for those handicapped by tuberculosis and other major diseases, and to stimulate research into these and related health problems. A substantial portion of the federal moneys available to the provinces has been used for the purchase of special therapeutic equipment used in the treatment of disability and for the training and employment of specially qualified health workers for provincial and local services.
Three years ago, in order to give added emphasis to the development of more adequate services for the rehabilitation of the disabled, a national conference on the rehabilitation of handicapped persons was jointly convened in Toronto by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg), the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe) and myself. This conference led to the establishment of a national advisory committee on rehabilitation, to the creation of a special division within the Department of Labour to coordinate rehabilitation activities in Canada, to the appointment of a national co-ordinator of rehabilitation, and finally to the inauguration of a special program of federal grants in aid to assist the provinces in meeting the costs of a well-balanced rehabilitation program.
Eight provinces have now entered into agreements with the federal government covering those aspects of the program which are of direct concern to the Department of Labour-co-ordination, vocational training, and so on. Co-ordinators of rehabilitation have been appointed in most provinces. Special provision has been made under the Vocational Training Co-ordination Act for

training programs for the handicapped. In respect of the health aspects of rehabilitation, a new grant for medical rehabilitation was introduced last year as part of the national health program. This grant, supplementing the crippled children's grant of $500,000 which has been made available since 1948, provided an additional $500,000 in 1953-54 for medical rehabilitation projects to be undertaken by provincial health authorities. For 1954-55, the grant is increased to $1 million annually, available on a pro rata basis to all the provinces.
I should like to give one example of what this rehabilitation means. We entered into an arrangement four years ago with certain provinces. We are now prepared to enter into an arrangement with all the provinces for rehabilitation of persons in receipt of blind pensions. Out of 120 cases of individuals who had been receiving for some period of time blindness allowances or blind pensions under the old act, we were able under this program of rehabilitation, with surgical and medical assistance, to achieve a substantial restoration of vision for 86 of those individuals. That is an indication of what this kind of program is intended to do. I may say frankly that I have felt, during the last four or five years, that I have not properly brought home to the members of this house the significance of this work. There have been criticisms, I do not say in this house but in the press, about some of the expenditures we are incurring. If it were only possible to indicate the positive results, I am sure that much of this criticism about expenditures in the field of health and welfare would be arrested, or at least there would be occasion to discipline some of the references that have from time to time been made about the Department of National Health and Welfare.
It will be seen that the groundwork has been carefully laid, during these past few years, for the establishment of those all-important preventive, treatment and restorative services which constitute the indispensable cornerstone upon which any responsible system of disability allowances must be based. Until the foundations of this complex, manysided rehabilitation program had been laid, no program of pensions or allowances could safely be undertaken. On the solid basis provided by these rehabilitation measures, the legislation now before the house is designed to provide a measure of needed economic security to thousands of our fellow Canadians whose hopes of restoration to useful productive lives cannot be realized through these rehabilitation measures, however skilful and successful they may prove to be.
Disabled Persons-Allowances
So, Mr. Speaker, in moving the second reading of this measure, I would emphasize again that this present legislation is based, not on my authorship but on the example of others. I must say the real idea belongs to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). He made this offer, as I suggested the other night, within a week of the holding of the last election. I mention that to indicate that I hope no one will say this represents an attempt to justify political promises made, because there were none made. This represents a sincere attempt, in co-operation with the provinces, to supply another important development in what we hope is a responsible system of social security in this country. I have the great honour, without hesitation, of recommending this measure to this house.


William Gourlay Blair: I am sure, Mr. Speaker, the house will approve of the measure brought forward to deal with disabled people. This is something for which we have waited a long time. I can recall that at different times private members' resolutions were introduced advocating this type of legislation when every person in the house thought something should be done about the people who were permanently disabled. I recall speaking on this subject the last time a private member's resolution concerning it was before the house, and describing the lack of something to deal with the totally disabled as a gap in our system of social legislation.
I am glad that this bill has been introduced because from time to time over the past year I have been receiving letters from parents, possibly those who were getting along in years and who had some disabled children, wondering what would happen to those children if the parents were to leave this world or to grow too old to care for the children. I pay tribute at this time to the work that has been done by the service clubs throughout Canada in the matter of totally disabled or crippled children. I am well acquainted with that work because there is a camp supported by service clubs in this area at Merry-wood on the Rideau. From time to time in the summer I visit that camp. I see the work that is being done, and it is a wonderful institution.
I know 'also of the work that is being done by service clubs going into areas and bringing out people who have been disabled, especially children, in order that something may be done through medical or surgical science to overcome their disabilities. On the whole I wish to pay tribute to those people for the great work they are doing. While the minister did make some mention of this point, I would have been better pleased if the bill
5330	HOUSE OF
Disabled Persons-Allowances presented to us today had given us some indication of the meaning of the expression "totally and permanently disabled".
I have before me the definition put out by the department of public welfare in Ontario. In this publication that department states the meaning of "totally and permanently disabled". I should like to quote from this publication because I believe it is the crux of the whole problem, and I am sorry that it has been left out of the bill and is to be dealt with later by order in council. The pamphlet puts this question:
Who is a permanently and totally disabled person?
And the answer is as follows:
One whose disability cannot be corrected within the foreseeable future and who is totally disabled in the sense that he cannot perform the ordinary activities of daily living without the assistance of another person.
This is going to be a most difficult matter to deal with in legislation of the kind before us. I realize the difficulty faced by those who administer the act in Ontario, because I know that on some occasions applications have been brought to me concerning the admission of certain persons for pension purposes.
I have no doubt that applications would be dealt with by a board, and that on the board there would be medical advisers. However, I do wish to bring to the attention of the house the fact that when a disabled person gets a doctor's certificate describing his illness, a most accurate description or pen picture of that illness is of great importance. The board cannot bring all these people before them to discuss their applications, and for that reason this matter becomes even more important.
In the discussion on the private member's resolution last year I quoted the definitions used in various states in the United States in describing those who are eligible for such pensions. I was amazed to find that I was able to quote twelve definitions of what constituted a totally and permanently disabled person. We must realize also that there are people who to all intents and purposes are totally disabled but who, due to rehabilitation or to the fact that they have received some training, are still able to carry on and do a useful job in society.
From time to time this bill will affect new classes of people, and the whole picture will change as years go by. There are at the moment people who will become eligible under this measure but who could have been rehabilitated years ago. These people have now grown too old to take new training. Due


either to environment or to lack of educational facilities they have never had the opportunity to be trained in occupations in which possibly they could have carried on, had they received such training and education. So that as I say the picture is going to change as the years go by, and the younger people will receive the benefits derived from rehabilitation. For many years however we will have to deal with a class of people who, one might say, have never had the chance of rehabilitation so that they might have used the parts of their bodies which could be used, who have never received educational advantages, or who have suffered because of their environment. The Ontario bill might be accepted as a guide. I would hope that the experience they have had in these last two years the bill has been in force would prove beneficial in the administration of the measure now before us, and in the drafting of additional features.
The minister has referred to the veterans program already in effect in Canada, and has made mention of those who have received the benefits of rehabilitation and who, due to their disabilities, have become entitled to pensions. Then there are the blind, and , various others under workmen's compensation acts who have received pensions and are having the benefits of rehabilitation and corrective procedures in order to make it possible for them again to take their places in the labouring world, so that they may earn their living.
There is one other feature in connection with this bill to which I would draw attention, and that is the matter of additional benefits beyond the $40 a month. While we are very proud to have this provision for $40 a month, may I say in passing that there will be cases of those who are totally disabled and who, under the description contained in the Ontario legislation, could not perform the ordinary activities of daily life without the assistance of some other person. For these there would have to be provision for some form of living assistance. It is particularly difficult for those people who are totally disabled and who require in their daily lives the help of someone else. It may be that in the future some provision will have to be made under this legislation, as has been done in connection with veterans, whereby they will receive extra grants by way of living assistance.
I take some pride in the fact that the province of Ontario has pioneered in this field. I note in this pamphlet that this question is asked:
Are there additional benefits?

It will be noted that the pamphlet takes the form of a questionnaire in order that it may be easily understood. This question of additional benefits is particularly important so far as the provinces are concerned, and the carrying out of their part of the bargain to make disability pensions useful. In reply to the question as to whether there are additional benefits, this answer appears in the pamphlet:
A disabled person eligible for an allowance is entitled to receive medical services and certain medicines without costs in accordance with an agreement between the Ontario Department of Public Welfare and the Ontario Medical Association.
To my mind that is a very important consideration, in the matter of additional grants, and I would hope that every province would follow along this line so that these people may receive medical treatment. We know that many of these disabled persons are chronic invalids requiring care and, as is pointed out in the pamphlet, they require certain medicines and additional treatment to an even greater extent than some others who are suffering from a chronic disability. The question of amount, therefore, becomes important. However, if medical care and certain medicines are granted by the province, they will be of marked assistance to these people.
I remember very well the representations placed before members of the House of Commons over quite a number of years. I believe we heard them on four or five occasions, and I recall listening to the representations made by members of that society of disabled persons. I am sure that any member who listened to what they said, and pictured their condition, these disabled persons who came here in wheelchairs and otherwise from all parts of Canada, will approve of this bill.
This measure, one of the more recent links in the chain of social security measures, does not come any too soon; because when I interviewed those people I felt something should be done for them immediately.
So far as this bill is concerned, there is a gap between the ages of 16 when family allowances end and 18 when disabled payments begin. This may be something for study in the future to further the interests of the disabled. During this two-year period the disabled people will receive no money. I wonder whether we can further our program by training the children by way of education. At the present time the service clubs are carrying the brunt of the cost of treatment. If these little children, who are potential invalids, could have corrective measures carried out in their early years, in many cases 83276-337J
Disabled Persons-Allowances there would be no need for the introduction of a bill of this kind. Many of these disabilities could be stopped with early corrective measures.
However, I hail this bill as a forward step. I do know that in the program put forward in the province of Ontario-and I regard Ontario as pioneers in this field-emphasis has been laid on home care. The legislation of that province, as is the case with this bill, does not pay out the money when a particular person is confined to an institution. The disabled person at home qualifies for assistance under the legislation, and that relieves the burden on his friends. The granting of such allowances permits a disabled person to pay his own way and have a certain amount of independence. It will also help out those at home who have the burden of his care.
We shall discuss this bill clause by clause when we are in committee, and we may have something further to say on it. However, I did wish to bring to the attention of the minister-he mentioned it in his speech- the difficulty of defining a totally and permanently disabled person. I do wish that that definition had been placed before the house. I am sorry that it will be determined by order in council.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It will be determined by agreement with the provinces. We have to agree together.


William Gourlay Blair: I know, but later on it says that the definition for purposes of this act will be determined by the governor in council.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Quite, after agreement with the provinces on the meaning of totally and permanently disabled.


William Gourlay Blair: I admit it is on agreement with the provinces, but there may be some difficulty in getting all the provinces to agree to the one definition. That was so in the United States where they have at least twelve different definitions, as I showed last year when the private resolution was before the house. I am sorry that it could not be debated at this time. It is the crux of the whole situation. A great many difficulties would be overcome if we could really come to a definition of that term. One must remember also that while an agreement with the provinces is important, this House of Commons is made up of people from all provinces and this bill has been placed before us.


Murdo William Martin: My hon. friend is an eminent member of the medical profession, and I would not want him to think that this House of Commons cannot make suggestions. We have our ideas, but my hon. friend will
5332	HOUSE OF
Disabled Persons-Allowances understand that the mechanics of the thing did not make it possible for us to place the definition in the bill that he asks for unless we wanted to wait until next session. But I would certainly welcome any suggestions from the house. If he does not wish to give them now, I would be only too happy to co-operate and collaborate with him privately at any time.


William Gourlay Blair: The bill is before the house. As I say, that is the crux of the whole matter, and little or no attempt has been made to give a definition. I would be perfectly content if we adopted some form of the Ontario clause. The province of Ontario has defined a disabled person as one who is not apt to have any chance of recovery in the foreseeable future. Perhaps we should have something like that, and it may be that many of the provinces will have a similar definition.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is not the definition in the Ontario act. That is simply a characterization of the definition.


William Gourlay Blair: Totally and permanently disabled.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It would have to leave ways for defining.


William Gourlay Blair: We could determine what is meant by totally and permanently disabled. I know from people who have made application to me-and that is also true of the experience of the commonwealth of Australia where they estimated that 3 per cent of the population would come under the legislation and the figure was much larger than that-that difficulties will arise, because people who are disabled will find it difficult to understand why they are not eligible under this particular clause, especially when you take into consideration all the ailments that man is heir to. They also feel that they are unable to work.
In closing I wish to make one suggestion with respect to the ceiling on permissible earnings. That should be looked into very carefully, in view of the fact that totally disabled people require more attention, and sometimes special attention, than ordinary people do. The amount of permissible income that is stated in the bill will make it very difficult for some of these people to carry on. It is much more expensive for the people for whom this legislation is provided to live than many who have chronic ailments. I shall have some remarks to make when we discuss this bill clause by clause, but I felt that these matters should be drawn to the attention of the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we welcome this bill; we shall be happy to vote for it and to give


it our support. As I proceed in my remarks, and when we get into committee of the whole on the bill, I shall point out that there are certain respects in which we feel it does not go far enough. Nevertheless, any criticism that we may make as to shortcomings or inadequacies in this bill are not to be taken as detracting in any way from the welcome that we extend to it.
I must say that I was a bit surprised-or was I?-at some of the statements the minister made in the earlier part of his remarks. We all know the minister quite well. We know his political interests, but I did think that this was one occasion when he would have been wiser had he restrained himself a bit. I have no objection to the tributes that he paid to members of the house, all of them on his side, whom he chose to name. But I do think, bearing in mind that on a number of occasions he has helped to talk out resolutions calling for pensions for the disabled, resolutions introduced by some of the very members to whom he paid tribute today, it would have been better for him to restrain himself and to admit that what the government is now doing is meeting a wish that has been expressed by many members on all sides of this house.


Mr. Lennard:: For many years.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I really thought, despite my understanding of the way in which the minister likes to introduce these political notes, that when he started to give the roll of those who had worked for this measure across the years that he was only starting, and that he would go on and name some of the others. There were others in his own party whom he might have named. Surely he might have named the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. CrolU, not to mention others on that side of the house, for his interest in this matter for a long time. He might have mentioned my hon. friend who just spoke, the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Blair), and other members of the Progressive Conservative party. He might have mentioned the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) and the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Shaw) who have had something to say about this matter in the course of the years, and indeed down in the far corner among the independents the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Poulin) and others have given support to a measure of this kind in this house session after session.
Naturally I am not going to omit from this roll of those who have played a part in this whole question the members of my own group. Reference was made to the fact that some Liberals have had resolutions on the

order paper on this question, resolutions the minister helped to talk out or asked to have withdrawn. But so has my colleague the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Maclnnis) had such a resolution on the order paper in years gone by, and so has my colleague the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Zaplitny); indeed his resolution is on the order paper at this very session. I think too of the efforts along this line made by my leader, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), as well as by the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis), the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy), and others in this group. I think also of the interest in this matter held by our former colleague Scottie Bryce who used to be the member for Selkirk.
I think too, Mr. Speaker, of people and agencies outside of this house. I think in particular of the Canadian Welfare Council, and other groups who have been urging legislation of this kind for a long time. I think we must also pay tribute to the group referred to by my hon. friend, the hon. member for Lanark, namely the Canadian Association of Incurables who, at great sacrifice, great cost, and great pain, have tried across the years to make known to the people of Canada and to the government of this country their need for assistance along these lines.
Let us admit that this measure is a response to a demand from people in all parts of this house. Further I would say that in having expressed those demands we have but reflected the will and the desire of the Canadian people. I am quite satisfied that in supporting this measure the House of Commons and the parliament of Canada is carrying out the desire, the wish, and the will of the Canadian people that we give a decent break to those among our fellow citizens who are afflicted with disabilities and incurable diseases which blight their lives and make things so difficult for them.
I do think, Mr. Speaker, though I had no intention in the first instance of talking along this line, that this question as to how the idea of this legislation got started should be put in its proper perspective.


Paul Joseph James Martin: From a politically unbiased source.


William Earl Rowe: You started it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I have the answer to that, but I am going to exercise the restraint which I counselled on the minister. I will give him the answer privately later on. I have got it right here.
As I have already indicated, Mr. Speaker, this is a welcome measure, and it fills one
Disabled Persons-Allowances of the gaps in our social security program. The minister himself pointed that out and referred to the fact that this is a gap which needed to be filled. But in that connection may I remind the minister and the government, and may I remind the house, that the special joint committee on old age security which met in 1950, and to which I have had occasion to refer a number of times, because I still look on it as one of the most satisfying committees I ever served on in this house, referred to this lack of pensions for disabled or incurable persons as one of the gaps in our social security program.
But may I also remind those who are interested that on page 104 of the report of that committee, where reference was made to gaps in our social security program, two gaps were named. One of them was the lack of pensions for disabled persons, and the other was the lack of a national health insurance program. I hope the moral of that reference will not be lost on the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) or on the government. The government is proud that it has now taken steps to fill to some extent one of the remaining gaps in our social security program. Let them not delay in taking steps to fill the other gap pinpointed by the committee on old age security in 1950.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I feel that the hon. member for Lanark has done well to point out that the crux of this whole bill lies in the definition of permanent and total disability. I appreciate the minister's interjection to the effect that this is something that will have to be worked out with the provinces, but I am inclined to agree with the hon. member for Lanark that we should have a better understanding in the bill itself as to what the government has in mind. We have had enough experience around here with matters which are decided by regulation and order in council, after legislation has been passed by both houses of parliament and received royal assent, to know whereof we speak.
I have before me a copy of the very excellent brief on this matter which was presented to the federal government on January 15, 1954, by the Canadian Welfare Council. I am sure the minister is fully familiar with this brief and he will be aware that this whole question of the definition of permanent and total disability is a matter of major concern in the brief of the Canadian Welfare Council. That council points out that in the main there are three groups of disabled persons. First there is that group which is referred to as the hard core of disabled persons, persons who are completely and totally disabled and for whom there is no

Disabled Persons-Allowances hope of any cure whatsoever. For those persons there should not be any question about the allowance that should be available to them, and it should be on as generous a basis as possible.
Then there is the second group who are defined by the Canadian Welfare Council as consisting of people who suffer a disability or a handicap of some sort but who nevertheless are able to work and make their own living to a certain extent. However, they are people who do suffer because of their disability and there is a case in many instances for some assistance to them to compensate for the disability from which they suffer.
Then, says the Canadian Welfare Council, there is a third group which lies in between the other two extremes of disabled persons. This group consists of people who are not totally and permanently disabled but who are disabled to the point that they cannot earn their living, and the fear felt by the Canadian Welfare Council is that these people may lose out completely. They are not capable of obtaining and holding employment to meet their needs. If, on the other hand, they are not totally and permanently disabled how can they qualify for allowances as defined in this legislation? The Canadian Welfare Council holds the fear that unless this matter of the definition of total and permanent disability is cleared up this legislation may induce people to deteriorate rather than encourage them to do everything they can to become rehabilitated. The Canadian Welfare Council puts the case very well, I think, when it states in its brief:
Under such a three-fold plan the need to prove that one was incapable of rehabilitation would be greatly lessened. Maintenance would be provided when needed, by the method appropriate to the degree of handicap produced by the disability.
To sum up: While recognizing the need for disability allowances for totally and permanently disabled persons, we are strongly of the view that such allowances must be thought of in terms of their effect upon those who are not eligible as well as upon those who are eligible for benefit from them.
If I interpret that sentence aright, I think what the Canadian Welfare Council is afraid of is that the kind of definition we now have will make some people who are in that inbetween group feel that the only way in which they can get this allowance is by letting their physical condition deteriorate and their morale go down until they are totally and permanently disabled. When I express this concern I am expressing not only my own reaction and my own concern about this matter but I am quoting from the excellent brief prepared, as I say, by the Canadian Welfare Council. Let me go on and read


the rest of that paragraph from which I was quoting just now. It concludes as follows:
When this is done the need for a broader program becomes at once clearly apparent. Only if disability allowances are made part of a comprehensive plan which provides for the economic needs of all disabled persons can the dangers we have indicated and which are inherent in the single approach be overcome or avoided.
As we proceed with the discussion of this legislation, we on this side of the house will continue to press our contention that we should have a clearer understanding as to what the definition is that people must meet in order to qualify for this allowance. What we are asking for is that it be liberalized. Perhaps I might say, in the language of the Canadian Welfare Council, that we are asking that it be made more intelligent and more appropriate to the needs of these people.
I now move on to say something which the minister knows I will say.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I always know what the hon. gentleman will say.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I thank the minister for that compliment. I am glad to know that he has been listening to me across the years and that, as time moves on, some of the ideas that are put forward from parties on this side of the house and from outside the house do get into his head.
I suggest strongly and earnestly that the amount of this allowance should be greater than the figure of $40 a month which is proposed in this bill. I suggest that it should be not less than the same figure that I suggested yesterday in another connection, namely that the amount should be not less than $60 a month. I thought of this in particular-although it was my intention on behalf of this group to propose it-when the minister was uttering those extremely flowery and sympathetic words, in the opening part of his remarks, with regard to our concern for disabled people. I suggest that to express that sympathy and that concern with an amount of only $40 a month in this day and age is not good enough. To suggest that we cannot afford the higher amount which we propose is just an alibi. I need not go into that matter. After all, I did so yesterday with respect to my contention that old age and blind pensions should be not less than $60 a month. If we insist that we are an intelligent, modern, Christian civilization we cannot afford not to do a great deal better than to give only $40 a month to the people in our society whom we recognize as deserving pensions of this kind. I argue strongly, and I do so on behalf of this group, that the amount of this allowance should be not less than $60 a month.

I suppose that one of the arguments the minister may want to throw back in response to that suggestion-he says he knows my speech; I may say that I know his answers too-is that there has been an arrangement with the provinces. I am sure that every night when the minister goes to bed he must say "God bless the provinces"; they save him from all sorts of trouble.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I sometimes dream about the hon. gentleman and then I have a nightmare.


An hon. Member:: We have the D.T.'s when we dream of you.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I had to get that comment out.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My friend the hon. member for Lanark suggests that when he and I think of those on the opposite side at night we find ourselves counting sheep. At any rate, Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of National Health and Welfare thinks it is an answer to say that the provinces feel that $40 is an appropriate figure, may I point out to him that if they have expressed that view, it is because $20 a month or half of that figure is as much as they feel they can afford in view of their provincial resources.
Our view is that this matter should not be on a 50-50 basis, as is old age assistance, but rather that it should be on a 75-25 basis, 75 federal and 25 provincial, as is the case with the blindness allowance. Surely there is far more relationship between a disability pension and the blindness allowance than there is between a disability pension and old age assistance. If the house will accept our view that it should be on a 75-25 basis rather than on a 50-50 basis it will be seen right away that a $60 pension which I am now suggesting would not be objected to by the provinces because that would require them to pay only $15 out of the $60, leaving $45 to be paid by the federal government.
The minister may ask if I have worked out what that will cost. I may say that I have done so. I have the figures under my hand and when we get into committee, if he is interested, I can go into the matter and again I can relate it, as I did yesterday, to our gross national production and to what is an appropriate portion of our wealth to spend in this way.
I move on, Mr. Speaker, to suggest that after all the fight that we put up to get rid of the means test in respect of old age pensions at 70 years of age and over and after all the appropriate castigating we have done of the means test in relation to items like the war veterans allowance, we are disappointed to find that here the old so-and-so, the means test, turns up again. The government says:	We are
Disabled Persons-Allowances very sympathetic; we are very sorry that there are people in our midst who are disabled, who have incurable diseases they will not get over as long as they live, but our sympathy does not restrain us from imposing the means test on the allowances that we are prepared to give them.
We think there should be no means test on these allowances. If we cannot yet win that point-we will win it some day-I have another suggestion to offer. When I say that we will win it some day, I mean it. I can remember year after year standing up in this house and pleading for the removal of the means test from the old age pension and having some people in this house and outside of it say:	You know, Stanley, that
you are just talking; you are never going to get rid of it. However, we got rid of it. Some day we will get rid of the means test from the war veterans allowance and we will get rid of it from this allowance as well.
In the meantime I suggest that to apply the ceiling levels that are set out in the Old Age Assistance Act is a procedure that is altogether too restrictive. I know that in the case of a married couple where there is blindness on the part of one spouse or the other or in the case of a single person who is blind, the relationship is to the figures set out in the Blind Persons Act. But where blindness does not come into the picture, it is the old age assistance levels of permissible income which have been imported into this act. If the government is not prepared to go all the way at this time, I say that at least they should set a higher figure. I believe that one of the provinces suggested that the ceiling of permissible income might be something of the order of $1,000 single and $1,500 married.


Murdo William Martin: Can the hon. member give me the name of that province?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Saskatchewan.


Murdo William Martin: Oh. We will deal with that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I also like the figures suggested by the Canadian Legion with respect to war veterans allowances. They suggest that if the means test cannot be done away with, the level of permissible income might be $1,200 single and $2,000 married. In other words, Mr. Speaker, I make the suggestion of an alternative to removal of the means test in terms which I hope even this government might be prepared to consider.
I agree with the hon. member for Lanark that something should be done about that age gap which is now left between the point at which family allowances are discontinued and that at which it will be possible to receive
5336	HOUSE OF
Disabled Persons-Allowances the allowances under this legislation now before us. That seems to me to be the "most unkindest cut of all".
Here is a government that boasts of its social security program. It has family allowances from the time of birth until the age of 16. It has old age assistance from age 65 to 69, under a means test, which we deplore. It has old age security for everyone 70 years of age and over. It is now providing for disability allowances from age 18 up to the point where one could qualify for old age assistance, but in the case of the person who may be disabled the whole of his life, the child born with an incurable condition, the government has left that little gap between the ages of 16 and 18. If there is an explanation for that I will be surprised.


Murdo William Martin: Could my hon. friend tell me what Saskatchewan's view was on that very point?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Saskatchewan and the other provinces had to deal with this matter on the basis proposed by the federal government of a 50-50 split. Saskatchewan had to consider, as did all the other provinces, all these various items in terms of what it would cost them in relation to their provincial revenues. I suggest that Saskatchewan and the other provinces would be quite glad to go further with regard to these various regulations if the government would accept the proposition we lay down, namely, that it should be on a 75-25 split rather than on a 50-50 split. The minister may offer that prayer of thanks for the provinces but he cannot blame everything on them while some of us are here to watch him.
One other criticism I offer with respect to the legislation has to do with the residence clause which requires residence in Canada for not less than ten years. On its face that may seem to be a reasonable requirement, but I ask the minister to face the fact that there will be people entering this country as immigrants who on arrival are in perfectly good health-they have to be because they have to pass the medical examination imposed by the government-and in some instances some of these people will contract incurable diseases after arrival, perchance some of the diseases the minister referred to in his remarks today, or perchance they may suffer some accident which makes them invalids for the rest of their lives before they have been here ten years. We have got to do something for them. Failure to make provision for them in legislation of this kind simply means that the burden is thrown on the provinces or on the municipalities.
tMr. Knowles.]

The various suggestions that I have made spell out my earlier statement that this measure does not go far enough. I hope that even yet we may get improvement with respect to some of these points, particularly with regard to the amount of the allowance, the means test level, the age gap between 16 and 18 and the definition of total permanent disability. Nevertheless, as I have already said, despite my feeling that there are these shortcomings and inadequacies, we are glad to see parliament at last being given a chance to take the step to fill this gap that parliament has wanted to take for a long time. We have had private members' motions introduced frequently and, as I say, the minister played his part in helping to talk them out. But at last the house is getting a measure it has long been ready to support.
Parliament welcomes the opportunity to put legislation of this kind on the statute books. It begins to fill one of the gaps to which the old age security committee referred in 1950. I hope it will not be long until we have the opportunity to fill the other gap, that of national health insurance, so that we might move on to the achievement of an adequate over-all social security program for the people of this country the like of which we have the wealth to afford, the like of which our people, because they produce that wealth, fully deserve.


Mr. F. D. Shaw (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, having participated in innumerable debates when pressure was put on the government to introduce legislation providing payments for disabled persons, it is indeed refreshing to be able to stand up at this time and offer our support for the principle of the bill now before us. By offering support for the principle of the bill we do not mean of course that we agree with all the details contained therein. I had rather hoped that no sour note would be injected into the debate, but on the other hand I believe that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) was quite justified in complaining, shall I say, about the fact that the minister had obviously overlooked-


Stanley Howard Knowles: I did not complain; I just remarked on it.


Frederick Davis Shaw: -the part played by members in all quarters of the house with respect to the matter. Of course I realize fully that the minister was proud of having the opportunity to introduce this legislation. I also realize that as he basked in the brilliant sunshine of self-satisfaction he probably forgot the part played by members other than those who belong to his party.


Murdo William Martin: Will my hon. friend permit me to point out that when the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was speaking what I said was that I do not take the whole credit for this bill myself. I gave credit to the men in whose names the resolution stood. I paid my tribute to the provinces of Alberta and Ontario. I paid my tribute to the work of members of the house. I think on reflection my hon. friend will find that he is not doing the mover of the resolution the justice which, in the context, I think he deserves.


Frederick Davis Shaw: The minister of course did name three or four members of the house, but I certainly think it would have been very much better to thank the whole membership of the house for the part which that membership played in the advancement of the idea of disability pensions. I do not criticize the minister for finding in this legislation a substantial measure of what I call self-satisfaction. I think the minister displays that whenever he introduces legislation adding to the general welfare program of his government, and I do not offer that comment critically at all. Maybe he is justified.
I think the minister might also have laid a bit of emphasis on the fact that with respect to most of the grants, if not all, that are made to the provinces for such things as hospital construction the provinces must bear a very heavy financial burden in matching so many of these grants dollar for dollar and in providing the personnel in so many instances.


Murdo William Martin: The rehabilitation grant is a non-matching grant.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Of course the minister did not stop at the rehabilitation grant. He went over the entire field and the general impression he conveyed was that the federal government, of which he is a member, must be given a substantial part of the credit for the accomplishments. I think it makes for better feeling and a more substantial degree of co-operation if the very important parts played by all governments at all levels are at all times mentioned.


Murdo William Martin: Hear, hear.


Frederick Davis Shaw: During most of the years I have been in the House of Commons I have urged the government to give favourable consideration to the question of payments to our disabled Canadians. While I felt at times that maybe our efforts were a bit futile, I never lost hope. I am a confirmed optimist, but since the spring of 1950 my hopes have been much higher than at any previous time. I had the opportunity of serving as a member of the old age security 83276-338
1, 1954
Disabled Persons-Allowances committee. I realize how frequently the various delegations that appeared before the committee made reference to this matter even though it was not actually included in our terms of reference.
I realize, too, and I believe I pointed this out last year in the course of my remarks on a private member's resolution relating to disabled persons, that our committee saw fit to refer to this matter, even though I repeat it could not under those terms of reference actually make recommendations with respect to the matter.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre referred to page 103 of the evidence of the old age security committee, dated June 28, 1950. I note also that on page 103, under other claims to priority, it states:
Finally, in its study of the old age security systems in effect in other countries, and in its consideration of the evidence presented by representative Canadian organizations and individuals, the committee has had to keep constantly in mind the place of old age in an over-all security program. While the terms of reference of the committee have limited its study to the specific field of old age security, it has not felt it advisable to overlook the fact that there are other areas of social need in which governments, both provincial and federal, may be called upon to take in the future a substantial measure of responsibility.
Then again on page 101 there is a brief reference to this matter under the heading of "premature ageing and invalidity." This makes specific reference, of course, to disabled persons, and I quote:
The reverse of the problem of retaining older workers in the labour market is that presented by the prematurely aged and invalids who are obliged to retire from employment before their normal time. The committee has been deeply impressed by the evidence presented as to the position in which invalids and incurables find themselves at present. It has also received representations from organizations representing the blind, and blindness is. of course, part of the total problem of invalidity. The committee has felt, however, that the terms of reference established for it ruled out the possibility of a detailed examination of this problem as it applies to the younger age group.
I am going to make a reference to something, Mr. Speaker, that I have not mentioned during the past four years. A moment ago I stated that because of representations made to our old age security committee, and because of the feelings of the members of that committee with respect to this question of invalidity, my hopes were buoyed up. There was another reason for it. I hope the minister will not mind my mentioning this, and he will understand why I have never mentioned it during the last four years. He may recall that while our committee was sitting he crossed the floor one day and sat with me. We were discussing the work of the committee and the possible recommendations of
5338	HOUSE OF
Disabled Persons-Allowances the committee. He said something to this effect: We must not at any time forget that very important class of people, the invalids or those who are permanently disabled. He said something must be done for them. Now, these might not be the exact words, and I have never mentioned that until this day because I would consider it unfair to have done so during the discussion of any private member's resolution or anything I might have sponsored myself. However now the legislation is before us I think it is fair to mention it. I wish to compliment the minister upon having now reached that stage where the feelings which he indicated he held in the spring of 1950 have become a matter of direct action through the introduction of the bill before us.
I cannot, of course, overlook the emphasis the minister laid upon this question of rehabilitation services. I well recall that the Canadian Association of Incurables constantly repeated the following views: First, pensions or payments are definitely required because so many of our disabled persons are so handicapped they cannot earn even a single dollar. There is another thought that comes to me just at this point. I remember, too, they said so many people will not hire individuals who are physically handicapped simply because the public very often will not accept these people.
I recall one case and I believe this man was one of the delegates. He held a job as an elevator operator in a building. He said he had to sit in the wheel chair while operating the elevator, but he could do it quite satisfactorily from the mechanical point of view. One person who was in the habit of using that elevator actually served notice that unless they secured another elevator operator he was not going into that building. I am certainly underlining the fact that that is not the general feeling among Canadian people.
I believe there is a responsibility upon the Canadian people today to do everything within their power to assist these persons to rehabilitate themselves. I feel there is a great field there where the government might quite properly function.
I know, too, the service clubs and other organizations have been doing a great deal in this particular field. I am extremely happy to know that while payments are to be made to the permanently disabled, this question of rehabilitation is being given the utmost consideration.
This reference to the definition of disabled persons is one which rather intrigues me. I presume that when the conference was held a reference was made to the definition of disabled persons in the Alberta act. I am


not saying it is a good one, but I do want to point out a problem with which I know they were confronted in this connection. According to the bill which was assented to on March 31, 1953 in the Alberta legislature, a disabled person was defined as a person who is suffering from a chronic disability and is physically unfit for gainful employment. Then, the two words "chronic disability" are defined. They mean a disability from which a person has suffered for a period of twelve months or longer.
While I realize that this matter of the definition is not in the bill before us but will be a matter of regulation, I still suggest to the minister that if any degree of agreement has been reached thus far, and I think probably it must have been discussed with the representatives of the provinces, he might give us some information on this point. Here is a problem with which Alberta was confronted in connection with the definition. A person may be partially a mental case and partially physically disabled. The mental condition is not so serious as to warrant the placing of the individual in an institution or mental hospital. I recall one case specifically. The person in question was a female, about 30 years of age. When she was less than a year old she suffered paralysis. I guess it was the old infantile paralysis to which we used to refer. It affected her mind. It is true that today under very close and careful supervision she might be able physically to do a certain amount of work, yet there is this mental condition. I presume her mental age would be around 9 or 10.
Under the Alberta act as we knew it prior to this year, that person would almost invariably be characterized as suffering from a mental disability and therefore prohibited from security benefits under the disabled persons act. The situation became so common that finally in the last session of the provincial house the act was amended so that those mentally unfit for gainful employment, provided they were not confined to a mental hospital, could qualify under the provisions of the act. I would like to ask the minister if he would comment on that aspect of the bill that is before us.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member who has the floor, but it is five o'clock and the house will now proceed with the consideration of private and public bills. I would remind the house that the 50 bills Nos. 380 to 388; 395 to 417; 423 to 440 were referred to the committee in one motion. Is it agreed to do that now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, May 28, consideration in committee of Bills Nos. 380 to 388 inclusive; 395 to 417 inclusive; and 423 to 440 inclusive-Mr. Hunter-Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.
Stanley Howard Knowles: I take it we will again consider clause 1 of these fifty bills?


Edward Turney Applewhaite: If the committee unanimously agrees that we proceed on clause 1 of the fifty bills.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 380, for the relief of Rita Boucher Dufort.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 381, for the relief of Lucy Halga Saunders Gibson.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 382, for the relief of Antonie Lutz Jedrzejewski.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 383, for the relief of Jessie Clarke Thompson.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 384, for the relief of Dorothy Coughtry Paquette.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 385, for the relief of Isabel Ruth Smith Newey.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 386, for the relief of Eugene Clifford Carbonneau.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 387, for the relief of Jean Antoine Francois Armand.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 388, for the relief of Maria Clara Anita Cauchon Quirion.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 395, for the relief of Elsie Elizabeth Belford Grant.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 396, for the relief of Jean Monette. -Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 397, for the relief of Pearl Mary Brown Pratt.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 398, for the relief of Annie Holman James.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 399, for the relief of Marie Paule Lemay Mondello.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 400, for the relief of Marilyn Lesley Simpson Lavallee.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 401, for the relief of Edith Lorraine McBurney Robinson.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 402, for the relief of Aline Gosselin du Berger.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 403, for the relief of Eileen Lucy Tollett Power-Williams.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 404, for the relief of William Pappas.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 405, for the relief of Claire Labelle Cousineau.-Mr. Hunter.
Private Bills-Divorce
Bill No. 406, for the relief of Denise Marie Helene Laporte Woodhouse.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 407, for the relief of Lois Helena Kearns Higham.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 408, for the relief of Dorothy Rita Wade Moulden.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill	No.	409,	for	the	relief	of	Albert
Thornton.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill	No.	410,	for	the	relief	of Koidula
Laigma Hagel.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill	No.	411,	for	the	relief	of	Yvette
Lafontaine Tatos.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 412, for the relief of Freda Becker Blumenthal.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill	No.	413,	for	the	relief	of	Monica
Elizabeth Benoit Mullin.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 414, for the relief of Felix Andre Landry.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 415, for the relief of Marie-Claire Parisien Barbeau.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 416, for the relief of Marie Muriel Gladys Lena Soubre Dubour.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 417, for the relief of Joan Millicent Kemp Tessier.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 423, for the relief of Mary Joy Thomson Asselin.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 424, for the relief of Ronald Arthur Leslie.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 425, for the relief of Lucienne Saint-Laurent Calve.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 426, for the relief of Roberta Barbara Shvemar Feigelman.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 427, for the relief of Pearl Marie Neil Lane.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 428, for the relief of Marjorie May Price Amory.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 429, for the relief of Marie Jeannette Laure Lafreniere Lucas.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 430, for the relief of Frances Goldberg Glegg.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 431, for the relief of Thelma Nellie McKeage Patrick.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 432, for the relief of Madeleine Roy Julien.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 433, for the relief of Louis Tothe -Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 434, for the relief of Joseph Delphis Guillaume Delorme.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill	No.	435,	for	the	relief	of	Nicolas
Joseph Ladislas Barath.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill	No.	436,	for	the	relief	of	Ferencz
Gyula Babinszki.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill	No.	437,	for	the	relief	of	Beatrice
Alexandra Duff Sheppard.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 438, for the relief of Remi Char-bonneau.-Mr. Hunter.
[Stage Direction]
Private Bills-Divorce
Bill No. 439, for the relief of Kathleen Florence Pippy Hayward.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 440, for the relief of Fred Skiffing-ton.-Mr. Hunter.
On clause 1-Marriage dissolved.
Mr. Knight:: Mr. Chairman, in considering these fifty bills there is no hope, of course, that we can give them consideration, because that is not the method of this House of Commons. However I should like for a moment to refer to a statement by the hon. member for Victoria, British Columbia, as it is reported at page 5211 of Hansard for May 28. I am glad the hon. member is in his seat. While I do not intend to be critical of him, I do wish to point out that what he said gave the wrong impression. I am sure the impression he left was unintentional, when he described the attitude of certain of us in the miscellaneous private bills committee, which considered these bills before they were brought to the house. I find at the page indicated that the hon. member is reported to have said:
Every member received copies of the evidence in each of these cases, and if any particular hon. member did not read that evidence then it is his own fault.
I agree with him so far. Then he continued:
The fact is that every one of these bills came before us en bloc and they received unanimous consent of the miscellaneous private bills committee.
Technically, sir, the hon. member may be correct. Although some of us did not vote on these bills at all, I suppose it could be said that by our silence we had given consent since none of us raised his voice against them. But I submit that does not give a true picture of what we had in our minds and hearts in regard to these bills, and particularly the manner in which they are considered in that committee.
Time and again I have raised my voice in the committee on miscellaneous private bills. I see the hon. member for Parkdale in his seat, to whom I pay tribute as a conscientious and courteous chairman. I know he would back up my statement that on almost every occasion the committee met I raised my voice against the procedure followed. I see him smile, and it would seem that he has some recollection of that. I am sure he will also confirm my statement that while I did not say anything at the last meeting of the committee on miscellaneous private bills, I did make my usual protest at the committee which met the week before.
We are now faced with these fifty bills. The hon. member for Victoria, British Columbia, is of course a new member, and
[The Deputy Chairman.]
is new on that committee. It can be said that perhaps he does not know our attitude toward the method adopted in considering these bills, particularly the procedure of considering them en bloc, which is exactly the same the committee of the whole house is doing here today. He will understand our criticism of the fact that full consideration is not given to each bill. So much for the hon. member for Victoria, British Columbia.
Let us now turn to the bills themselves. There were definite reasons for the fact that we were silent in the standing committee. First of all, it is true that the committee passed these bills. Well, what else could it do with them? I remember very well that when the Prime Minister spoke on this subject he said there was a small minority in Quebec and Newfoundland who needed relief from their marital troubles and that this was the procedure under which they obtained it.
I submit to you, sir, that these fifty people had paid their money-and the evidence has shown in the last few days that it is a considerable amount of money-and had paid it in good faith. They had submitted then-evidence, either true or perjured as the case may be-and I am sure there were some of both-and they were there, generally, to obtain their divorces. Under those circumstances what else could the standing committee do, when it was set up for that particular job? What else can a member who does not believe in the whole procedure do, except protest against that procedure, as I have done on many occasions?
Those of us who object to it could, of course, have held up the procedure of the committee indefinitely, but I suggest to the hon. member for Victoria that he would not want that. We could make a nuisance of ourselves, if necessary, and as we have proved on occasions. We could keep that up indefinitely. But we had a job to do that day, and we did it. I would serve the hon. member notice that if our attitude in that regard is to be misrepresented in the house, then if necessary the struggle in the committee on miscellaneous private bills can be kept up.
I notice that the hon. member for Victoria, British Columbia, agrees with me in the matter of procedure. As reported at page 5211 he said:
I found out, as did every other hon. member, that I did not like the procedure, and I did not like the evidence I have had to read. I think there is collusion in it.
I know on Friday evening he modified that statement to some extent; but his statement is there on the record. When he was challenged for having said that there is collusion, and at

the same time voting for these bills, he modified the statement, and those modifica-cations may be found at page 5212 of Hansard. I submit however that the record stands, and I have quoted from it exactly as it was recorded in the debates. The hon. member is reported to have said:
I did not like the evidence I have had to read. I think there is collusion in it.
Another reason we did not protest as strongly or, shall I say, as often as usual on this particular occasion is that we were informed, and I believe reliably so, that the whole matter of divorce procedure is to be looked over and considered by the procedural committee, a committee from which we have not yet had a report, but of which we still have some hopes. That did not prevent my making vigorous protests on previous occasions the committee met; but it does explain to a degree why we did not press our opposition at every meeting of the committee. As I have said, if our intentions in that regard are misunderstood, then we can make them very clear by protesting every time a bill comes up. I think, myself, that perhaps that would be an exaggerated conclusion to seek; but we do not want any question to be left as to where we stand.
Another reason for our silence in that particular committee was that the committee before which these fifty bills were placed passed them in the course of, roughly, a couple of minutes. I have often timed it with my wrist watch, although I did not on this occasion. One reason we did not block any of the bills, or did not bother particularly with that committee, was that none of these bills had been contested, whereas there were two others to come up which had been. There were four lawyers in the room, two on each case, and sitting outside were the witnesses in both cases who were waiting in case it might be decided to call them. They were sitting there waiting in case it might be the decision of the committee to have them called. Naturally, we were expecting that we would have to spend a considerable time on these two cases which were contested, and that proved to be the fact, because we had two meetings of the committee on that day, and it took most of our spare time on that day to go over these two cases. We wanted to give those cases which were contested a very close scrutiny. In those cases there was the probability of an injustice being done on one side, and if there was we wanted to know about it.
In the meantime these two particular cases have become history, as it were, and since they are not before us I cannot make definite references to them today, although I am still in doubt as to who was responsible for that
Private Bills-Divorce
one particular case being withdrawn. It is true that at that time we made a recommendation that, since the lawyer for the petitioner had withdrawn the case, it be sent back to the other place with the suggestion that they could now take whatever action they considered necessary. I do not know what the constitutional problem is in that case. It is the first case of that kind of which I have had any experience. My own idea was that the case was in the hands of this house, and whether or not a lawyer can simply get up and wash his hands of the whole thing because it has been a hoax, and simply withdraw it out of the committee and that is the end of it, I am not sure.


Mr. Hunter:: Perhaps I can clear it up for my hon. friend. That bill will be reported with the preamble not carried, and the reasons will be stated. It means that the bill simply will not be carried by this house and therefore an act will not be passed. As to the other reference to the Senate, on the instructions of the committee I simply reported to the chairman of the Senate committee the possibility of perjury, and drew it to his attention. I have had a reply acknowledging that letter.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I thank the hon. member for giving that explanation to the house. He is much better qualified to do that than I am, but at any rate I shall mention those cases no more and return to these particular bills. Both cases were thrown out, of course, as is now well known.
In regard to these particular cases that are in front of us and in regard to other cases like these that may be protested in the future, I should like to serve notice that in such cases they will be seriously considered in the committee, if I remain a member of that committee and can urge that same opinion upon my colleagues. I think it is a good thing that the counsel for these people and the people themselves will know that where there is a protested case and where there is a chance of an injustice having been committed they will also have recourse to the miscellaneous private bills committee, with the assurance that their protests and their appeal, because that is actually what it is, will have serious consideration and a thorough examination in that committee.
I was glad to hear the words of the hon. member for Victoria, British Columbia that I have quoted. I was glad to see that he was disturbed at the procedure and the way in which we were handling these fifty bills. I am glad to see some disturbance in the minds of some other members also. I may say that in that there is a sign of progress. In that particular disturbance there is some

Private Bills-Divorce
hope. I may say also that it was not ever thus. Some years ago, in my introduction to this committee the usual procedure was simply to push these bills through the committee en bloc, en masse, forty or fifty of them at a time. Woe betide the committee member who would dare to raise his voice in opposition. I am glad that that situation has to some extent changed. I believe it does show some change of opinion. The cry in those days was, of course, well these bills have been passed by the Senate committee, composed of men with legal and mature minds; they have heard the evidence; they cannot be wrong. Like Brutus, they are honourable men, and so our job in this committee is to simply rubber stamp their decision. Well, sir, the situation has changed and the infallibility of the Senate committee on divorce has been proved a squib which exploded with a loud bang on a recent historic occasion, because I think that occasion was historic.
These fifty bills are an embarrassment to this committee. You can feel it and hear it behind the curtains from any member to whom you wish to speak. The bills are an embarrassment to this committee and to the members of the miscellaneous private bills committee, and I believe they are an embarrassment to this government. Still, I am not going to oppose them. These fifty bills are not contested. Let us pass them and get on to the legislation which is the reason for our presence here. I know I was not elected to listen to the evidence in divorce cases. I am not competent to judge the evidence or to assail it. I want to get on with the work for which I was sent here, and I do not want to spend the rest of my life untangling divorce cases. Let us get on with it now. Let us pass the bills, but let us devise for the future a method by which that embarrassment may be removed for all time from these halls.


Mr. Nicholson:: I am sorry I cannot agree with my colleague in his last remarks. At least one of these cases was contested, and I have read the evidence since we met here the last time. I would like hon. members to follow with me very briefly the sort of material which may be found in some of these cases. I am not going to mention any names, and 1 am not going to make any references that I could not make in the best circles of society. But there are some investigators in these cases that have appeared frequently, and I cannot understand why information given by investigators of this sort can be accepted and divorces granted. There were three male investigators and one female

investigator on this case. I am referring to evidence that appears in relation to Bill No. 434 which is before us. There were two investigators who swore they went to this particular home some six months ago. The evidence starts out with getting the usual story, but this was a different type of mystery. One man went to the house and he says:
We checked every room in the house.
Q. Did you go into the house?A. Yes, we went into the house.
Q. How did you proceed to get into the house?- A. We proceeded to check the electricity.
Q. You pretended you were going there to check the electricity?-A. Yes, so we checked every room
and Mrs. 

 was showing us every place in the
house.
It seems strange that after a man admits lying for the sake of getting into a house, suddenly everything else he says after that is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Well, this man was questioned by the lawyer for the respondent, and here are the questions and answers:
Q. I am asking you how many bedrooms are there in that house?-A. I don't know.
Q. How many beds are in the house?-A. Oh, I don't know.
Q. Did you go-?A. I didn't check all the beds.
Q. You went to check the electricity?-A. Yes.
Q. How many switches are there in the apartment?-A. We didn't check the switches.
Q. What were you checking exactly?-A. We checked the room.
Q. You checked the rooms? Well, how many rooms are there, in the home, not only bedrooms, but other rooms in the house, how many rooms are there?-A. I do not remember. I checked that in my notes, the day I checked.
As I read the evidence, Mr. Chairman, it appears to me that one of the investigators did go to the house and made elaborate drawings of bedrooms and furniture. Two women who were in the house swore that there was only one man went, and two men swore that two went. In view of the evidence in the case from one of the men who apparently know so little about what he saw, it would seem to me that probably the women were telling the truth on that particular occasion.
But then there was a ladder that featured in the story. Perhaps I should take a minute to tell the committee the story of this ladder. The case really hinges on what three men saw after climbing up the ladder and looking in an upstairs window, and here is how the evidence goes:
Q. And you mentioned that you were up first?- A. Well, it is a way of talking; I would say the first one. We were going up slowly and sometimes I was putting my foot on his and trying to take a grab of a rung and sometimes I would cross-

I will not dignify these gentlemen by placing their names in Hansard, but call them Mr. Z and so on.
. . . Mr. Z's hand.
Q. But you went up first?-A. I wouldn't say that; sometimes he was maybe a few inches higher than me and sometimes maybe I was higher than him.
Q. Are you telling me that you both went up together side by side?-A. Yes, it is a broad ladder.
Q. How wide is the ladder?-A. It is a big ladder. I don't like to say it is a very tall or long ladder but it is a very wide ladder.
Q. How wide?-A. Maybe two feet.
Q. And the two of you were climbing side by side?-A. Oh yes. We had done that before.
And then the acting chairman came into the discussion and he asked:
Q. I presume, witness, it is a ladder you have for the purpose?-A. Not exactly. We use it a lot many times but it is a handy ladder around. It is a hard ladder. It is a heavy duty ladder.
Q. Is it made of aluminum?-A. No, it is light wood but big wood, and the rungs are strung with some braces under. It is a big ladder and a strong ladder.
The hearing adjourned until 2 p.m.
But Mr. Chairman, that is not the end of the ladder story.


An hon. Member:: I think it should be.


Mr. Pickersgill:: Let us just have one rung at a time.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I think we should have the end of the ladder story because this is really where the funny part comes in. As I said, there was a lady, we will call her Miss L but I do not know what a lady would be doing out after midnight with this crowd. The evidence continues:
Q. Where was Miss L, during the time of the investigation?-A. She was in my car.
Q. She did not leave the car that night?-A. No.
Now, I want to go into the question of the window. This is the evidence:
Q. On what side of the building was the window in question that you looked into?-A. On the north side.
Now, Mr. Chairman, here is a ladder on the north side of the house and then this lady is questioned by the defence counsel as follows:
Q. On which side?-A. On the south side.
Q. Well, we have been told by Mr. Z and the others that the bedroom in question is on the north side, what would you say as to that?-A. I don't know where the bedroom would be.
Q. So on what side was the ladder put up?-A. I can't say exactly.
Although, Mr. Chairman, the ladder was on the north side and the lady in question was on the south side she was able to see through that house in the dark of night and see three men climb up a ladder, and on the evidence of what these three men saw from that ladder a divorce was granted.
Private Bills-Divorce
I think hon. members of this house had better start taking a look at these 400 divorces which go through each year. I think that the parliament of Canada cannot be a party to having this sort of evidence coming into the other chamber and coming on to us so that we are asked to break up homes on the type of evidence appearing in this report. As I have already said, I probably would not have spoken about the case had it not been for the fact that these particular investigators gave evidence in another case whereby a wealthy man in Montreal was relieved of the responsibility of supporting his wife and young baby, on the same sort of evidence I have quoted here. The evidence of these men was accepted in the other chamber by those who examined them and who apparently said, "These detectives give their information, it must be true". They were prepared to accept the evidence which was given as I have described it by these investigators, three of them men and one woman, and under the circumstances I have described. I would suggest that hon. members should refer this particular case back to the Senate or to our committee on miscellaneous private bills to have another look at it before the members of this chamber put their official seal on it and endorse the sort of evidence submitted in report 383.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Is the house ready for the question?


Mr. Goode:: Mr. Chairman, before you put this to the vote I think the hon. member who spoke before me should be fair. I am informed that in this particular case the Senate committee took evidence for 7J hours and I am quite convinced, although I do not read these cases and I do not intend to read them, that there must be further evidence besides what the hon. member related to the committee. I do not like to see the other place held up to ridicule in all cases and in this one I think the hon. member has not brought out the full evidence.


Mr. Mclvor:: Mr. Chairman, I have not said anything on the question of divorce for about ten years, but I have been doing a lot of listening and I must admit that I have not heard anything yet, not even from the hon. members of the C.C.F. party, about a method of curing the curse of divorce. What is the cause? That is the question, and we should be far more concerned about that than a method of handling these bills. How many cases of divorce have we taken from the courts? I think we have robbed the courts of some. I think the hon. member for Lanark would agree with me when I say that when

Private Bills-Divorce
young couples get into difficulty through selfishness or something like that they should go to the family doctor or their spiritual adviser instead of a lawyer or the courts.
I know there are those in Canada and the United States who are finding a cure. There are groups of men in different places, lawyers, doctors, ministers, businessmen, and social workers, who have formed committees to investigate every case which looks about hopeless and they have robbed the divorce courts of many cases. I think we could spend the time of this house to far better advantage in finding a cure for divorce instead of trying to prove that the Senate has not been painstaking in its work.


Mr. Regier:: Mr. Chairman, I have only a very few remarks to make. The insinuation has been made that we should not be spending our time on this matter. But I submit, Mr. Chairman, that we should, because what we do when we pass these divorce cases can have very serious consequences. We not only dissolve marriages but we also relieve a goodly number of husbands of the responsibility of supporting their wives and families. Further than that, the effect of our passage of these bills means that we are branding certain people of having been guilty of committing adultery. That, in turn, has the effect in some parts of Canada of robbing these people of the rights of citizenship in a great many respects. I feel that the evidence in a great many of these cases is entirely insufficient. I have had cases called to my attention where there has been all kinds of blackmailing going on after the case had passed the Senate committee, because it was commonly assumed that once a bill had passed the Senate commitee and had been recommended by them that that was the end of the matter, and those who had given false evidence immediately began their habit of blackmailing the people who were vitally concerned.
I have one case in mind where one of the witnesses has had to leave Canada and is now in Mexico. Unfortunately the case was not proceeded with to its final conclusion. My aim was to have this man fetched from Mexico in order to appear before our miscellaneous private bills committee. If we had been able to do as we desired, I think this House of Commons would have received a good illustration of the effect of our passing these divorce cases as if they were just so much unimportant and minor legislation.


Mr. Enfield:: Before you put the question again, Mr. Chairman, there are one or two points I should like to make about this matter. I do not want to go into the merits or the moral aspects of divorce. However,

as was mentioned by my friend the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond, I would not want the impression to be left that the Senate committee who handle these divorces are not doing what I think is an excellent job. As to the case mentioned by the hon. member on the opposite side who first spoke, I happen to know, as has already been mentioned, that that divorce committee presided over by the chairman who has had some 42 years' experience in legal and judicial matters and composed of four other senators who are tried and true in this type of work, spent 7J hours examining the witnesses whom they had there before them. I do not know whether hon. members know the old court of appeal maxim or not. The court of appeal says that a trial judge who has the witnesses before him is in a much better position than is any court of appeal to decide on the question of perjury; and the general rule is that they will, in almost all cases, take the opinion of the trial judge in that respect. Here we have exactly the same situation. We have the divorce committee that spent 7| hours looking at the witnesses. After the case they went into a two hours' conference with regard to it-the five of them-and after careful deliberation they decided there was sufficient ground for divorce. Then the private bills committee of the House of Commons meets. We have no formal courtroom in which to meet. We have no formal method by which we call witnesses. Questions can be put by anybody at any time to any witness. We have witnesses called into the room indiscriminately. On the whole the procedure is carried on very informally. Generally speaking, I do not think hon. members read the evidence thoroughly and go through all the evidence.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: May I ask my hon. friend one simple question? Was any witness in connection with any of these fifty cases with which we are dealing today called before the miscellaneous private bills committee?


Frank A. Enfield: Yes; there were some witnesses called before the committee. I did not say that, with due respect to the hon. member. I did not mean to create that impression. We have called witnesses before the committee, of course.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I doubt that the hon. member understood or heard my question. I am asking this straight question. Were any witnesses called before the private bills committee in connection with any of the fifty cases with which we are dealing today?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Frank A. Enfield: No. Of course there were not, as there was apparently no dispute raised with regard to the fifty cases that have been mentioned. I am merely trying to point out that we should not lightly disregard the work of the Senate in this matter and hold it up to ridicule, as I think has been done by hon. members opposite in this chamber today.


An hon. Member:: It is part of their program to abolish the Senate.


Frank A. Enfield: I wanted to say this so that that impression would definitely not be left. I know that the divorce cases handled by the Senate are just as efficiently handled as elsewhere. Indeed I think they are better handled than they are by the crowded courts in the supreme court of Ontario. You get a better hearing by the Senate committee because there is more time involved; you get a more convenient time for your hearing and you get a hearing with more dispatch. I think we should put the facts down as they are with regard to this divorce situation. I know that it is an awkward one. I know that some members do not like having to handle this work. Perhaps we should not be doing it. However, 1 have yet to hear a suitable alternative offered by anyone, in my short experience in the House of Commons.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, the hon.
member for York-Scarborough is free to come to the defence of the Senate if he wishes to do so. I do not think it is correct to say that we are trying to use this matter in order to hold the Senate up to ridicule at all. However, I suggest that the hon. member for York-Scarborough is holding the House of Commons up to ridicule if he suggests that we should pass these bills without our considering them. Even if the best case in the world is made out for a proper and satisfactory job being done in the other place, that fact does not absolve us from doing our job here; and the plain fact of the matter is that we are not doing it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member made no such suggestion.


An hon. Member:: He implied it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think he implied it at all.


Hazen Robert Argue: The great interpreter!


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member for York-Scarborough suggests, as do other hon. members around the place, that we should have confidence in the Senate and that we should take it on faith that they have done a satisfactory job.


John Whitney Pickersgill: He did not say any such thing.
Private Bills-Divorce


Frank A. Enfield: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege-


Stanley Howard Knowles: As a matter of fact, some of us do not have that faith.


Frank A. Enfield: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman. I do not like to interrupt the hon. member, but I do not think I said that we should merely take the Senate decisions and trust them and do nothing about them. What I say is that we should have in the Senate committee the confidence that it justly deserves and that I did not like-


Stanley Howard Knowles: What does the hon. member mean by that?


Mr. Croll:: More confidence than you have in it, that is what he means.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is not very much.


An hon. Member:: That does not prove a thing.


Frank A. Enfield: I merely wanted to prevent there being left the impression that the Senate committee were completely incompetent, as I think other hon. members in my hon. friend's group were trying to do. That is the impression I got from their remarks.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am trying to figure out, from what the hon. member has said, what he means that is any different from what I said he meant. He said we should have confidence in the Senate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Many members around here have confidence in the Senate. I can understand that. They hope to go over there. But so far as handling these cases is concerned, I must say to him that confidence in Their Honours individually and respect for them though we may have, our confidence in their capacity to deal with divorce is shattered by what happened in respect of two cases which the hon. member for Parkdale says will be reported to the House of Commons with the preamble not proven. In view of that experience, even though they spent 7i hours on this case having to do with Bill No. 434, I submit we are not absolved from looking into it before we pass it. I have not read it in its entirety. I have read some of the sections having to do with the ladder story that my colleague the hon. member for Mackenzie reported to the committee. Incidentally I know that there was sworn evidence given by one person in that house that certain people were around there that night but without any ladder at all. My hon. friend reminds me that three different people swore that these people were around there without a ladder. Yet these people say they were

Private Bills-Divorce
there with a ladder, which was a 2-foot ladder, up and down which three men were going.


An hon. Member:: Two by two?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The two-by-two game; yes. I suggest that the hon. member for York-Scarborough is defeating his own purpose. If he wants to boost the Senate and to boost our confidence in it, let him not relate it to this particular case. This case has all the earmarks of a ridiculous situation. If the committee is not prepared to do something else which others might be willing to do, I suggest that the least we should do is to agree that at some stage this Bill No. 434 should be referred back to the committee on miscellaneous private bills. Perhaps in respect of this bill the same formula could be followed as that which was followed on the motion of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in respect of another case that was referred back some weeks ago.
I realize that the evidence in most of these fifty bills is contained in thin little pamphlets of only five, six or seven pages.


An hon. Member:: Not worth while reading it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am referring to the ones that are before us. Their Honours have become so used to this routine that they can make a quick decision, but in this particular one the evidence runs to sixty-eight pages and apparently it went through our committee along with the other forty-nine without any consideration being given to it. 1 take it that although the case was contested in the other place the chairman of the miscellaneous private bills committee of this house did not advise the committee whether the people who contested it wished to continue that procedure before our committee.
But I think we have a responsibility, particularly now that doubts have been cast on the integrity of some of these detectives who have come here as witnesses, and now that doubts have been raised in our own minds as to the capacity of the senators to get to the heart of these cases. I think that the least that should happen in respect of Bill 434 is that it should go back to our committee. The hon. member for York-Scar-borough made the statement that during the time he has been here he has not heard of an alternative. That suggestion used to be made to us fairly often a few years ago, but I should like to say to him that it is only from the members of this group that an alternative has been proposed. I refer to a bill of mine, which is not on the order paper just now, suggesting that the handling of these cases should be referred to the Exchequer Court of Canada. If something is not done

about this matter, it may soon be there again. If I do introduce it again I think I should give it a new subtitle. It might well be called "an act for the relief of parliament".


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Is it the desire of the committee that Bill No. 434 be considered separately?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It takes unanimous consent to consider all fifty together. I am prepared to give unanimous consent to considering the other forty-nine together.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I am of the opinion that the committee is pretty well the master of its own procedure, but only by unanimous consent. Therefore we will consider these bills which have been referred to the committee with the exception of Bill No. 434. Is it understood that all these bills except Bill No. 434 are agreed to?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Then we are now on
Bill No. 434.



JOSEPH DELPHIS GUILLAUME DELORME

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 434, for the relief of Joseph Delphis Guillaume Delorme-Mr. Hunter-Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.
On clause 1-Marriage dissolved.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the chairman of the committee or the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration-or both of them-a question, which I put forward in good faith. If they are prepared, when this bill is reported for third reading, to have it referred back to the standing committee I would have no objection to that procedure. If they are not prepared to do so, we will have to vote against it or make our own decision as to what course to follow.


John William Gordon Hunter: I would very definitely take exception to that procedure. The bill came before the committee, it was not contested and we passed it. Apparently the bill was contested before the Senate committee. They heard the evidence; they heard the witnesses. To refer it back to our committee means that we are going to have to have a retrial because until we hear the witnesses and hear them examined by their counsel before us we are in no position to judge what has been judged by the Senate. In my opinion it would be a redundant procedure and would amount to a retrial. If this bill were referred back I would not feel that by simply reading the evidence-I am sure many members of the committee would agree with me-I

would be in a position to judge it. In order to form a proper impression I am sure we would have to have the witnesses recalled and rehear the case. After the Senate has spent the time it has on this bill I do not feel that we would gain anything by retrying the case. We are not a court of appeal. It would be a second trial, and for these reasons I would not agree to that unless the house rules otherwise.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I agree with the hon.
member for Parkdale that we are not an appeal court or a court of retrial. We are still a parliament of two houses, and we are supposed to make up our own minds as the result of our own study of the measures that come before us. I am not impressed with the argument that this matter has been gone into thoroughly by Their Honours in the other place. If parliament is not prepared to get this business of divorce out of parliament, if parliament insists on the job being done here, surely we should do it. I think the least we should do with Bill 434 is to refer it back to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills so that they can study the evidence, call witnesses or do as they wish on our behalf.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The hon. member for
Burnaby-Richmond rose to his feet in defence of this bill.


Tom Goode: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, I did not defend the bill.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: He implied that there must have been good cause for passing it inasmuch as the evidence took seven hours before the Senate committee. I do not want to impose on the committee by quoting at any greater length. The hon. member for Parkdale who is sponsoring the bill is here today, but I think it is significant that of the seventy-five members from Quebec not one of them is prepared to sponsor these bills. In view of the evidence I have quoted at some length I think the sponsor of the bill should explain where I was wrong or give other information than appears in the evidence to indicate that the committee should treat this bill in the same way as the other forty-nine have been treated.


Tom Goode: May I ask a question of the chairman of the committee on miscellaneous private bills? In the meeting of that committee was this bill protested by any member of the C.C.F. party?


John William Gordon Hunter: The answer is no.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I understood the hon. member for Saskatoon to say that none of these
Private Bills-Divorce
fifty bills were contested. According to the evidence before us this case was contested, and the evidence is there.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall the clause carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
William Alfred Robinson: Shall clause 2 carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bills reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that these bills be read the third time now?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would you separate Bill No. 434 from the other forty-nine?
Bills Nos. 380 to 388; Nos. 395 to 417; Nos. 423 to 433; Nos. 435 to 440 read the third time and passed.


John William Gordon Hunter: the third reading of Bill No. 434.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, for the reasons which I gave when we were in committee of the whole I move, seconded by the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight):
That Bill No. 434 be not now read the third time but that it be referred back to the committee on miscellaneous private bills.
I believe that is in precisely the same form as a similar motion made by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Harris) a few weeks ago.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Before the result of the vote is announced I have noticed, as I am sure all other hon. members noticed, that the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mrs. Shipley) voted with the-


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have noticed that the hon. member voted with the yeas, while perhaps it might have been her intention to vote with the nays. Now, hon. members may recall that there are precedents with respect to the correction of votes given by inadvertence. There was a precedent in the case of the Hon. Mr. Bracken who, on one occasion, had his vote deleted because he had voted by inadvertence. That ruling was given by Mr. Speaker Fauteux. See Debates, May 22, 1946, page 1774, and also May 23, 1946, pages 1793 and 1794. I am dealing with this point of order at this time, because on

this occasion it concerns the taking of the division, and it must be settled before the result of the vote is announced. I think we ought to give the hon. member for Timiskaming an opportunity, if she so desires, to register her vote according to her true intention. If she does that, then I shall order that the Clerk delete her vote from the list of yeas.


Mrs. Shipley:: Mr. Speaker,-


Mr. Speaker:: There shall be no debate. If the hon. member rises in her place, then it is an indication that she wishes to vote with the nays.


Marie Ann Shipley: I was about to say that I intended to vote with the nays.


Mr. Speaker:: Therefore I direct that the division list be corrected accordingly.
Whereupon the Clerk announced the result of the vote as follows: Yeas, 66; nays, 63.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Tom Goode: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry; I declare the motion carried.


Tom Goode: I was paired with the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Wylie). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: I think I might as well get back to my senses, here. Having still in mind the intricacies of the point I have just dealt with, having to do with the division, I had completely forgotten that the result of the vote as announced by the Clerk was favourable to the yeas instead of the nays. Now I am informed that that is so. Therefore I declare the amendment carried.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Martin for the second reading of Bill No. 462, to provide for allowances for disabled persons.
Frederick Davis Shaw: When at five o'clock the house detoured into that unpleasant field of divorce I was dealing with the definition of the



X, 1954

[Stage Direction]
expression "totally and permanently disabled" and also with the definition of a similar term used in the Ontario act and in the Alberta act. It was indicated by me that Alberta, within the first year of the operation of its act to provide for pensions for certain disabled persons, encountered certain difficulties which made it necessary to amend their act within the period of twelve months.
The particular problem which confronted the government of Alberta in their act was in relation to those who may be mentally and physically disabled, but not so mentally disabled that they required hospitalization. I know that in the administration of their act it usually resulted in a decision that where mental and physical disability existed the deficiency was called "mental" and the person not pensionable.
We feel that when it comes to the definition of totally and permanently disabled persons probably the federal Department of National Health and Welfare, in consultation with the representatives of the provinces, will take that matter into consideration. It might seem that since Alberta has in its act defined disabled persons and also has a definition of chronic disability, we might urge that that definition of totally and permanently disabled persons be included in the bill which is before us at the present time; but we are not going to take that position. We believe that whatever definition is determined will result from negotiations between the federal department and the representatives of the respective departments of the provinces and that a properly negotiated definition of the term will emerge.
It may be that the same experience will be encountered that was encountered in my own province of Alberta within a period of a very few months after the act becomes law. It would then become necessary to amend the regulations or the act. We believe that if the definition is in the act it could not be amended without a statutory provision. If it were defined by regulation, then it is conceivable that it could be changed in the same way and rather quickly. For that reason we would prefer the definition to be established by regulation. However, we would say to the minister that if any change is to be made at any time after the first agreement is reached, such change should result only after proper negotiations with the provinces. We would hope that the federal Department of National Health and Welfare would not presume to take it upon itself arbitrarily to declare a change in the definition without consultation. We would not want that to happen under any circumstances. We feel that in every case there should be a truly negotiated change.
Disabled Persons-Allowances
I would add to that, certainly I do not consider myself qualified to define the expression "totally and permanently disabled". In this case, as I mentioned on other occasions, we must count upon those who have had some experience and who are in a better position to ascertain what might be a more generally acceptable definition. I think it goes without saying that whatever definition is determined would be applicable to all provinces; that there will not be any variation among the provinces.
It is to be noted that in Bill No. 462 the age of 18 is set as the qualifying age. It was indicated by the minister that that conforms with the Ontario act. My own province set the age at 21. I have not been so directed by the government of Alberta, nor have I any indication of what they intend doing, but I would hope-and I am also confident-that Alberta would see its way clear to accept the age of 18 as the qualifying age. After all, during the past year they have been assuming the full financial responsibility under their act which provides pensions for certain disabled persons. Now with the federal government assuming the responsibility of one-half of the cost, Alberta should be prepared to lower its age from 21 to 18. As I say, I hope and I am confident that they will do that, although I have no right to say so officially.
With respect to the proposed pension, we realize fully as a group here that one can argue that $40 is hopelessly inadequate to provide enough security for those people, but we are not going to press that at this time. We realize it is a new step. This legislation is being introduced and we assume it will be passed by parliament and will become law. That is the first step. But if we do not make an issue of $40 at this time, let it not be assumed or concluded that during the next session, or during subsequent sessions, we may not propose that it be increased.
The one thought that does go through my mind is this. Under the old age security and old age assistance acts the basic payment is $40 a month, and I presume the minister might to a degree anyway be justified in saying: We do not want this to be different from the payments under these acts. We realize fully of course that in many instances the earnings of the disabled will be nil, or at least considerably less than that of persons who qualify for old age assistance and old age security. However, that is a debatable question, if one bears in mind the fact that many of the older people, although they may be physically able to perform some work are not just acceptable generally to those who employ people. Therefore it is a highly debatable question. We see this bill as certainly
[Stage Direction]
Disabled Persons-Allowances a step in the right direction. Those people who have received nothing to date in the way of direct payments will receive $40 a month, and it will look like a fortune to many of them.
Let it not be assumed, as I said before, that if we do not labour that issue we feel it is a satisfactory amount, if one is looking on it as providing security. The minister will argue that it is not designed to provide security. We can see that argument, too.
The bill provides for a 10-year residential qualification. As a member of the old age security committee, I know we had to give very serious consideration to the matter of residence. We realized how easy it would be for people outside of our borders to suddenly rush into the country to qualify. For persons, let us say, in the United States, that would not be too difficult. They would not find too much difficulty in coming into our country. In this case they do not have to be subject to Canadian citizenship. Therefore we found it necessary to recommend that in the Old Age Assistance Act they had to reside in the country for 15 years and under the Old Age Security Act for 20 years. We have no particular objection to the provision that there should be a residence qualification. Even under the Alberta act they found it necessary to insert a residence qualification of 10 years because if a province had a provision to pay a pension to disabled persons and did not have a provision covering a residence qualification there would be an almost immediate influx of people from provinces all over the country. It became necessary, therefore, for the province of Alberta to have that residence qualification.
Earlier in this session, Mr. Speaker, in fact during the debate on the speech from the throne, the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Hanna) referred to the Alberta act and indicated-he did not use the word "discriminatory"-that with that provision it would have a bad effect upon unity in Canada. Of course he did say that it was maybe necessary to have that provision. Well, I feel it certainly was necessary to have it, and it is just as necessary in an act of this kind to have residential qualifications. There may be a situation developed in Canada where one or more provinces may take advantage of this act. Then, of course, you would have the position of the 10 years' residential qualification running into a rather unusual situation where a person may move from one province, where they pay no disability pension, to another province where they do make that payment. I do not know what would happen under that situation because they might well have been residents in Canada for the 10-year period.

Probably this was discussed when the minister held a conference with the representatives of the province. All these matters are important. As the bill progresses through its various stages we may well have questions to ask on such matters.
In his early remarks the minister indicated that the situation as it existed with regard to disabled persons constitutes a real burden upon their relatives and friends. Well, most of us know that, and I certainly know from my own personal experience in view of the cases with which I have had to deal. It is a real tragedy for many people. In fact, I know of one couple who have reached the old age security stage and they have a daughter who is approximately 30 years of age. She is unable to provide for herself and her parents want to keep her at home. Her condition is a combination of mental and physical and they feel she is their responsibility. But they have to live upon old age security payments and it is quite a struggle for them. Of course what disturbs them more than anything else is what will happen to their dependent when they pass away.
In this bill we have at least provided a partial answer to that problem. In another particular case I think I found one of the most tragic experiences I have ever had as a member of parliament. This concerned a man who was 60 years of age who came to me for advice. He had resided within this country for a period of 40 years and he had been successful as a farmer but he developed arthritis and over a period of years it had taken practically everything he had been able to acquire in order to try and secure some relief for his disability. He, like so many other people, followed up every suggestion good or bad in order to find relief until in the end he was without means. His wife was compelled to scrub floors in order that the two of them might be able to get along. He communicated with me and he did not fit in anywhere. I thought it was a terrible tragedy for me as a representative of this country and a member of parliament in this great nation to have to tell him that his only hope was municipal relief. I cannot recall anything which hurt me more than that particular case.
This is the type of case which will be covered under the bill which is now before us and one need not go beyond that particular case to appreciate the value of the general principle contained in this bill.
The minister said, though he may not have used these exact words, that we would share the burdens these people have to bear. I agree with that absolutely. Certainly those

of us who are more fortunate from a physical point of view have no cause to complain about sharing the burden which these people have had visited upon them through no choice of their own, and for any nation like this to be able to fill that gap is certainly a step forward.
In the early course of my observations I may have been somewhat critical. In fact, the minister by his interjection has remarked to that effect. I was critical but he will appreciate that we see in this bill a real step forward and something which we have no hesitation in supporting at all in principle, and if I know this House of Commons, as I have known other houses in the past, then I would suggest that there will be few and probably no dissenting voices in this parliament. But once again, however, I do not want a statement of that kind to be construed as meaning that we accept it in every detail.
Now, Mr. Speaker, it would be the easiest thing in the world to go on discussing this measure and occupy the entire 40 minutes at my disposal. But I do not intend to do that. To the extent that I have already spoken I have probably held up the passage of this measure. If that be true then possibly I should apologize. We in this group certainly support the bill before the house at the present time.
Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Mr. Speaker, I know I have no more right to speak on this bill than any other hon. member in this house, but I have some right and I wish now to express my gratitude to the minister for introducing this measure. When I came here in 1935 this was one of the things about which I spoke. I have continued to do so every year since because I felt then as I have felt ever since that those who could not earn a dollar were forgotten people, but that they were not forgotten people after that.
I am not going to speak very long tonight because I have spoken loud and long in the past on this subject and I must say that I received first class support from all around me, especially after the session was over when the minister supported me in my views. I am not forgotting the former minister of national health and welfare, the late Senator Ian Mackenzie. When I had spoken on this matter on about the fourth occasion he said: "Dan, stick to it. You are right."
The Christian program is, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the sick, and help those who cannot help themselves. Very plain and simple. But, of course, we sometimes feel the government should do more and we are not always willing to put our hand in our own pocket and help those who
Disabled Persons-Allowances cannot help themselves. But personally I think hon. members of this house even in that way take second place to no other group of men in Canada.
I admit I received considerable support from the trades and labour council of Fort William, and Jim Walsh, who was then president, gave me a complete list of disabled persons. I was alarmed because I did not realize there were so many but of course the trades and labour council were in possession of that information because they were always interested.
I paid my tribute three years ago to the present Minister of Labour, the V.C. on this side of the house who has a good heart in him too, and who gave me any information he had on the subject. He told me that his department and the Department of Veterans Affairs and the department of national health were co-operating with the provinces all over Canada in trying to help disabled persons.
Two years ago, before the election, when we debated this question in a full and complete manner, I will not forget, and I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) will not forget either, that I thanked the minister when he promised consideration for this problem. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said I had more confidence in the minister than he had. If he looks up Hansard he will find that. Indeed, the hon. member has now agreed with me and while my first name is the name of a prophet I think my prognostication was a little more accurate than his at that time. A little more than a year ago I commended the province of Ontario for leading the band. No matter what party is in power we expect the province of Ontario to lead the way because we are the crack province of Canada. They led the way in bringing in this pension for disabled persons.
Mr. Speaker, I have been in the homes of some of those disabled persons who have received the pension. May I say that it would do anyone's heart good to hear them express their gratitude for the $40 a month. The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Shaw) says that it is not enough. May I say too with him that $40 more than nothing is a great deal of money to people who previously had not had a dollar of their own. Just to feel that stiff cheque in his hand for the first time gives such a person a great thrill.
I know there will be difficulties in administering this bill. As to the definition, I would be well satisfied to take the definition upon which the province of Ontario grants their pension. It will be fairly close to what is right. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said that the federal government
5352	HOUSE OF
Disabled Persons-Allowances should pay 75 per cent of the cost and the province should pay 25 per cent. I do not see much sense in that proposition. I speak for the province of Ontario now. If the province of Ontario is paying the whole thing, why should we discredit the province of Ontario by offering them 75 per cent of the whole 100 per cent they are now paying? Why should we offer the 75-25 per cent basis to a province like Alberta? I was going to say that that is a province which has more money than it knows how to handle, but I will not say that. Would we offer the basis of 75-25 per cent to British Columbia? Would we offer the basis of 75-25 per cent to Quebec? They would tell you, "We will pay for our own pension". It may be that there are some provinces which will find difficulty in this matter. I am sure that the dominion government will not be lacking in their willingness to co-operate.
The only thing I want to say is this: While there are those in the opposition who have tried to pull this bill to pieces and- they did not say it was almost bad but they would not say it was almost good-to show the weaknesses of the bill, but I just take this opportunity, in my own humble way, of thanking the minister for his co-operation. He never gave me anything else. Three years ago we let the resolution go by and did not debate it. He said: You will get co-operation just as soon as the government is ready. Now the minister does not take credit for this bill; he gives the government credit. He knows that he is not the government. However, he is an extremely important part of it as far as this bill is concerned.
I am not afraid of what the future may hold for this bill. There may be considerable difficulty, but it will be a great help to those who have not had a dollar coming in. I have had letters from all over Canada, from Cape Breton to Victoria. One little girl wrote me from Cape Breton the other day to this effect: We hope it will come; I have never earned a dollar and unless Providence does something for me, I never shall earn a dollar. To any cabinet minister or any member of this house who can be a partner in giving a girl like that a pension it must give a feeling of happiness to be alive and to be a member of this house.
I just conclude by saying "Thank you, Mr. Minister; may you keep on going because in every department in which you have worked or which you have headed up you have done something that made Canada sit up and take notice". Just think of it. As to those of us who were not born in Canada but who were born some place else and are still living here, whether we were Scots, Irish, English, Italian,


Russian or something else, we are not that any more. I am not an Irishman any more; I am a Canadian. I was born in the land that I left in order to choose what I thought was a better country to come to, and I am loyal to my native land. I just thank the minister and say this to him: Keep on and may Providence be with you.
(Translation):


Raoul Poulin: Mr. Speaker, since I am one of those who have been requesting for the past few years in the house the enactment of legislation to provide help for our disabled citizens, I feel justified in participating in the present debate, even if I speak for only two or three minutes.
May I first congratulate the government on this truly social legislation. If I were one of those whose duty it is to criticize I would say that it comes a little late, but I believe I can disregard that fact and congratulate the government for finally agreeing to introduce this social legislation.
However, I must qualify my statement by making a suggestion to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) through you, Mr. Speaker. In my humble opinion, the age at which the disabled person will be entitled to receive a pension-provided the other conditions have been satisfactorily met-is a little too high, since in certain cases, at the age of 18, the anatomic lesion or functional trouble has become permanent and cannot be cured no matter what treatment is applied at that time.
Therefore, we should get the assurance that rehabilitation treatments will be given in due time, when they have the most chances of succeeding. I know that the lowering of the age of eligibility to 15, to 10, and even to the time of birth, would greatly upset the provisions of the bill now before us.
However, if it were impossible to lower the age limit provided in the bill in an absolute way, I would be tempted to make to the government, in order to remedy this situation, the following suggestion: in my opinion, this bill should provide for payments from the time of birth in certain cases, or later, in the specific cases where these children or these young people undergo medical treatment for rehabilitation, and this as long as the invalidity lasted and treatments were given. In addition to the moral support to which I referred a moment ago and which I shall not discuss further, this procedure would facilitate rehabilitation, which, I can well imagine, is the ultimate dream of the Minister of National Health and Welfare.

In any event, this suggestion would bring about savings of public funds since a relatively large number of these people who would have undergone treatment from an early age would have become normal men or women who would no longer fall within the category of those assisted by the bill under consideration at this time. And what is more important still, a number of them would have become quite normal by the time they would be coming into contact with society. They would therefore have a far better chance of normal rehabilitation.
When I say that by promoting the early rehabilitation of a large number of these invalids, the government would save money, I will not be contradicted, I am sure, by the Minister of National Health and Welfare. If I have understood his remarks properly, this afternoon, he mentioned that a number of veterans, for instance, have been put in a position where they are now once more able to lead a fairly normal life after undergoing rehabilitation. As a matter of fact, the same is true of assisted and rehabilitated blind people.
It is, in fact, that part of the minister's remarks, added to my modest medical knowledge, which have prompted me to say the few words I have just said and which I now immediately bring to a close, submitting them most sincerely to the attention of the house.
(Text):


Elmore Philpott: Mr. Speaker, I expected this to be a very happy day because it seemed to me that all parties in the house would hail with real satisfaction the introduction of this bill which marks such a great forward step in the setting up of the welfare state in Canada. However, I was astonished to hear the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I think that never before in my life, and I admit I am getting on in years now, have I heard an hon. gentleman find so much cause for gloom in something that is so obviously good. I should have thought that of all the political parties in the house that hail the bill with satisfaction the hon. members who sit opposite me would have hailed it with the most satisfaction, knowing as they do that the Liberals have some common ground with them on the question of social welfare and differ from them only with respect to that kind of socialism that has to do with the social ownership of certain public utilities.
I should have thought they would have been overjoyed at the fact that the Liberals
Disabled Persons-Allowances had introduced this new and large measure of the welfare state in Canada. But what do we find? We find that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre sees nothing but cause for unmitigated gloom in the bill that has been introduced in the house today.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Did the hon. member hear my speech?


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Elmore Philpott: I heard every word of the hon. member's speech.


An hon. Member:: What with?


Elmore Philpott: I have also heard every word of the thousand and seven hundred and sixty-six speeches he has made this year.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then you should have
profited by doing so.


Elmore Philpott: So far as some of the speeches the hon. member has made are concerned, I have agreed entirely and I have not hesitated to vote with him even against the majority on this side of the house when I thought he had said something sensible. But when he talks such sheer unmitigated poppycock as he talks today then I find that I cannot go along with him. I must say that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre reminds me of a certain character in "Pilgrim's Progress". We have so many exclergymen in the house that maybe they will be able to remind me of which one it is, but it is a character in "Pilgrim's Progress" who, no matter how good things were, always found something wrong with them. I think if the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre went to a wonderful wedding and got a great big slice of wedding cake he would go home and complain that he hurt a tooth on a pebble in one corner of the cake. I am very much afraid that on the day after he gets past St. Peter and is admitted within the pearly gates he will be complaining that although the streets are paved with gold there should also be diamonds in the gold-paved streets. Seriously, Mr. Speaker, I think that every intelligent person-


An hon. Member:: That counts you out.


Elmore Philpott: -in the Dominion of Canada will know perfectly well that what we have done today is to pass a great milestone in the social welfare set-up of the Dominion of Canada. I think if we have any great weakness it is perhaps partly due to the hon. gentlemen opposite who are such experts at
5354	HOUSE OF
Disabled Persons-Allowances crying blue ruin even about the social welfare advances that we do make. However, in my opinion every intelligent citizen in Canada will know perfectly well that we have passed a great milestone in our social welfare system. I think that the Canadian people have some weaknesses and one of them is that we do not think highly enough of our own achievements.
One of the great advantages of travelling in all the different countries of the world is that you find out that, regardless of the political persuasion of the people you meet, Canada's prestige stands high with all the nations of the world. You will find that while you may get an argument about some things you will not get an argument about the statement that Canada has the finest welfare state system of any country in the western hemisphere and is even miles ahead of our great and rich neighbour to the south, the United States. As an example of that I have in my hand a copy of The Reporter, a very reputable magazine published in the United States. It is the issue of April 27, 1954 and it contains an article by state senator Richard L. Neuberger of Portland, Oregon, on Canada's social security system for children. He gives the origin of our welfare state system in Canada dating it from the report of Professor Leonard Marsh of my own home town of Vancouver. He has this to say:
The last time millions of Americans were out of work their craving for assurance against want produced unemployment compensation, old age assistance, and our entire system of social security benefits. If such economic hardships occur again, a new phrase is likely to be heard in the land: "family allowances."
Then he goes on at great length to show how family allowances, the great reform enacted by the Liberal government headed by the late Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King, have been such a great advantage to this country, how we have set the pace for all the other countries of the western hemisphere and how far ahead of those countries we are.
I want to touch briefly on an extremely important point made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) with respect to the health grants of 1948. I think that the people of Canada have not yet realized how tremendously important those health grants are. I happen to have had experience of that from the receiving end because not so much by my own decision but more or less because pressure was put on me to take the job I became the first British Columbia president of the Canadian Arthritis and Rheumatism Society, a society which achieved a marvellous expansion right across the country. Whereas it started in


the first instance only a few years ago with no facilities, no technicians and no treatment facilities we all know that now the facilities stretch pretty well across the country.
British Columbia has set an example for the whole of Canada. We set out only a few years ago without a single dollar of funds but with the realization of a great need. We happened to have in that province a very fine woman who was the sparkplug of the whole thing. She more or less stampeded me into the job. I must say that we had great co-operation from the Department of National Health and Welfare from the very beginning. When we first started out we were almost embarrassed by the amount of help we got from the department in the way of actual facilities. That great work would never have been able to spread across the country in the way it has if that help had not been available from the very beginning to give us the physical equipment needed to carry out that particular job. As I say, if you go right down the list I think hon. members know perfectly well, I suppose, that everyone in this house, or for that matter and out of it, says silly things at times or things that we do not mean seriously-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Elmore Philpott: -and I will be the first to admit that I have done my share. But let us never forget this. Whatever else we fight about, let us not belittle the great social welfare-


Mr. Maclnnis:: Take your own advice.


Elmore Philpott: -system which we have set up in this Dominion of Canada. We have a very fine system here, of which every patriotic Canadian should well be proud.
I know quite well that this bill is not perfect. I know quite well that the social welfare system of Canada is not perfect. I am reminded of the time when the great evangelist Dwight L. Moodie remarked during one of his sermons that he had never met any perfect people. After the sermon one of the congregation came up to complain. He said that he was a perfect man, whereupon Mr. Moodie remarked "are you married?" The gentleman said, "yes". He said, "I should like to have a word with your wife". Now, there may be completely perfect people in the group opposite; there may be completely perfect social welfare measures in the group opposite. However, I feel we have not done too badly in our social welfare state system in this Dominion of Canada. I, for one, am glad to see that so far as we can possibly discover up to now there is no one in this house who is willing to stand up and say he is opposed to this system.

The great advance in our time was when family allowances were introduced into Canada. As we all know, a prominent leader, whose name I shall not mention at this time, took a very prominent position contrary to family allowances. In this analysis written by state senator Richard Neuberger, in the magazine The Reporter, he attributes one of the successes of the Liberal party over many years, and one of the causes of the nonsuccess of a certain other party that I shall not name now, to the fact that in the early days they took such a strong position on family allowances. I, for one, have never been the slightest bit taken aback by the gibes we hear from some hon. members opposite concerning silk-hatted socialists. I have never been taken aback when we were accused of setting up a welfare state. Now, I find even some Conservatives in some other countries are not the slightest bit backward about taking responsibility for setting up the welfare state.
I had the great privilege during the last general election campaign in Great Britain of being sent over in a professional capacity to write about the political campaigns. I heard six of the seven speeches made by that great leader of the Conservative party, the then Right Hon. Mr. Winston Churchill. I may say it was a wonderful experience for me to hear that grand old war horse, and to see him winning an election by making only seven speeches. Six of those speeches were just a half hour long, and I assure you, Mr. Speaker, I intend to follow his example and stay within my half hour. I shall never forget being at his nomination meeting, which they call an adoption meeting, and he was anwering questions from the floor. Someone asked him, "Is it true that the Labourites inaugurated the welfare state?" The grand old Conservative gentleman rose and said, "The welfare state, I invented it". That is the leader of the Conservative party speaking. Then he went on to give the reasons for saying that it was under his government, during wartime, that he laid the foundation for the welfare state.
However we may argue about small things that do not matter-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Elmore Philpott: -let us not belittle the really great social advances that we are making. Let the hon. gentlemen opposite who find it so difficult to give credit where credit is due acknowledge at least that the Liberal government has made a great forward step in this system of the welfare state. The other day the young Liberals of Canada presented to the great Prime Minister of this country, and the leader of this Liberal party, a very fine
Disabled Persons-Allowances bronze bust. The real memorial to the Prime Minister of this country will not be found in anything made of bronze, but it will be found in the regard of the people of Canada for the great statesman who set up the great system and made the great forward step in the welfare state, which keeps this Canada ahead of the whole western hemisphere.


Owen C. Trainor: The
remarks of the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor), Mr. Speaker, cannot have failed to add to the self-satisfaction already so adequately expressed by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) on his own account. In support of, and as a basis for, this self-satisfaction the minister told at some considerable length of the work that had been done and the results that had been achieved by other people. It is true that he did mention some few grants the government had given to these organizations, but he carefully refrained from speaking of the percentage those grants represented of the total that had been expended on these projects.
The proposal embodied in this bill is meritorious. I do not believe any hon. member could have serious objection to the principle involved. If we are going to pay pensions to individuals solely because they have reached the age of 70 years, irrespective of their earning capacity, then the payment of pensions to those permanently barred from earning a livelihood either through injury or disease should logically apply with even greater force. However, there is a consideration applicable to this latter group of which the bill as drafted takes no cognizance. It is important, of course, to see that the totally disabled person possesses sufficient financial resources to provide the ordinary necessities of life, food, clothing and shelter. But it is of even greater importance to retrain the individual to live within the limits of his possibilities and to the hilt of his capabilities.
I cannot believe that the. minister is so indifferent to the opportunities presented to him at this time as to ignore the prospect of establishing modern facilities throughout the country for the retraining and rehabilitation of the totally disabled. What sort of answer to the pitiful plea of the supposedly hopeless cripple is it to say, "We will provide you with a pittance sufficient to enable you to live in your misery for the period of your life expectancy, but we can offer you no hope of an improvement in your condition." This attitude might be justified, if there was really no hope of re-establishing those seemingly hopeless cripples.
5356	HOUSE OF
Disabled Persons-Allowances


Murdo William Martin: The hon. member has asked me a question. I certainly spent a good deal of time pointing out what we were prepared to do in the field of rehabilitation, which is associated with this measure.


Owen C. Trainor: I wish the minister would indicate to what extent, and how much money.


Murdo William Martin: I did. I guess my hon. friend was not in the house at the time, or he would not be saying this.


Owen C. Trainor: This, however, is by no means the case, as the minister is no doubt aware. Several agencies in this country and in the United States are doing excellent work in this connection. Among those that might be mentioned is the Ontario compensation board at Malton, which is achieving remarkable results in the rehabilitation of victims of industrial accidents.


Mr. While (Waterloo South):: We heard all that from the minister today.


Owen C. Trainor: But it is not the minister's department that is doing it, you will notice. The Department of Veterans Affairs, which incidentally happens to be a department of government-and I will give them full credit for this-is engaged in the treatment and retraining of paraplegics at several centres. They could do a lot more. Perhaps the best known work of this nature on this continent is being carried out at New York University, Bellevue Medical Centre, at the Institute of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation.
Dr. Howard A. Rusk of New York city, reporting in the Journal of the American Medical Association in the issue of November 1, 1952, surveys the results achieved in 208 cases discharged from this institution, taken consecutively. This report emphasizes the really remarkable results that can be achieved by a comprehensive program of retraining among a group of helpless and hopeless cripples. For instance, 97 per cent received some benefit from their rehabilitation experience. The number confined to wheelchairs and beds decreased from 67-8 per cent to 32-2 per cent of the total, and the number of bedfast included, decreased from 36-1 per cent to 11-1 per cent. The number able to do some kind of work increased from 18-3 per cent to 59-6 per cent, and the number incapable of even minimum self-care decreased from 63 per cent to 18-3 per cent. This latter figure is a true index of the economic value of the program.
From the point of view of direct measurable gain in dollars and cents-the cost of rehabilitating 49 of the patients to a stage


where they were able to engage in gainful employment was $140,000 and the annual earnings of this same group after rehabilitation totalled $94,000-not a bad return on investment. From the point of view of overall significance to the community of this type of program, I quote the conclusions of Dr. Rusk in the article referred to:
1. Rehabilitation pays dividends in dollars as well as in social returns. 2. Rehabilitation of severely disabled persons who may be potentially unemployable is no less valuable economically than rehabilitation of the less severely disabled who are potentially employable. 3. There is need for improvement and expansion of the administrative types of social service focused on development and use of resources in the environment. The hopeful finding of this study is that, with physical rehabilitation and adequate social support, the disabled person can "learn to live and work with what he has left".
Surely the government can require no more convincing evidence of the value of an organized program of rehabilitation for the disabled, both from the viewpoint of straight economic return on this investment, and from the aspect of freeing this hitherto neglected group of citizens from the shackles of enforced immobility.
I would suggest that the minister should enter into discussions with the provinces with the object of establishing at least one completely equipped and staffed institute of physical medicine and rehabilitation in each province, the cost to be distributed according to the respective financial capabilities of provincial and federal governments respectively.
In support of my contention that pensions alone are no solution to the problems of the totally disabled, may I quote a personal communication from Dr. Leona Baumgartner, commissioner of health of New York city, who has had a wealth of experience with this subject and who states:
In regard to the question about the relative advantage of allocation of funds for rehabilitation purposes, rather than pensions and custodial facilities, there is no question that diagnostic treatment and rehabilitation services when carried on by well trained personnel can do much to change the outlook and potentiality of some custodial or public assistance patients to the point of helping them become independent, useful, self-supporting and productive members of society. It is undoubtedly true that such intensive measures will not be equally effective for all patients. However, until our scientific knowledge develops more, some custodial facilities and pensions will still be required, but perhaps less so than are now used as more and better rehabilitation services are developed.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, the minister may plead that this is a provincial responsibility, which is undoubtedly true, but the minister

has in the past shown himself as not without aptitude in circumventing such constitutional restrictions. Let him make use of his old device of matching grants in aid.
Mr. Speaker, there is no question of the existence of this problem in Canada, and likewise no question of the inadequacy of present machinery to deal with it effectively. In my opinion, the minister would be recreant to his responsibilities did he not seize the opportunity presented by this proposed legislation to see to it that a really comprehensive program of rehabilitation is made available on a nation-wide basis for our totally disabled citizens. It would be a simple matter to make suitable provision to this end in the proposed legislation. The minister indicates that he has already made it in other legislation, with which I am not familiar. I hope that that is a fact. The challenge is to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Will he meet it?
If I thought there was any virtue in repetition and reiteration, I would probably weary the house with appeals to the government and the minister to widen the scope of this legislation in order to provide Canada with thoroughly modern, comprehensive rehabilitation facilities.
A rapidly increasing accumulation of experience in the United States proves that rehabilitation is economically feasible, but equally important that it is an economic necessity, and it gets worse and worse as our population gets older and older. The federal government of the United States recognizes this fact and gives active financial support to state and municipal governments towards the provision of facilities. Contrast this enlightened recognition of reality with the meagre, almost infinitesimal assistance provided to the provinces and municipalities by our federal government.
In case any hon. member is not impressed by the very substantial economic value to the nation of the program which I am advocating, I would like to put on the record some figures from the American experience which I would hope might impress the minister, and which I am certain are bound to impress his colleague the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott). I shall do this by quoting from an article entitled "The Economic Values of Rehabilitation" by McCoy, Rusk and Koch in the January 1954 number of the New York State Journal of Medicine:
To sharpen our focus on these values, let us examine the figures for the year 1952. The 88 state divisions of vocational rehabilitation and agencies for the blind in that year gave some kind of rehabilitation service to more than 228,000 disabled individuals. In the same period they rehabilitated successfully 63,632 men and women. The entire
Disabled Persons-Allowances
cost of operation of the state-federal program was about $32 million. It is estimated that the annual earnings of the 63,632 men and women successfully rehabilitated will be in excess of $115,420,000. It is further estimated that in the first year after their rehabilitation they will pay in federal income tax from their earnings approximately $10,378,000 and that during their remaining working life they will pay about $270 million in federal income taxes! At this rate we are receiving from the successfully rehabilitated people $12 in federal income tax for each $1 of federal money spent.
In the light of evidence such as this I submit that the question is not whether or not Canada can afford a program of rehabilitation, but rather whether Canada can afford not to embark on such a program.


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to take part in this debate. I believe that in debates of this kind, particularly at this time of the session, the situation would be fairly met by one speaker from each party speaking for his party in regard to the bill; and then in committee anyone who had anything further to say could say it there. But I cannot understand the kind of speech that we heard here this evening from the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Philpott). Surely his many friends in Vancouver will feel terribly disappointed with that speech. It was not even a correct speech.
I was not able to be in the house all the time when the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) spoke, but I had occasion to leave the committee where I was to come into the house while he was speaking. As he began to speak his first words were: "We welcome this measure." He went further and said that when the bill went into committee we might have some criticism to make, but he said: "Do not let anyone think that because of that criticism we are not welcoming this bill." I do not understand why the hon. member for Vancouver South is particularly anxious to attack this party whenever he rises to his feet. Has he forgotten that when in the early days the party was on the up and up he himself became a member of it, and was nominated as one of its candidates? But realizing that in that way lay a lot of hard work and not very much in the way of anything else, he decided to leave it. Since that time until he came here he has run the whole gamut, advocating the election of every creed from communists to Conservatives. As a matter of fact, he advocated my own election on one occasion and he ran against a candidate of the Liberal party in 1949 as an independent. I do not know what sort of independent he might be, but I do know what sort of member he is now, and I do say that he must be a great

Disabled Persons-Allowances disappointment to the many people who believed that here they had something different.


Mr. Bennett:: It is too bad you do not have more like him over there.


Angus MacInnis: Thank God we have not! Many faults are to be found with members on this side of the house, as there are with members on that side, but we mostly know whether we are standing on our feet or on our heads, but the hon. gentleman does not.
Yesterday we were discussing another matter relating to old age pensions, and when the hon. gentleman noticed that a vote was in the offing he left the house in great haste.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Shame!


Angus MacInnis: That is not what the people of Vancouver expect of him. I do not wish to say anything more along that line. I could and may if I am tempted, but I shall leave it at that.
With respect to the matter of bringing politics into this debate, the minister did that very early in the game. He had not gone far in his speech when he brought politics into the discussion by drawing attention to those who had helped to bring this measure to its present stage. They were all on that side of the house. Surely the minister knows better than that. Surely he knows there are some over here. Surely he knows the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Blair) has advocated these things in the house. As a matter of fact, he should remember that I myself brought in resolutions in regard to matters of this kind; I think it was in the second session of 1949 that I proposed a resolution.
He will remember this one after I tell him a little incident about it. My resolution was to inaugurate in Canada, with the assistance of the provinces, a system of social welfare that would take care of every individual who needed care through no fault of his own. The minister pointed out to me at that time that this sort of thing might happen. He said it was dangerous to do things of that kind because people might mutilate themselves in order to take advantage of social benefits. He said that a man might cut off both his hands in order to get benefits under the legislation that my hon. friend is advocating, and surely this parliament would not condone legislation of that kind. Well, this is legislation for the totally disabled, and perhaps somebody may be so keen to come under it that he may cut off both his hands.


An hon. Member:: For $40 a month?


Angus MacInnis: The fact of the matter is that if anyone should do that we would look after him even without this legislation. Let


it be noted that in our legislation and in our workmen's compensation laws the individual's own negligence in contributing to an accident is not considered a bar to his receiving compensation. But that is the kind of nonsense we hear. I am accustomed to hearing ministers on the other side of the house, when they are introducing bills, giving credit to those who have helped to bring the measure about, forgetting others. I remember one bill a few years ago dealing with the matter of discrimination. They went over the whole field. 1 thought I had done a little bit along that line myself; I was forgotten. However, I can stand that sort of thing, if they can.
In regard to this measure, let me put myself on record early. I welcome this bill. Not only that, but I wrote an article for a couple of papers in my riding this morning and I referred to the bill that is now before us as another link in the chain of our many social services. Just to say that I welcome this bill is not to say that it is perfect. Even the hon. member for Vancouver South admitted that it was not perfect; but I suppose he has a dispensation to say that sort of thing which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has not. Possibly we can find some way of getting that sort of dispensation for the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Not from over there, please.


Angus MacInnis: It is time we stopped playing with these things.


Murdo William Martin: Hear, hear.


Angus MacInnis: They are too important. The minister says "Hear, hear". But I hope he will remember the next time when he is thinking of those who helped create the atmosphere in which these things can be done he will not forget the people whose politics differ from his own. That is not Christian, and my hon. friend would like to be called Christian.


Murdo William Martin: I fully agree.


Angus MacInnis: It is not ethical either, and my hon. friend would like to act in an ethical manner. As I said, I did not intend to take up the time of the house at this stage in the session to speak on this bill, but I shall watch it if I have the opportunity as it goes through the committee, and if there are any suggestions I can make to improve it, or any criticisms I feel should be made, I shall make them.
My hon. friend, the member for Vancouver South, referred to Sir Winston Churchill. I am reminded of an observation made by another great Churchill, Sir Winston's father.

He said that it an opposition member ever had a good word to say for the government he should say it with a kick instead of a pat.
Now, I would not go that far. As a matter of fact, the praise which members of the government receive from this side of the house becomes a little embarrassing at times, and probably I have engaged in it myself. But then there were persons on the ministerial benches of whom I thought very highly, and because I thought very highly of them I did not want to stint a word of praise just because they sat on the opposite side to me and because their politics differed from mine. "A man's a man for a' that."


Mr. F. T. Fairey (Victoria, B.C.):: Mr. Speaker, I hope that what I shall have to say will to some extent pour oil on troubled waters, and having had an experience once today I shall be very careful that I say nothing which can be misinterpreted. Something has been said in criticism of the minister for taking unto this government, to himself, and some hon. members on this side of the house, a certain amount of credit for introducing the bill now under discussion. I think it is true to say that at the same time the minister did give credit to other hon. members situated in other parts of the house. No one would ever contend that the measures we introduce do not sometimes have their inspiration from hon. members on the opposite side of the house. In fact, it would be a tragedy if that were not so.
Still, Mr. Speaker, I do rise with a good deal of satisfaction to support the measure which is going to provide allowances for disabled persons. This measure, completing, as I think it does, a broad pattern of social legislation, is one which all hon. members of this house, and indeed all the people of Canada whom we represent, will approve and applaud. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) is to be congratulated I think, as the responsible minister of this government, on the completion of the over-all plan. It must give him and his officials great satisfaction to realize that all classes of our people who have a legitimate claim upon the heart and purse of this country are now taken care of.
It is not without value to note that this government, chiefly through this department and the Department of Veterans Affairs, provides for assistance to the young through family allowances, and the old through old age security and old age assistance, leaving the middle group, the young and the vigorous, to fend for themselves and, in addition, to help bear the burdens of those in other groups.
Disabled Persons-Allowances
The blind and the war veterans, being special groups, are treated as such, leaving only those who suffer a disability not attributable either to blindness, war service, or industrial accident. It is well to note the similarity in the measure of assistance to be given. For the most part, the allowances are the same in amount, and all require some form of means test. In my opinion, this is as it should be. Note also that allowances are to be paid for total and permanent disability. Herein lies the chief difficulty. Mention has already been made by other speakers of this problem and I will not develop it further, as I intended to do, because I have confidence in the skill and sympathetic attitude of the minister and his very competent officials to arrive at a satisfactory and reasonable interpretation of what this parliament means by "permanent disability".
Here, Mr. Speaker, I leave the field of administration and finance to venture into the field of the theory of social welfare. Is this a good measure? What is the chief aim of measures of this kind? Is it to rid ourselves of the uncomfortable feeling that others of our people suffer, chiefly through no fault of their own? Do we achieve this by the payment of a sum of money which will assist them to exist?
I have sufficient knowledge and faith in the sense of responsibility of our people and this parliament to reject this as a complete answer, and to make the claim that our ultimate aim is to build up the physical and emotional state of each of these unfortunate people so that they can become able and willing contributors to the society of which they are members.
It would be wrong simply to pension people off. All the measures sponsored by this government in this field are measures of assistance. None are intended to be more than that. To deprive a person of the incentive to strive for himself is morally wrong and does not achieve the purpose which is set before us. For one thing, the amount of assistance is never enough. The more nearly the amount of assistance is to a subsistence level the more dependent does the recipient become and the less likely is he or she to put forth that effort which contributes to healthful living.
While I approve, Mr. Speaker, a reasonable and even a generous measure of assistance tc those who cannot under any circumstances fend for themselves, I do emphasize the wisdom of keeping ever before us the possibility of rehabilitation. There are degrees of disability. No person is without some form of disability and, indeed, there are some
5360	HOUSE OF
Disabled Persons-Allowances inspiring stories which may be told of men and women under a disability, which most of us would consider total and permanent, rising to great heights of achievement and making a lasting contribution to society.
As a matter of fact, I have just completed reading a book recounting the adventures of Wing Commander Douglas Bader. Hon. members will recall that this young officer lost both legs in a flying accident. Because of his indomitable spirit and contempt for defeat he insisted on remaining in the Royal Air Force where he became one of the great fighter pilots of the second world war. I need not mention that wonderful woman, Helen Keller, to emphasize the point I am trying to make that most of these people who suffer disabilities can, with the proper kind of training and assistance, be helped to a better life.
For this reason, Mr. Speaker, it is my opinion that this act should be considered in relation to an act we passed a few days ago called the Vocational Training Co-ordination Act. When I spoke to the committee concerning the Vocational Training Co-ordination Act on March 3 of this year I stated that in my opinion it was one of the most forwardlooking pieces of legislation to come before the house at this session. I did so because the only really important section of that amending act was the introduction of the idea of a training program for the physically handicapped. It is to be known as schedule R. This too is a measure to be undertaken in co-operation with the provinces.
I would remind hon. members, Mr. Speaker, that training for physically disabled persons has been going on for about four years under a scheme sponsored by the Department of Labour with the blessing of the Department of National Health and Welfare. During this time under a different schedule-schedule M it was called-approximately 500 persons suffering various disabilities have been trained and have been found suitable and adequate employment. I am informed that over 80 per cent of those trained in that special group are satisfactorily rehabilitated.
From this small sampling our minds turn to the possibilities in a scheme of this kind. Not only will the public purse be saved tremendous sums which would otherwise be spent without apparent results, but there is reason to hope that thousands of our citizens can, by a combination of these two measures, be restored to participation and partnership in the business of developing this great country of ours.
This is a measure, Mr. Speaker, which I am sure-because it appeals to the best in our nature-will meet with approval in all
[Mr. Falrey.l

sections of the country and in all parts of this house. It will demand on our part sympathetic understanding of the difficulties of those who are called upon to administer it. From their early efforts we shall learn much. I have no doubt that from time to time improvements will suggest themselves and that these will then receive the approval of this house.


Mr. J. W. Noseworthy (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) presented the considered opinion of this group with regard to this particular bill. Notwithstanding the tirade levelled against us by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Philpott), we are still of the opinion that the improvements we suggested would make this bill a better one, and one which would be more acceptable and of greater assistance to the 25,000 or
30.000	people who will receive benefits from it.
As already indicated, we feel that it is much more logical to pattern this bill after the Blind Persons Act and to divide the cost on a 75-25 per cent basis instead of on a 50-50 basis than to pattern it after the Old Age Assistance Act. An additional $3 or $4 million would enable the federal government to pay 75 per cent of the cost of these benefits. I greatly doubt whether the minister would have had any difficulty whatever in getting the provinces to agree to that division. With that agreement other benefits could have been added to the act.
We regret the limitation on income. We have opposed the means test as it applies to the Blind Persons Act and to the Old Age Assistance Act and we oppose it as it applies to this particular act. I am not sure that the
25.000	or 30,000 people in this country who will be directly affected by this bill will find so much occasion to praise it as did the hon. member for Vancouver South.
It is to be regretted that politics should have been brought into the debate on a measure of this kind as was done during this evening's debate. Knowing the minister as I do and knowing him to be a great humanitarian I feel that he did himself an injustice by injecting into his introduction of this bill so much emphasis on the political aspect of it and by underestimating the humanitarian side of this particular issue. Notwithstanding that criticism I personally should like to congratulate the minister on having been able to sell even this package of goods to the treasury board. I know, as I think do other hon. members in this house, that if the minister had had his way this

measure would have been introduced long ago and that this measure would be an even better one than it is now.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I just indicate for the record, as I have already indicated or as I have tried to indicate today, that I am not the one in the government who should have the praise which my hon. friend is now extending to me. There was no need for pressing the treasury. The government as a whole, on the suggestion of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), readily adopted the proposal which he made.


Joseph William Noseworthy: The minister's modesty simply overwhelms me.


Edmund Davie Fulton: And it is most unusual.


Joseph William Noseworthy: I want to comment on the reference made by the minister to the work which his department has initiated for the rehabilitation of these crippled and disabled people. I should like to pay a special compliment to the work of the Department of Veterans Affairs at Sunnybrook hospital. I have had the opportunity of being in close touch with the work of that department as it applies to many veterans. They have certainly done a marvellous job. I am confident that there is as yet no comparable work being done in the way of rehabilitation by any other department. Anything that the Department of National Health and Welfare or any other department of government can learn from the good work which has been done by the Department of Veterans Affairs in the matter of rehabilitation will be all to the good. I sincerely trust that the minister will seek-as I know he will-to secure as liberal a definition as possible of "totally and permanently disabled".
In this chamber this afternoon reference was made to the Ontario act and to the definition used in that act. I have had considerable experience with that act. I have known a number of people, either permanently or totally disabled, who were unable to secure any benefits from that legislation.	Even	though doctors	certifiedthat they were incurable, that their disease was permanent, as long as they were not dependent	upon	someone	else	for the
ordinary daily routine of life they were unable to get benefits. I certainly hope that under this act we can secure a definition of totally and permanently disabled that is more liberal than the one used in the Ontario legislation at the present time.
As I say, we shall support the bill. There are 25,000	or 30,000 people	across Canadawho have	been	waiting a	long	time for
something of this nature. They will hail it with a great deal of delight. Even though 83276-339
Disabled Persons-Allowances there is a limitation on the income they may earn in addition to their $40, even though the $40 will provide them with a very bare subsistence, even though there is a gap between the 16-year-olds and the 18-year-olds,
25,000	to 30,000 people will be grateful that parliament is passing this measure. That same 25,000 or 30,000 people will look forward to the day when the Liberal government or some other government will bring about the improvements in the legislation that we in this group have suggested.


Mr. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a brief contribution to the discussion this evening largely arising out of certain remarks that have been made during the past hour or so. I think the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Maclnnis) made an excellent contribution to the debate this evening in helping to bring it back into focus again. It more or less got off the track to a certain extent following the contribution of the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Philpott).
In listening to various comments earlier in the discussion with respect to the introduction of disability pensions for the totally disabled, it seemed to me that there was general approval on all sides of the house. The sentiment was also expressed in all quarters of the house that the measure was long overdue. Since I became a member of the House of Commons one of the social welfare topics that has been discussed most frequently in various debates has been the pressing need to consider the special problem of our totally and permanently disabled citizens. At the time these discussions took place I wondered why the federal government had not taken action earlier.
As has already been indicated, this area has been pioneered by municipalities, provincial governments and voluntary groups such as the Canadian National Institute for the Blind. So far as I can see, what is happening now with the introduction of this measure is that the federal government is at long last acknowledging some financial responsibility. This is only as it should be. We know that the central government has tended to reserve to itself the more lucrative tax fields. Such being the case, it is only right that the dominion government should at this time accept some financial responsibility and come to the aid of the municipalities, the provincial governments and the voluntary groups who have had to cope with the challenge of this special social welfare problem. Somebody has been looking after these people. It goes without saying that the totally disabled have not been neglected completely. I know from personal experience that where no other
5362	HOUSE OF
Disabled Persons-Allowances means of financial support have been available it has fallen upon municipal governments to provide from their inadequate tax resources a bare minimum of existence for these unfortunate people.
As the result of federal action in co-operation with the provincial governments the whole matter will now be co-ordinated and placed on a much sounder basis. I was interested in the interpretation that the hon. member for Vancouver South placed upon this measure. He regarded it as another milestone along the road to the welfare state. I am inclined to suggest that his social philosophy is somewhat out of date because, while it is true that during the early thirties it was accepted somewhat uncritically that the state should meet basic welfare needs, in more recent years there has been a considerable change in that viewpoint. Serious thinkers in the field have now come to the conclusion that the state cannot meet the demands of social welfare.
The state is a cold, remote governing body that certainly cannot get down to the intimate levels necessary to provide in the nation an adequate atmosphere of social welfare and social security. Therefore I do not regard the measure as another step forward to the mythical social welfare state. I regard it as merely a common-sense approach to a problem that has been with us from time immemorial, a problem that those with inadequate financial resources have attempted to cope with as best they could. All that the federal government is doing is opening its bountiful treasury and providing some financial assistance to meet a situation of real distress.
As 1 see it, that is all that the federal government can do with respect to meeting the demands of social welfare in the country. In the final analysis social welfare is the concern of the basic social institutions. The government is helpless if the family, the school and the church are not performing their functions. It is on that level that the real social needs are met, and modern social science is recognizing that principle. If this legislation is going to achieve the desired result in meeting the pressing demands of the totally disabled in an adequate way, it will depend upon the co-operation of the families.
The families still have responsibilities for the totally disabled. True enough, they will receive some financial assistance. As has been pointed out by every speaker, it would also depend upon the full co-operation of our technical schools, our vocational training schools, who are moving forward to embrace more adequate vocational rehabilitation programs. As has been pointed out, if we


are going to really meet the situation the two must go hand in hand, the financial provision must work very closely with adequate rehabilitation services.
Every rehabilitation case has to be measured on its own merits, has to be thoroughly evaluated by rehabilitation counsellors. If you try the shotgun approach to the problem and spread certain moneys over a large area without any attempt to meet the individual need then, of course, the second state is worse than the first. If we are really going to meet the basic social welfare need, it will depend upon successful operation and functioning of these basic social institutions. Included in the group, of course, are the local community groups or neighbourhood groups. No one can feel he is surrounded by an atmosphere of social security unless he is living in a situation that provides this intimate person-to-person relationship, and that cannot be provided from a remote set-up but by the intimate, warm and personal contact of your local neighbourhood groups.
I feel, Mr. Speaker, that this measure will assist to a considerable extent in making it possible for these basic social institutions, these local groups, to deal with the problem with which they have already been trying to cope-with inadequate financial resources. Now that they have this assistance we should see a real improvement in meeting this problem.


Mr. W. H. McMillan (Welland):: In rising to support this bill, Mr. Speaker, I want to pay tribute to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) who late last summer announced a decision to help these unfortunate Canadians who are totally and permanently disabled. This decision on the part of the Prime Minister indicates to me his great humanitarianism. I should like to congratulate the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) for bringing forward this legislation at this time. In spite of what the opposition has said about the bill he should get a great deal of satisfaction from bringing forward this further measure of social security. The fact remains that no matter who tries to take credit for this bill, he introduced it.
I may say that I have had many representations from the totally and permanently disabled. I have seen a number of them in my practice. It is sad to see these people dependent on other people for a livelihood. From now on they will get some help, will have some income and will not be so dependent upon relatives, agencies or people in the neighbourhood. Many of us heard an excellent lecture a week ago on anterior poliomyelitis, commonly known as infantile paralysis,

as one of the causes of permanent disability. It is not as frequent as some other causes. In fact the total number of cases of permanent disability is a very small percentage of the total number of cases. It is true that many have residual paralysis, and they may have it for a long time or may have it for a lifetime. They get some relief through improvement and some relief from mechanical means.
The minister, I believe, mentioned some of the diseases causing permanent and total disability. He mentioned disseminated sclerosis, progressive muscular atrophy, rheumatoid arthritis. We have also different congenital anomalies and one very common cause of which we are getting a number of cases in recent years is the result of highway accidents. Many victims receive severe brain and spinal cord injuries that are irreparable. We think it is up to the provinces to cut down accidents on the highways, and some of the provinces are doing a great deal in this respect. Many of these people are in hospitals for months, even years. Some of them are an expense to the municipalities and the provinces concerned.
These pensions are being awarded on a matching basis between the federal government and the provinces. I feel it is well that is so because the question of permanent disability is linked with rehabilitation, which is a joint responsibility of the federal and provincial governments. I agree with the minister and the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Blair) that it will be difficult to get a proper definition for permanent and total disability. With the modem advances in therapy and in rehabilitation, a person who ten years ago might have been considered totally and permanently disabled might not be considered so today. I would hope that in the interpretation of this act generous consideration will be given so that all deserving cases will get a pension.


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo):: I had not
intended to take part in this debate, Mr. Speaker, but as a British Columbian I feel I have to do so after having listened to the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Philpott). I have observed with considerable interest, in fact great interest, ever since I came here last November, the unrelieved relish that the hon. member displays for the taste of the polish on the shoes of the Liberal ministry. But today, I think he exceeded himself. If the Minister of
National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin)______
I was going to say displayed but of course that would not be displaying-had even simulated a certain modest diffidence, none of this would have occurred. Naturally, when he strides before the house as the harbinger 83276-3391
Disabled Persons-Allowances of all good things to the people of Canada, when he takes all the credit for this very mediocre piece of legislation, when he denies credit to those who were advocating it while he was opposing it, then naturally he is going to get a kick-back. Naturally, those who feel that this is a great piece of unfairness are going to be rather savage in their return.
Then, of course, that brings us to the position of that great champion of the Liberal party, the hon. member for Vancouver South. I am not going to recite, as I could do, all the various turns and changes of this political chameleon. I remember, however, an occasion when in his column he defended the election of a very well known communist in British Columbia, the leader of the Labour-Progressive party, Nigel Morgan. The hon. member in his column advocated that this gentleman should be elected to the legislature.
I also recall that there was a time when he was going to be barred from the radio because of his subversive utterances. And who was it who came to his rescue? Well, curiously enough-and most misguidedly now, it appears-it was the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) who insisted that the hon. gentleman who is now the representative in this House of Commons for Vancouver South should be accorded freedom of speech, and even after today I am sure that the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, and all those who sit with him, would still demand that the hon. member for Vancouver South should have complete freedom of speech-even though he uses that freedom in such a strange way.


An hon. Member:: But look what he does for us.


Colin Cameron: Yes, definitely, he does a lot for us. But when we are told that we should greet today as a day of great joy because, after incessant prodding by people outside the Liberal party, and after incessant prodding from organizations all over Canada, the government finally and reluctantly brings in a most inadequate measure to deal with the present social problem; I say that when the hon. member for Vancouver South suggests that we should greet this even with loud hosannas in this day and age, then I begin to wonder about this freedom of speech, and whether it should not be coupled with a certain measure of intelligence. I have heard the hon. gentleman reach a number of milestones on the way to the new Jerusalem since I came here to the House of Commons. Sometimes I think it is another

Disabled Persons-Allowances kind of milestone, one we are told in the Scriptures which paved the road to other places.
' This measure has been introduced, and the : party to which I belong is prepared to support it. However it is not prepared to turn handsprings of delight. It is not prepared to pretend that this is an adequate measure. It is not prepared to pretend that it is an indication of public-spiritedness on the part of the government; because it is very obvious that all that has happened here today is what has happened time and again since this very party assumed power in Canada; when pressure becomes irresistible, then finally they move. When they move they demand tremendous credit and accolades for having moved in the face of irresistible pressure. I suppose we are always going to have that sort of thing here, because we have in the party across the way a curious heterogeneous mixture. In fact, when I was listening to the hon. member for Vancouver South I was reminded of the story of the chameleon that was placed on a piece of tartan, and that blew up and bust. Certainly the Liberal party today represents a strange hodge-podge. It has at least a checkerboard effect that may well result in that unhappy end for the hon. member for Vancouver South.
We have here a bill about which we know very little. All we have before us is an outline of a bill. We do not know the most important aspect of this legislation. We do not know what is going to be the interpretation of the term "totally disabled", because that will be decided by regulation. Presumably it will be decided by that great and good cabinet, possibly speaking through the mouth of an inspired Minister of National Health and Welfare.
We do not know yet who in Canada will be covered by this legislation. All we know is that whoever they are they will be covered inadequately, after a long period of waiting, in which organizations and people throughout Canada have been appealing in the past to this government to take some action.


Mr. Charles Cannon (Iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, I shall not speak at length on this measure for the very good reason that I have already expressed my opinion on several occasions in the House of Commons as to the necessity for having pensions for -disabled persons. Secondly, I do not think at this stage of the session we should have long debates. I believe they should be avoided if possible.
However I cannot let this opportunity pass to hail this great forward step in our program of social security. I was listening to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) a little while ago when he said

that he sat on the joint committee of the House of Commons and the Senate which looked into this matter of social security in the year 1950. I sat with the hon. member on that committee, and at that time we worked in harmony. Therefore I am surprised by the lack of harmony in this debate.
I was sure our friends on the other side of the house, particularly hon. members in the C.C.F., would congratulate the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) upon the legislation he has introduced, and would support it unstintingly. But there is not even harmony among members of the C.C.F. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said, "We welcome this legislation." That was the first speech for that party made in this debate. But the reaction of that party to this legislation has been deteriorating throughout the debate, to the point where we now hear the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Cameron) describing the legislation as very inadequate and very mediocre.
I suggest that those in the opposition who reproach members on this side of the house for injecting politics into the debate should look to their own side before throwing reproaches like that at this side. Because when I hear members in the opposition describing this legislation as very mediocre, then they are certainly playing politics in a very important matter, a matter which is very important to the people of Canada, and a matter with which no one should play politics.


Colin Cameron: Would the hon. member permit a question? Would he say that this legislation is adequate?


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: I would say that it is certainly adequate under the circumstances-and that is the next point I will come to. I agree with the opposition that it will be important to define clearly what is meant by total disability. I realize there will be certain difficulty raised for members of parliament who will have to cope with constituents who claim that they are totally disabled when, in fact, they may not be completely covered by the definition which will be given.
But I do say in all sincerity that under the circumstances, when we consider the very heavy burden our country has to carry in taxes for national defence, and when we consider the fact that we have had to support the Korean war, and that nearly half our budget is turned over for national defence, we must be convinced that this is adequate legislation, indeed. And we should be very proud of it. Sincere congratulations are due the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent)

and the Minister of National Health and Welfare for having introduced this legislation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Do I understand the hon. member is prepared to move the adjournment of the debate, or has he completed his speech?


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: I had practically finished.


Mr. Speaker:: Would hon. members consent to his carrying on for a minute or so?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: No.


Stanley Howard Knowles: One minute.


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: One minute-and I thank the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre for giving me a minute. It is very generous of him, and I shall try to finish my remarks in that time. Let me, in concluding, congratulate the minister and tell him that all fair-minded members in the House of Commons will support his legislation wholeheartedly.


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


Paul Joseph James Martin: Could we not have second reading tonight? I do not think there are more speakers.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I move the adjournment of the debate.
On motion of Mr. Fulton the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Green:: May we have the business for tomorrow?


Mr. Harris:: If I may be permitted to speak from this side of the house, tomorrow we shall begin with the amendments to the Bank of Canada Act, amendments to the act with respect to the savings banks of the province of Quebec; second reading of the bill with respect to the superannuation of government employees transferred to crown corporations; an act with respect to war service grants and second reading of Bill No. 393, to amend the Atomic Energy Control Act and second reading of Bill No. 460, to amend the International Rapids Power Development Act.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, June 2, 1954