1954-06-19

NATIONAL HOUSING ACT


Mr. Ellis:: 1.	How many loans have been approved by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in Regina, under the new National Housing Act as of June 1, 1954?
2.	How is the lending value on a house established (a) when the house is built for speculative sale to the general public: (b) when the house is built as a result of a contract entered into by the home purchaser and contractor?
3.	Does Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation exercise any control over prices charged by builders for homes financed under the National Housing Act?
4.	Are chartered banks permitted to require a deposit of from $300 to $400 over and above the down payment before approving loans for home construction under the National Housing Act?


Mr. Bourgei:: 1.	Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation have given undertakings to insure 24 loans.
2.	(a) The lending value on a house including land is established by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation after appraisal of the applicant's plan, specifications and the location of the proposed structure. The rates used in the appraisal are computed for each branch office and are based on a fair cost for the area.
(b) Same as for (a).
3.	The maximum selling price for houses built by builders for sale and financed under the National Housing Act is determined by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and is generally in the same amount as the lending value. The amount of the loan is conditional upon the sale of the house to a home purchaser at a price not in excess of the maximum selling price so determined. If the house is sold by the builder at a price exceeding the determined selling price, the amount of the loan is reduced to not more than 90 per cent of the approved loan.
4.	Under the National Housing Act an approved lender is not restricted from taking additional security. Where the applicant is building his own house, by contract or otherwise, it is the policy of most approved lenders to require that the applicants have cash or its equivalent available in excess of the difference between the estimated cost
and the mortgage loan, to meet the contingency that most houses cost more than home owners expect. The amounts of this requirement vary and are determined between the borrower and the approved lender.



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN


Mr. Dinsdale:: For the period 1947 to the end of 1953:
1.	What is the dollar value of total new Investment in manufacturing in Canada, and what percentage of this in each of the provinces?
2.	How many new manufacturing plants have been established, and what percentage of these was established in each of the provinces?
3.	How many new jobs have been created in manufacturing in Canada and what percentage of these jobs have been created in each of the provinces?
4.	What is the total dollar value of production from Canadian manufacturing industries, and what is the percentage of this production figure in each of the provinces?


Mr. Howe (Pori Arthur):: Return tabled. NATURAL GAS



DECISION OF FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION AGAINST EXPORT TO NORTHWESTERN STATES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: Could the Minister of Trade and Commerce give the house any information concerning the decision of the United States federal power commission announced yesterday which appears to make it impossible for Canada to export natural gas to the northwestern states? I have in mind particularly whether the government has given consideration to making any protest to the United States government in view of the fact that the decision seems to be based in part at least on broad government policy, and also whether this need necessarily prevent Peace river gas being supplied to British Columbia?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The ruling of the federal power commission has been brought down denying the application of Westcoast Transmission Company Limited to supply gas to the Pacific coast states. I suppose the finding of the commission is comparable to a finding of the board of transport commissioners in

Inquiries of the Ministry Canada, namely, it represents a judicial decision. I hardly think a protest by this government would be effective. I have not seen the judgment but I am told that the chairman of the commission made a report in which he dissented in part from the finding and suggested that Canada apply for permission to export gas to the inland empire, that is the area around Spokane. I have not read the report, but I was informed of that fact by one of my officials.
The government of Canada did everything possible to facilitate the application. Any suggestion from the company that government action would help was followed by action on the part of the government. I myself called on the federal power commission in the hope that I could resolve any doubts they may have had about the Canadian position. I had a very satisfactory interview with the full commission.
Answering the second part of the question, there is nothing to prevent gas being transmitted to Trail and Vancouver except the question whether the volume of gas will be sufficient to allow the gas to be delivered at a price that will be interesting to the purchasers.


Mr. Herridge:: I was very interested in the minister's explanation. In view of the great need for co-operation between Canada and the United States in the development of the resources of northwestern America, particularly the resources of the Columbia river, can the minister say whether the federal power commission gave any consideration to the necessity for this very close co-operation between the two countries when dealing with this application?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I suppose the doubt expressed by the federal power commission about the wisdom of having a source of supply outside their own country is similar to doubts I have heard expressed in the House of Commons about the wisdom of bringing gas to Toronto from Buffalo. Such doubts are somewhat natural. I was hoping that the geographical and other facts of the situation would overcome that natural feeling. Apparently they did not. However, the matter will be explored and if there is anything the government can do to improve the situation I can assure you that it will be done.


Mr. Fulton:: May I ask the minister if he would feel himself in a position to comment on the likelihood or possibility of some tie-up being made of the Pacific Northwest Company's pipe line with Westcoast Transmission so that even though the pipe line in the Pacific northwestern states was that of the Pacific Northwest Company, Westcoast's 

line might bring gas down from the Peace river through British Columbia to supplement it in the feeding of that market, which would of course have tremendous advantage for us in the interior of British Columbia?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That would seem to me to be a possibility, but it is a matter for private negotiations. As I read the newspaper statement, the decision is based on the fact that the federal power commission did not like to make a foreign source of supply the sole source of gas for the area. Possibly, if the area has a domestic supply, that can be supplemented later by a supply from Canada. Obviously, that is a matter for private negotiations.


Edmund Davie Fulton: But there is no difficulty in the way from this end?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: May I
ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce? I was puzzled by what he said about the decision being a judicial one. Would he add a word of explanation to that? It would seem to me as if, in effect, although superficially it is different, it is a matter of trade policy. Does the minister not agree with that?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The federal power commission is a court, having the jurisdiction of a court, just as the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada is a court, having the powers of a court. I understand that the findings of the federal power commission represent a judicial decision just as the findings of the board of transport commissioners do. I believe the two are on exactly the same footing.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Would it not be necessary, going behind that, for the federal power commission to be reaching a conclusion on instructions received from the government as a matter of policy?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I cannot say as to that; that is a matter within the United States. Certainly I think that we in Canada could not influence the situation.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, has the Secretary of State for External Affairs any comments to make on the situation in Guatemala? Has the government been able to ascertain whether

it is a civil war or invasion? Has the government any information as to the source of the arms being used by the so-called invaders?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo):: I should like to ask a question supplementary to the one asked by my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. Has the government made any inquiries with regard to the situation in Guatemala?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are trying to find out what is happening.
[Later:~\


GENEVA CONFERENCE-INQUIRY AS TO CANADIAN DELEGATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, supplementary to a question and answer of yesterday. Is Mr. Ronning still at Geneva, and if not have we a Canadian delegation there? If so, who is heading it now?


Lester Bowles Pearson: On the termination of the Korean talks at Geneva, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ronning, who was the acting head of the delegation, returned to his post as Canadian minister to Norway. We have a delegation remaining in Geneva to follow the Indochina talks, and that is headed by Mr. John Holmes, assistant under-secretary of state for external affairs.


INQUIRY FOR RETURN
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. Charlion (Brani-Haldimand):: May
I direct a question to the Postmaster General? On May 19 a motion for papers standing in my name was passed, and I wonder when I could get a return of those papers?


Hon. Alcide Cote (Postmaster General):: shall be glad to investigate the matter and produce the report as soon as possible.


INTERNATIONAL WHEAT AGREEMENT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of press reports from the 47-nation
Inquiries of the Ministry conference now taking place in London in relation to the international wheat agreement that representatives of the importing countries are seeking a new agreement and that Canadian representatives are understood to express approval of the proposal, can the minister inform the house about the present status of those negotiations?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The meeting of the international wheat agreement countries, Mr. Speaker, is purely a routine meeting. I understand, though I have not been officially advised, that at the meeting a proposal was made that discussions take place in the near future about a further agreement; that is an agreement to succeed the present agreement when it expires within two years. The thought has been expressed that the new agreement might replace the last year of the present agreement. I have no official information on the subject. Canada has not given its delegate instructions on the point, and he has not asked for instructions, from which I take it that the proposal is only in the discussion stage at the moment.


George Alexander Drew: In view of the fact that we have had so much discussion concerning wheat marketing, and that there have been some indications of discussions relating to a change in the agreement prior to the ordinary termination and a possible relationship of that to price, could the Minister of Trade and Commerce take this as notice of a question to see if information could be obtained through ordinary government channels so that the house could be informed on Monday regarding such information as may be available?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I assume that by Monday we will have information from our delegate. If it is information that bears on the price of wheat or the duration of the agreement, I shall be glad to make a statement.


Mr. A. M. Nicholson (Mackenzie):: May I
ask a supplementary question? In view of the small percentage of the agreed imports by importing countries having been taken up, and as this vitally affects Canadian exports, is the minister considering going to London to take part in the discussions before the meeting adjourns?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think it should be made clear that, unless wheat is put at the floor price specified in the agreement, there is no obligation on the member countries to take their full allotment. I have tried to make that clear on a number of occasions. The choice we have today is whether or not we will offer wheat at the

Supply-Veterans Affairs floor in order that countries will be required to take up their allotment. My feeling is definitely against doing so, but until we do offer wheat at the minimum there is no obligation on those countries to take any more wheat than they desire to take for their own reasons. The fact of the matter is that every country within the wheat agreement had a good crop last year and the requirements for wheat from outside sources are down.



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbili (Oxford):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture, or in his absence to his parliamentary assistant. In view of the remarks made by the hon. member for Wellington South (Mr. Hosking) as reported at page 6255 of Hansard for June 18, 1954, would the minister care to make a statement as to whether or not the hon. member for Wellington South has certain patronage arrangements in my riding?


Mr. Robert McCubbin (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Agriculture):: There is no politics whatever in the Department of Agriculture.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS Treatment services-
512. Hospital construction, improvements, new equipment and acquisition of land, $5,300,000.


Mr. Harkness:: This item is for hospital construction, so I should like to say a word about the situation in Calgary in connection with the Colonel Belcher hospital, a veterans affairs hospital. This hospital is in process of being considerably enlarged, so that it will take in more than a full block. There is a piece of property, the Hull estate right next to it, that has just been put on the market. I would ask the minister if he would consider whether the Department of Veterans Affairs would buy this property to make a park outside as a place where patients in the veterans hospital could go, and where they might take their wheelchairs, or such other means as they have for getting around. There is a park right across from the veterans hospital, but it requires crossing a heavy traffic artery. There is a subway just below leading into the centre of the city, and the traffic there is extremely heavy.

As a result the veterans from the hospital do not use Central park in Calgary to any extent, because they find it impractical to use it.
The other piece of property to which I am referring is in the other direction and would be right next to the hospital. I should think it would be a most desirable move if the department would secure that piece of property so that it could be used as a park by the veterans in the hospital, and also would be available for future building purposes if required.


Mr. Lapointe:: I thank the hon. member for advising me of that situation and I shall be pleased to have the officials of the department look into the matter.


Mr. Jones:: Has the minister considered building a hospital in Saskatchewan for the mentally disabled. I understand there are about 400 of them, and that Saskatchewan is the only province that does not have suitable mental care provided by the D.V.A. I understand the situation in that province, so far as the mentally disabled are concerned, is somewhat pathetic, as they are scattered all over the province, and not in any separate institutions. In view of the fact that every other province has such care I suggest the mentally defective in Saskatchewan should be treated in the same way.


Hugues Lapointe: I am afraid the information the hon. member has concerning institutions for mental patients is not quite accurate. Actually we have two psychiatric institutions, one at Ste. Anne de Bellevue in Montreal and the other at Westminster hospital, in London. Some of the other large hospitals have psychiatric wards, but the only mental institutions are the two I have mentioned. However, in the other provinces, we have arrangements with the provincial authorities whereby they make available to the Department of Veterans Affairs facilities in their mental institutions, at the charge which is current in the province for such institutions.


Owen Lewis Jones: In asking my question I have before me a letter from the Saskatchewan hospitals branch of the Canadian Legion at North Battleford in which it is claimed that in all other provinces, to the best of their knowledge, there are at least parts of hospitals-indeed if not whole institutions-set aside for this purpose. They make reference to the Shaughnessy hospital in British Columbia, the Colonel Belcher hospital in Alberta, the Deer Lodge in Manitoba, the Sunnybrook in Ontario, as well as the Westminster in that province. Then they also refer

to the hospital at Ste. Anne de Bellevue, Quebec. They claim that Saskatchewan alone has no hospital of this kind.


Hugues Lapointe: I am afraid that in this instance the branch of the Legion is wrong.


Mr. Michener:: Would the minister give information as to the number of beds occupied in hospitals, on an average.


Hugues Lapointe: We have Camp Hill hospital at Halifax with an operating capacity of 550 beds, of which at the present time 416 are occupied. There is Lancaster hospital in Lancaster, a municipality which has just been recently organized near Saint John. In that hospital there is a capacity of 400 beds of which 362 are occupied at the present time. There is Ste. Foy hospital in Quebec city. This is a new hospital opened only a few weeks ago. It has a bed capacity of 275, of which 132 are now occupied.
Then, in Montreal, there is Queen Mary veterans hospital with a bed capacity of 700 beds of which 489 are occupied. There is also the hospital at Ste. Anne de Bellevue with a bed capacity of 1,135 of which 1,094 are occupied. There is the hospital at St. Hyacinthe, Quebec, which is, in fact, a hospital treating tuberculosis. It is being handed over this summer to the Department of National Health and Welfare, and the patients at St. Hyacinthe will be cared for at Ste. Anne de Bellevue; so that the bed capacity at Ste. Anne de Bellevue will be slightly increased. The hospital at St. Hyacinthe had a capacity of 200.
Then, in Ottawa, we have the Rideau health and occupational centre with a capacity of 150 beds, of which 117 are occupied. At Toronto there is Sunny brook hospital with a bed capacity of 1,650 of which 1,235 are occupied. There is also the Red Chevron at Toronto with a bed capacity of 165, with 139 occupied. In London, Ontario, there is the Westminster hospital with a capacity of 1,522 of which 1,237 are occupied.
In Winnipeg we have Deer Lodge hospital with a bed capacity of 850 of which 627 are occupied. In Regina there is the veterans home with a bed capacity of 62, and 63 occupied. Just where that one bed comes in, I cannot say; it must be in the hall.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Out in the corridor.


Hugues Lapointe: There is the veterans hospital at Saskatoon with a bed capacity of 125 with an occupancy of 118. At Calgary there is the Colonel Belcher hospital with a bed capacity of 425 of which 338 are occupied. At Edmonton there is the veterans home with a capacity of 70 and 72 occupied. So that here, again, there must be two out in the hallways.
Supply-Veterans Affairs
At Vancouver there is the Shaughnessy hospital with a bed capacity of 1,100 of which 906 are occupied. There is the veterans hospital at Victoria with a capacity of 300 with 247 occupied. There is the George Derby health and occupational centre at Burnaby, British Columbia, with a capacity of 215 beds, of which 169 are occupied.
Then I must explain that in addition to these institutions we have what we call contract hospitals. For instance, here in Ottawa, we have the veterans pavilion at the Civic hospital, where we enter into a contract with that particular civil hospital for the treatment of veterans. We have a similar arrangement at Regina, Edmonton, Newfoundland and Charlottetown.
The total bed capacity in departmental institutions and contract hospitals, if I may use that term, shows an operating capacity of 9,974 with an occupancy at the present time of 7,935, or an average of about 80 per cent.


Mr. Gillis:: Is there any intention on the part of the department to establish a nurses' residence at Camp Hill hospital in Halifax? I do not want to go into the details of the thing, but the nurse who has to room out and take a couple of meals in hospital, for which she is charged, I understand, and lose the time that she has to put in to get out, to get through the traffic and to get back to work, is working under a handicap. I am of the opinion that there is a sufficient number of nurses there to have proper residences provided for them and better arrangements with regard to meals, and so on.


Hugues Lapointe: No such plans have been made up to the present time. As a matter of fact, I am informed that the majority of nurses do not want to reside in the hospital, but prefer to live outside. However, I shall be glad to look into the situation, and certainly we have no intention of creating any hardship for the personnel of our hospitals.


Clarence Gillis: I would be glad if the minister would do that, because the system is antiquated; it is out of date.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I have a matter that I should like to bring to the minister's attention under this item. I refer to the provision of a veterans pavilion at the Lethbridge hospital. I believe the Lethbridge branch of the Legion and some other branches of the Legion in southern Alberta, as well as other bodies, have made representations to the minister in regard to the desirability of providing a veterans pavilion at the Lethbridge hospital which would serve a good many of the people in the far southern part of Alberta. At the present time they all have to go up to the

Supply-Veterans Affairs Colonel Belcher, where they are separated a long distance from their families and so on. The population of that part of Alberta of course, owing to the irrigation schemes which have gone in there, has been increasing rapidly and they believe they have a sufficient number of veterans to justify the provision of a veterans pavilion at the Lethbridge hospital. Can the minister tell us-he was going to consider this-what has been the result of the investigation, if any, into the matter?


Hugues Lapointe: Some time ago representations were made to the effect that a veterans pavilion should be set up at the Lethbridge hospital. I think those are the representations to which my hon. friend refers.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes.


Hugues Lapointe: At that time we did make a thorough investigation. The result of that investigation was that the patient load in such a veterans pavilion would not be sufficient to warrant the expense of setting up one. My hon. friend says that circumstances may have changed because of various developments, and I shall be very glad to look into the question again, to find out the best way of giving the best treatment to the veterans of that region. The department certainly will look into this matter very seriously.


Daniel Roland Michener: I have another question along the line of the last. Do the accounting practices of the department leave the minister in a position to estimate the cost of maintenance per bed? Has that cost been compared with the corresponding cost in the public civilian hospitals as a method of testing the departmental costs?


Hugues Lapointe: Yes, there is a thorough system of cost accounting with respect to our hospital operations, and the daily rate per person is calculated for each institution. The comparison of such costs is made with civilian institutions; but, of course, in our accounting we take into consideration certain services which are not usually considered in the cost accounting of civilian institutions, because they charge their patients for such items as laboratory tests, X-rays and medical services. Under our system we include all these items in the daily rate for each patient in a hospital.


Daniel Roland Michener: Can the minister give us the average cost per patient per day say over the last year?


Hugues Lapointe: The daily rate broken down for 1953 was $12.55 per patient. To give a basis of comparison with civilian institutions, I might add that the rate in general hospitals

in Ontario, where we do have patients receiving treatment under contracts with these hospitals is $13.31 per patient day, exclusive of the cost of medical services.


Daniel Roland Michener: Does that figure of $12.55 include medical services?


Hugues Lapointe: It does.


Mr. Noseworthy:: In the figures that the minister gave us a while ago, it was indicated that there are somewhere around 2,000 unoccupied beds in military hospitals across Canada. Has any consideration been given to the possibility of making some of those unoccupied beds available to the civilian population? In Toronto, for instance, there is a desperate shortage of civilian beds. There are thousands of civilian patients on waiting lists to get into hospital. These military hospitals are maintained at the public expense. Why should there be several hundred unoccupied beds in Sunnybrook hospital, while thousands of civilian patients in Toronto are seeking hospital accommodation. Sunnybrook hospital has, I suppose, some of the best equipment, and probably the best staff in Canada, for certain types of rehabilitation work. I do not know whether that is used to the fullest extent, but it would seem to me that it should be possible to make some arrangements with municipalities whereby people who want hospital accommodation should be able to get it when hospital accommodation is being unused a few blocks away.


Hugues Lapointe: That matter has been looked into very thoroughly. At the beginning I should say that it is not considered that a hospital should at all times be a hundred per cent occupied. There has to be some flexibility. I gave the figure for the occupancy as at the end of April this spring. Our peak load is in the winter, and possibly the figures for January would have shown a higher rate of occupancy. On the other hand, July and August will show less.
The matter of making use of any spare facilities in the hospitals, as I said, was studied very thoroughly. It was made the subject of a thorough investigation by officers of my department and of other departments. The possibility of making some of that accommodation available is rather remote. It must be understood that these hospitals, modern as they are, with the best personnel and equipment, still cannot handle certain patients. For example, they have not the facilities to look after children and certain other types of patients.


Joseph William Noseworthy: They have plenty of beds.


Hugues Lapointe: It would be very difficult, for example, to take care of women patients in these hospitals.


Joseph William Noseworthy: They might admit other male patients.


Hugues Lapointe: Perhaps my hon. friend will permit me to continue. I will try to make my case clear and if he is not satisfied he can speak when I have completed my remarks. We have found it rather difficult to operate under the Department of Veterans Affairs such hospitals where the bulk of the patients would be veterans and where others would be civilians, so that we have evolved another scheme. I am glad the hon. member has mentioned this question because it will enable me to make a short statement in regard to some changes in the terms of our treatment regulations, to ensure that full use of the beds in our hospitals is made. We have come to the conclusion that we should amend the terms of the regulations so that veterans who wish to make use of the hospitals for treatment for non-pensionable disabilities can do so more easily than they can now. At the present time a veteran, if his income is below a certain ceiling, can obtain full treatment in the veterans hospitals free of charge. If his income is above that ceiling he is charged the daily rate which I mentioned a few moments ago in answer to a question by an hon. member. The department has for some time been studying a change in the regulations regarding assistance to veterans in the low income group for treatment of non-pensionable disability in our departmental hospitals. For some time it has been suggested that it would be desirable to get away from the principle of a fixed income ceiling and instead introduce the principle of a sliding scale so that while the lowest income group would pay nothing for treatment, those with a higher income would pay part of the cost of their treatment. The amount they would pay would be related to their income on a sliding scale.
The problem of working out such regulations was difficult but we eventually arrived at a definite plan which has been embodied in order in council P.C. 1954-849 which amends the terms of the present regulations.
Briefly the plan is that a single veteran whose income is less than $800, and a married veteran whose income is less than $1,200, will pay nothing for treatment. If their income is higher than that they will pay the cost of their treatment on a percentage basis up to one per cent of their income for each $100 income in excess of the amounts just stated. I might add that in computing income, allowance is made for dependent children and for wages lost owing to illness during the time
Supply-Veterans Affairs of hospitalization and convalescence. As an example of how this new plan works, if a married veteran with two children, earning $50 a week, had a severe illness and was hospitalized for two months, with a further one month convalescence, he would have to pay no more for his treatment in the hospital than $45. If he had to pay current expenses in a civil hospital, such an illness might very well leave him with a bill for $600 or more, apart from his own doctor's fees and extras.
It is expected that in many cases the veterans will be able to pay these charges for their treatment under this plan from prepaid health and hospital insurance.
Naturally, I cannot possibly explain all the details of this scheme without speaking at considerable length. I would say, however, that it is the intention to give adequate publicity to the new plan so that veterans who might benefit from it will be aware of their eligibility.
The department is confident that it will be possible to give treatment at a reduced cost proportionate to the veteran's ability to pay, and I might mention that many of the veterans who need this assistance were formerly ineligible under the previous regulations. We expect that with the implementation of these new regulations we will fill the empty beds which we may have in our hospitals at the present time.


Howard Charles Green: Would it be possible for the minister to put a copy of that order in council on Hansard? I think it would be very helpful if it appeared as part of the discussion.


Hugues Lapointe: I am very sorry, but I have not a copy of that order in council here at the present time. I will be very glad to make it available to hon. members through the facilities of the department.


Howard Charles Green: I understand it applies only in the case of a pensioner. Or does it apply to any veteran?


Hugues Lapointe: It applies to any veteran who has served in a theatre of war or who is in receipt of a pension.


Howard Charles Green: How would that apply in British Columbia where a provincial hospital insurance scheme covers all hospital costs?


Hugues Lapointe: That is being looked into at the present time but I am afraid I am not yet in a position to answer.


Mr. Bell:: Could the minister tell us whether, if the army, for example, found it necessary to use one of these military hospitals on a large scale, there would be an accounting between the Department of National Defence and the Department of Veterans Affairs for
6284	HOUSE OF
Supply-Veterans Affairs the use of these beds. I know that at Camp Gagetown they have had to use the Lancaster hospital at Lancaster. In this connection I am wondering if the cost per day would be comparable to the cost just mentioned in the case of the non-pensionable veterans. In other words, what is the comparison between the rates army men would have to pay and the amount paid by civilians going into these military hospitals?


Hugues Lapointe: The arrangement in existence between the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of National Defence is that our institutions are used as base hospitals for the armed services for members of the armed services who need hospitalization. They are sent to our institutions and the Department of National Defence is charged the daily rate of $12.55. The same service is given to the R.C.M.P.


Joseph William Noseworthy: The minister has indicated that the department has not found it feasible to have civilians and veterans together in the same hospital. Under what conditions can a veteran secure admission to one of the department's hospitals? In other words, can an individual get in regardless of having a disability pension, and does disability status secure admission?


Hugues Lapointe: I gather my hon. friend wishes to know who is admissible to veterans hospitals. First, every pensioner is entitled to hospitalization in a veterans' hospital for treatment of his pensionable disability. Every indigent veteran with meritorious service, service overseas, is admitted free into our hospitals. Every recipient of war veterans allowances is entitled to free treatment and hospitalization in our institutions. Finally, any veteran may, by paying the daily rate of $12.55, be hospitalized in our institutions for any condition whatsoever. Of course, as I mentioned before, if he goes in for a condition for which he is pensioned, he does not pay.
This is where the new regulation which I have just mentioned comes into play. Until now, those veterans who were indigent or who were in the very low-income bracket could get free hospitalization if their income was $1,200 or less. If they were over that ceiling they had to pay the full daily rate of $12.55. Under the new regulation establishing a sliding scale, it will make it possible to give treatment at a very low rate to a group of veterans who formerly would have been barred.


Joseph William Noseworthy: I have one more question. Why should veterans who are not admissible to these hospitals without paying the full daily rate of $12.55 have to go to public


wards of civilian institutions and be supported by the local municipalities? Why should they not be taken care of in military hospitals even though they can pay the $12.55 a day?


Hugues Lapointe: In the same way, why not? Does my hon. friend mean to tell me that from the mere fact that someone at one time has served in the armed services of this country, the Department of Veterans Affairs should be responsible for his hospitalization for the rest of his life, for any condition whatsoever not related to his service? That would be the result of what my hon. friend is now suggesting. To start with, I am afraid we would not have the facilities to be able to deal with all those veterans, and in the second place, I am afraid we would be entering a field which is definitely not that of the federal government or of the Department of Veterans Affairs.


Joseph William Noseworthy: I would still think it is much more the responsibility of the federal government to look after these veterans who have given service in any war than it is the responsibility of the municipality.


Hugues Lapointe: It is the responsibility of the Department of Veterans Affairs to look after the treatment and hospitalization of every veteran who has served and who has suffered injury or wound through his service. That responsibility is being well discharged. But, as I said, the fact of having served at one time in the armed services of Canada does not make the Department of Veterans Affairs responsible, for instance, for hospitalizing someone who is run over by a street car on Sparks street after having attended the sittings of this house.


Mr. Ferguson:: 
Mr. Blair:: May I suggest to the minister that these regulations be posted in Legion halls and some places where veterans can get to know what they are. I have had inquiries coming to me all the time. The general public think that any veteran is eligible. If that matter were better known to the public, I think it would relieve a great deal of the trouble. As far as veterans in hospitals are concerned, there is only one point. A veteran who is not disabled and is not eligible for free treatment may enter a veterans hospital. I should like this matter to be explained to the veteran. It is amazing the number of inquiries I have had. Another matter came up as to the number of beds. It is probable that you have spare beds. I forget what the percentage is. A hospital is normally considered to be full even if there are vacant beds. In civilian life, a hospital is considered to be full, I think, when about 80 per cent of the beds are occupied. I think it is normally considered to be full at that time.


Hugues Lapointe: I certainly will be pleased to take the means to publicize these new regulations. I should explain to my hon. friend that the order in council was passed less than two weeks ago and this is the first occasion I have had to make it public. I have already discussed the matter with various organizations, including the Legion, and they will help in making this public to all veterans.


William Gourlay Blair: There are just the two points. The general public think that any veteran should go into a veterans hospital and get treatment, and the veteran does not understand that he can get treatment at a hospital even whether the question of means comes into the matter or not, or whether he can pay for it or whether he cannot. There is this misunderstanding, and a clarification of the whole situation by an announcement from the minister would help a great deal in clearing up this misunderstanding throughout the country.


Daniel Roland Michener: Mr. Chairman-


Joseph William Noseworthy: Mr. Chairman-


The Chairman:: The hon. member for St. Paul's.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Will the minister-


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member is not the hon. member for St. Paul's.


Clarence Gillis: He is following up his previous question.
Supply-Veterans Affairs


Joseph William Noseworthy: Following up my previous question, may I ask if the minister will give us again the figures as to beds available and beds occupied in Sunnybrook hospital. I did not write them down.


An hon. Member:: The figures will be in Hansard.


Hugues Lapointe: Operating capacity, 1,650; number of beds occupied, 1,235.


Joseph William Noseworthy: My point is that in the Toronto area there is a desperate shortage of hospital beds. I am sure that in the Toronto area there are veterans who, if they knew they could get into Sunnybrook and receive treatment, even at the price they have to pay in the civilian hospitals, or I think the rate is a little bit cheaper, would be there instead of in civilian hospitals. They just do not know that they have that privilege. Our civilian hospitals are obliged to take veterans in while many civilians in the area are unable to secure beds. It has just been suggested that if the information the minister gave to the committee this morning were made generally known throughout the country, it would help to relieve the situation to some extent.


Hugues Lapointe: Mr. Chairman, I will endeavour to take the means of making all veterans familiar with these regulations. I might point out, however, that at the present time in Sunnybrook there are 38 patients who are veterans and who are paying for their treatment.


Daniel Roland Michener: As one who is interested in hospital operation, I am pleased to have the explanation of the cost system and to learn the basic rates that have been fixed. There are a number of other questions that occur to me on matters which I think would be of interest. _ However, I do not want to take the time to inquire about them. For example, the $12.55 per day rate is, I suppose, for ward accommodation; or is it for single room accommodation or is there one basic rate?


Hugues Lapointe: It is any accommodation. It is the rate for all accommodation. The hon. member has been in some of our hospitals and he knows that in some of them there are large wards and in others there are only small wards with no more than four beds. In the newer hospitals there are no large wards. There are usually rooms with four, two beds, or one. The rate is for accommodation anywhere.


Daniel Roland Michener: If the minister has a statement giving a break-down of the elements of the rate of $12.55 would he put it on
6286	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Supply-Veterans Affairs
Hansard? It would be interesting to have it source of revenue, or is it the case that there and it would obviate any further veterans are to some extent not supplied questions.	with prosthetic appliances free of charge?


William Gourlay Blair: Is it not true that the rate of $12.55 includes treatment? It pays everything, including all costs of treatment.


Hugues Lapointe: Yes, it does. I am afraid I have not got a break-down here, but I could make it available easily to my hon. friend.


Daniel Roland Michener: Perhaps I could have a copy of it at some time in the future.


Hugues Lapointe: Yes.


Clarence Gillis: I think it is important that we have this point thoroughly understood. Does the rate of $12.55 per day cover ward costs, nursing service, X-rays, all the technical examinations that you undergo in a hospital? Is that all-inclusive? That is the rate today in the average hospital just for the ward space without any of the technical services. I think we had better be careful about this. We know that the subject of a national health program is to be discussed today, and it would be very interesting to have the figures for which the hon. member has just asked. It would be a great guide to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Mr. Martin:: Leave me out of this.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He needs guidance.


Hugues Lapointe: This is the situation. The rate of $12.55 is the rate computed for every veteran who is receiving treatment in our hospitals at departmental expense. In the case of the veteran who goes into a hospital and pays, the rate is $11.55, and he has to pay his own doctor.


Clarence Gillis: He has to pay the doctor.


Hugues Lapointe: He has to pay the doctor himself. The rate of $11.55 covers all the services of the hospital, treatment, X-ray, laboratory, everything, but he has to pay his own doctor. In the case of the veteran who is being treated at departmental expense a dollar is added to the rate of $11.55 which covers the cost of medical care.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
513. Prosthetic services-supply, manufacture and administration, $1,009,024.
Douglas Scott Harkness: I notice that the department has a revenue of $380,000 from the manufacture of prosthetic appliances of various types. I am glad to see that there is some revenue, but my understanding is that prosthetic appliances are supplied to veterans free of charge. How does the revenue come into the picture? Are some of these appliances sold to concerns for general distribution throughout the country? Is that the


Hugues Lapointe: Prosthetic services are of course given to all veterans who are in need of these free of charge. We have a rather large factory in Toronto, and also factories in some other centres. We also do work on a cost basis for certain institutions and organizations, and we are paid for it.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is for civilians?


Hugues Lapointe: For some civilians. We do work for the Department of National Defence, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and, as a matter of fact, all governments in Canada. We do work for the Canadian National Railways, the Canadian paraplegic association, the war amputations of Canada, various provincial workmen's compensation boards, the Red Cross Society of Saskatchewan, the British ministry of pensions and for other allied governments who may have patients living in this country.


Joseph William Noseworthy: The minister indicated that veterans going into our hospitals pay for their own doctors.


Hugues Lapointe: Yes.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Are veterans who go into veterans hospitals permitted to have the services of doctors of their own choice or must they take the hospital doctors?


Hugues Lapointe: They must use the doctors accredited to our hospitals.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
514. Veterans bureau, $518,325.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Some years ago, particularly after the conclusion of the second world war, there were complaints in various parts of my constituency about the time taken by the veterans advocate to prepare veterans cases. The reason was of course that visits to the interior were too infrequent. Only the larger centres were visited. The Legion branches in my constituency have asked me to express to the minister their great satisfaction with the way the service is working now. The visits are much more frequent. The veterans advocate visits many of the smaller places, and the Legion particularly appreciates the services of the men who have come into the district in the last two or three years and who, at considerable personal inconvenience, have visited veterans living in the backwoods, some miles along the trails, and that sort of thing. They appreciate very much the excellent service being given by the men responsible for it in the interior.


Clarence Gillis: At the meetings of the veterans affairs committee the Legion gave some six

or seven examples of cases of delay. Many of these were veterans bureau cases, and having listened to the evidence and the representations made before the committee I wonder whether the bureau today is equipped to handle the large volume of work that has been given to it since the end of the second world war. When the veterans bureau was first set up it was set up to deal with the problems of world war I veterans and it was doing pretty well until the end of the second world war. The cases I listened to led me to believe that perhaps much of the reason for the delay goes back to the veterans bureau.
There are two factors involved in delay in bringing a pension case to completion. One of the main factors is the gathering of evidence and the second is the fact that it is medical evidence. A large number of disputed cases involving different diagnoses by different doctors create difficulty for anyone sitting on a board and for the pensions advocate. There is a lot of work involved in preparing such cases for presentation to the pension commission. I am going to take the district of Halifax. I should like the minister to tell us the number of pensions advocates in that office now and the number there in 1945. Would he also give the number of staff in that advocate's office in 1945, and the number there today? It is a branch of the administrative staff of veterans affairs to which little attention has been paid since 1945. I am just wondering whether it has been organized and given the necessary staff to handle the new problems arising out of world war II and the Korean conflict.


Hugues Lapointe: I am afraid I have not before me figures to give the details concerning a particular district, such as Halifax. I could give the over-all picture, but I cannot give it for the particular districts. In all, we have 32 pensions advocates throughout Canada. The complete staff working in the pensions advocates' district offices throughout Canada in 1952 was 150, and it is now 145. There has been very little change. We have never pressed them to try to reduce their staff. I am glad, however, the hon. member did mention, while bringing this matter to my attention, the difficulties which do exist in preparing some of these cases.
In some instances, the pensions advocates are working under difficult conditions. I know in my own district an advocate might have to prepare a case in the Gaspe peninsula. He has to get hold of the witnesses, and there may be some considerable delay because he will go down there and find the witnesses are working in the bush on the north shore. He has to find the right moment
Supply-Veterans Affairs of the year to go down there to try to gather that evidence, and then when he is ready to put his case before the board he finds that his witnesses are gone again. We are endeavouring, however, to find a formula which will expedite these cases as much as possible.


Howard Charles Green: I notice there has been a reduction in the staff of the veterans bureau from 157 during the last fiscal to 144 during the present fiscal year. Why was that reduction made? The unfortunate fact, from the point of view of the veteran, is that he can only get a retroactive pension up to eighteen months where there has been administrative delay. It is for that reason there is great importance in getting this work in the bureau done as quickly as possible.


Hugues Lapointe: I am told that the actual reduction was only five people, because although the establishment was 157 it had not been filled. There were five individuals who retired and we were advised by the chief pensions advocate that it was not necessary to replace them at this time.


Howard Charles Green: Would the minister-


Hugues Lapointe: My hon. friend will realize that it is quite possible-I do not know who the five employees were-there might have been a clerk grade 1 in one district office who retired, and that would not necessarily mean a pensions advocate. I do not know.


Clarence Gillis: I should like to ask the minister whether or not a pensions advocate has to be a lawyer?


Hugues Lapointe: No, the pensions advocates are not necessarily lawyers. The act does not call for the pensions advocate to be a lawyer. Actually all of them except three are lawyers, and whenever a vacancy occurs now we do make it a requirement that the candidate should be a lawyer. Originally many of them were not, and I might say that some of the pensions advocates who have done the best work for the veterans before the pension commission were never members of the bar.


Clarence Gillis: I know that as a result of the desire of the department it has been pretty well mandatory that a lawyer occupy that office. It has to be someone who is capable of assessing evidence, anyway. The evidence a pensions advocate has to assemble is medical evidence, and there is no one who can dispute medical evidence or confirm medical evidence except a doctor. I am wondering whether the pensions advocate has at his disposal some doctor whom he can consult as to the value of the medical evidence he is

Supply-Veterans Affairs preparing in a case that is going before the appeal board. In the final analysis, when these cases get into the hands of a pensions advocate for appeal, they are appealing to the last court. The advocate has to be very careful in preparing his evidence and making his case, because when he is finished the door is locked.
I will add this, that in most of the cases I have seen the pensions advocate has been accused of taking a long time in getting it ready. I did not consider that was a criticism. I considered that the time occupied in assessing the evidence, or in getting the evidence, was time well spent. For example, a doctor who may be a material witness for a pensioner in Nova Scotia or Quebec may now be practising in New York, and it is not easy to get the evidence. I have been wondering whether the pensions advocate has someone at his disposal in the area in which he is working whom he can consult as to the value of the medical evidence he is preparing for the appeal board.


Hugues Lapointe: Yes, Mr. Chairman, the pensions advocates have at their disposal the professional advice of any member of our treatment services branch or any of our specialists.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: May I ask the minister whether the pensions advocate can consult with an eminent doctor who is not connected with the service in any way? Would the department pay the doctor's fee?


Hugues Lapointe: If it were necessary, and we did not have the professional people- which I would doubt very much-we might do so. It may be possible that in certain areas at one time we did not have the qualified professional people. We would authorize the pensions advocate to consult the proper person, but normally he would use the specialists which we have in our hospitals. Of course, if in gathering evidence on behalf of the veteran, the veteran tells him that at one time he was treated for a certain condition by a civilian doctor, undoubtedly the advocate would communicate with the doctor and discuss the case with him.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I know a particular case where a veteran had his ailment diagnosed as attributable to a certain injury he had received overseas. The man contended that his case had been wrongly diagnosed by the army medical officers. It took 20 years to prove that his contention was correct. It was only because I was able to consult a medical doctor in Toronto as a result of the evidence he had given me that they agreed finally with


this man's contention, and the pension board did change the category of his pension. It was increased considerably.
But if one has to go back to the pensions advocate who has considered the first diagnosis, you get the same reply all the time. Yet there may be cases where outside doctors should be consulted. They might take a different viewpoint, and their judgment might be correct.
Even if it is necessary to obtain the services of outside doctors I am sure the people of Canada want to know whether the veteran's contention is the correct one, or whether he is in error. We should leave no stone unturned to obtain correct evidence and to have proper analyses, so that there may be proper diagnoses in cases of this kind. We know there have been cases where assistance from outsiders has been most beneficial.
Fortunately the doctor I consulted in this instance was willing to give his service free of charge. However, there may be cases where a veterans advocate should obtain corroborative evidence to support the contention of a veteran who is attempting to prove his case, and there should be no limitation on the services a veterans advocate could seek, on behalf of a veteran. And a proper fee should be paid for such service. I am positive no member of the medical profession in Canada knowingly would give bad advice, and that he would not support a veteran unless he was firmly convinced as to the correctness of the veteran's contention. If there is a policy whereby an advocate is limited to certain restricted medical evidence, then I think that is a bad policy.


Mr. Shaw:: A minute ago the minister said that some of the best pensions advocates we have ever had were not lawyers. Then he proceeded promptly to assert that henceforth it will be required that when a vacancy is being filled a lawyer will be appointed to such position. I would like to know why, in the light of what he said earlier.


Hugues Lapointe: I believe I did not say "all" of the best ones, but rather that some of the best have not been lawyers. I am sure my hon. friend would agree that they would have been extremely superior had they also been lawyers.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I was about to ask the same question that has been asked by the hon. member for Red Deer, because the minister's statement struck me as being illogical.
I must endorse what the minister has said about pensions advocates because, from the first world war right through to the present,

some of the best pensions advocates we have had have not been members of the legal profession. I should like particularly to refer to the late David Markham, in British Columbia, who rendered such excellent service, and died on the job.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
525. War veterans allowance board-administration. $145,860.
Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, we had one
difficulty in Vancouver during the last Christmas season which I believe could be overcome if action were taken by the Department of Veterans Affairs. For many years veterans on war veterans allowance have been able to get work with the post office during the Christmas rush, and whatever they have received for such work has not been deducted from their allowances.
Last year orders seemed to have been given by the postmaster in Vancouver that no one over the age of 60 would be given work. I raised the matter on the floor of the house and the Minister of Labour indicated that he knew nothing about an order of that kind. I believe the Postmaster General said the same thing, or at least that he would have it investigated.
I am told that order stood all through the Christmas rush and that these men were not taken on. It seems to me that it is most unfair, because the rule does not apply across Canada. I see no reason why the postmaster at Vancouver should be allowed to make a ruling of that kind-if, in fact, he did so. The injury was done, and the result was that some of those veterans had a poor Christmas because they were deprived of work they had been getting for some years.
Would the Minister of Veterans Affairs take up this question with his colleague the Postmaster General to make certain that in the coming Christmas season these veterans will be permitted to get work they have been having for so many years. I think it is rough treatment to turn them down only because they have reached the age of 60 years. Of course that is the age at which most veterans qualify for war veterans allowance. Very few qualify under that age. This is an injustice that should be corrected.


Hugues Lapointe: I thank the hon. member for having drawn this situation to my attention. I certainly will make sure that the matter is discussed with my colleagues in other departments who might be concerned. As my hon. friend knows, it has always been the policy of the Department of Veterans Affairs to encourage temporary employment of older veterans, and we intend to continue that policy.
Supply-Veterans Affairs


Howard Charles Green: I believe the action of the Post Office Department in this instance was directly in conflict with the policy of the Department of Veterans Affairs.


Hugues Lapointe: That does happen in the best of governments.


Mr. Hansell:: Mr. Chairman, the other night when we were discussing the first item in the minister's estimates there was considerable debate on the subject of war veterans allowances. At the adjournment hour I rose to speak, with a desire to follow the general line of discussion. However, we rose at that time and reported progress. Since that time I was informed that the minister was anxious to have the first item passed, and I agreed to that procedure in the light of the fact that there were other items on which this matter could be discussed.
I believe that what I have to say can properly be said under item 515. The matters of war veterans allowances, and the disappointment experienced because the terms of reference, in the recent parliamentary committee, were not broadened to include a discussion of war veterans allowances were gone into at considerable length, and I do not think I need take very much time in covering the matter again, or even in amplifying what has been said already.
There is not much left to say on the subject. The hon. member for Acadia, who represented this group in the war veterans committee, discussed the subject fully the other day, and paid particular attention to the permissive income feature. The hon. member for New Westminster followed in the debate and placed on record some further suggestions. The hon. member for Fraser Valley, also from this group, spoke on the subject. I rise at this time to support those members who have spoken on the matter and their desire that the war veterans allowance should be increased. I recognize that this is a matter of government policy. The previous speakers have not criticized the administration in any respect. In fact, all speakers have had the very highest regard for the administration itself, both the minister, who has a grasp of the entire situation in his department, and the officials who are under him in that department.
We are dealing with this matter as government policy, and it is government policy that we wish to criticize. When the resolution to set up the committee was on the order paper some months ago, I understand, a delegation from the dominion command waited on the Prime Minister and some of his cabinet, and requested that the matter of war veterans allowance should be included in the terms of reference of that committee.

Supply-Veterans Affairs I understand the Prime Minister was very frank with the delegation from the Legion command, and that is commendable. There is no use beating about the bush. If government policy is as it is, those responsible for pronouncing that policy might just as well come out and say so. The Prime Minister is to be commended on not hedging on the matter. I believe he told the command that government policy was such that they would not make an increase in the allowance; that to include it in the terms of reference would mean that they were giving some little hope that it might be done, and to give such hope would be misleading. Therefore the answer was no. He could not be any more direct than that, he could not be clearer, and he could not be any more honest than that. That was the right thing for him to do as far as his attitude or comment was concerned; but we criticize the answer he gave because we believe it was the wrong one. He should have been willing to permit the terms of reference to be widened with a view to recommendations being made, and the government should have been prepared to meet those recommendations.
We all have a great regard for the veterans. We know that when the veterans were called to the colours, either by conscription or through voluntary enlistment, they did not begin to weigh the consequences of their post-war life, and what they would get out of it afterwards. I wonder whether one might draw on his imagination. If a young chap went into a recruiting office and said: "I would like to join the forces, but there are a couple of questions I should like to ask before signing my name on the dotted line. Should I join the forces and play my part in the protection and preservation of democracy, if I offer my life for my country, what can I expect my country to do for me when I return?" If that recruiting officer had been able to look into the future he would have had to answer something like this:	"Well, I have it on the highest
authority that we will not do much of anything for you until you are in desperate need, and then we shall give you a subsistence allowance; but even then it will have to be under the means test." The young chap might have said:	"Since my people are
able to take care of me, what then?" The answer would be:	"Well, that is what they
should do, and if they take care of you and give you anything, then I am afraid we shall have to take that off your allowance." The young man might then reply:	"Suppose I
come back safely and I die and leave a widow, what is going to happen to her?" The

reply might be:	"Well, the same thing
would happen to her as would happen to you. If she is in need we will look after her, and if she is really in need we will see that she gets something, and of course that too will be under the means test." You can carry that illustration along as far as you like and then ask the question, would the young chap volunteer if he had been told the truth?


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I hope so.


Ernest George Hansell: I hope so, and I think he would, and I would not argue that case because I think anyone who wanted to volunteer had no thought of weighing the consequences of the post-war life. Nevertheless, when we look at it in that way the only conclusion we can come to is that any person who was called to the colours or enlisted, and went out and offered his life for his country, should be adequately cared for upon his return when the need arises.
On the basis of that we have a perfect right to say now that this matter of war veterans allowance should be continually studied. I know the minister will reply that they are continually studying the position of the war veterans in respect to allowances, but it should go further than that. The interest should be of such a character that a veterans committee of this house could sit down and discuss every possible veterans' problem and then come to the government with every possible recommendation. The government should weigh those recommendations and say: We will do all we can for those veterans. They should assume that that which is physically possible should be made financially possible.
I will not say anything else. I rose to support the previous speakers who have put on the record the desire of this group and others who have put on the record the desire of their various parties. Yesterday on the orders of the day the Prime Minister was asked if he would still consider the matter. He gave the answer as a definite no. Well, we can conclude that at this session nothing is to be done. Might I urge the government to take this matter under very serious advisement during the next few months, and at the commencement of the next session come down with a program of allowances that we shall indeed be proud of. Might I urge the government to do that? It would be one of the finest things that happened in this session if the minister could rise before the items are concluded and say: we expect to do something within the next session of parliament.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I am sure the minister will receive some satisfaction from the fact that

there has not been any criticism of the administration of this important department of government. Most of the discussion has been about this controversial question which we are now discussing. Since coming back to parliament in 1953 I have had very few complaints from the various Legion branches in my constituency. Apparently there is quite a marked improvement over conditions of some years ago. I think that members in all sections of the house have made their remarks in the hope that the minister might have a larger share of the total national budget for his particular department.
During the early years of the war we had a visit from the then minister of finance in New Zealand, and I have never forgotten the policy of the New Zealand government as he outlined it to us then. He said they were going to do everything in their power to see that those who went to war would not be worse off than if they remained at home. Secondly, that no one who remained at home would be better off at the end of the war because he remained at home.
The present Minister of National Defence was a private member then, as I was, and I was interested to hear him speaking in Montreal shortly after he became Minister of National Defence and he pointed out that the goal of this government was exactly the policy outlined by Mr. Nash.
However, I do not feel that the government of Canada has dealt as generously with the Minister of Veterans Affairs as with his colleague the Minister of National Defence. I followed the minister very closely the other night, and he stated that the proposal made by the Legion would increase our liabilities by about $27 million which would be an increase of about 95 per cent. I think we must ask ourselves whether the Canadian economy will stand an additional burden of $27 million to discharge our responsibilities for war veterans allowances. I realize it is easy for members in opposition groups to recommend increased expenditure all along the line. But I think it should be stated that the Canadian Legion is a non-partisan organization and it is comprised of honest, stable citizens who do not recommend expenditures which are unreasonable.
I have in my hand a report of the Department of Defence Production for the year 1953 and I find that this department points out that up to the end of 1953 certificates had been issued covering some $665 million of capital investment in facilities for the production of both basic materials and defence supplies, and thereby allowing additional benefits by way of income tax write-offs amounting to $277 million. It adds that
Supply-Veterans Affairs the Canadian government defence procurement expenditures during the year totalled $1,174 million, slightly up from the amount for the previous year.
Now, no hon. member of parliament has criticized this expenditure. But I think that if we are going to spend $2,000 million for defence purposes it must be agreed that Canada must discharge its responsibilties to the veterans of world wars I and II and the Korean war.
I found myself in a position where I was too young for the first war and too old for the second war, and so I think I can say that those of us who remained at home found ourselves in the most prosperous period in Canadian history. I believe at this stage that to increase compensation to veterans to the extent of $27 million is not going to place an unreasonable drain on the Canadian economy.
Following the line of the remarks made by the hon. member for Macleod, I think that our treatment of soldier settlers after the first world war is not a performance of which we can be especially proud. I remember a delegation coming to Ottawa during the war years trying to get legislation to relieve them of their farm indebtedness. These men stated they did not think they would be a good recruiting team to go across Canada to outline what their experience had been farming in Canada after they had "made the world safe for democracy". I remember one time I found myself in a veterans affairs office making representations on behalf of the widow of a very close friend of mine. This chap was the principal of a school and he enlisted and gave his life for his country while in the service of the air force in Egypt. At that time his widow found her income drastically reduced. She had a young son to support and she found it necessary to seek assistance to go to business college to supplement her income. The veterans affairs officer was very sympathetic and he told her that if she had lost her husband during the first war the pension would have been much less. I shall never forget her reply. She said: "If my husband had remained as principal of the school I would not now be in a position where my income was cut so drastically that I could not support the young lad and give him the kind of education he would have had if his father had remained at home". I do not think anyone would try to defend the position in which that widow found herself, because she is now very much worse off because her husband gave his life for his country.
So, Mr. Chairman, I would like to suggest to the Minister of Veterans Affairs that he
6292	HOUSE OF
Supply-Veterans Affairs should not give up despite what the Prime Minister said yesterday. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre asked:
In view of the unanimous and wholehearted wish of all private members of the house, will the government even yet reconsider the matter of introducing legislation at this session respecting the War Veterans Allowance Act?
The Prime Minister's very definite reply was "No". But the cabinet as a whole must take the responsibility for making a decision on this matter. I personally believe that, with our Canadian economy as it is, no hon. member can suggest that an additional $27 million per year would place a strain on us which would have disastrous effects. I hope the minister will carry out the undertaking he gave the other night to the following effect, as reported at page 6197 of Hansard:
I can assure hon. members that the recommendations made by the veterans affairs committee to the effect that this matter should be considered with sympathy by the government will receive the attention of my colleagues and myself.
As there is not much sign of the house winding up in the very near future I hope that over the week end the minister will have an opportunity to discuss this matter with his colleagues and decide whether a larger share of the total national budget cannot be made available.
General Gruenther was here a week ago and I feel sure that if he had submitted that NATO required an additional $100 million a year the Canadian government would have given very serious consideration to finding that amount of money. I think that, in accordance with the request of the Canadian Legion and the suggestions made by the committee, this matter should receive the sympathetic consideration of the government.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Chairman, I have been reading the statement made by the minister on the subject of war veterans allowance as reported in Hansard for Thursday. Unfortunately I was absent from the house over the past two days because of very important business in Manitoba and this is the first opportunity I have had-


An hon. Member:: For whom did you vote?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: -of making a statement on this important subject. Looking at the minister's statement, I find there are many points which are helpful and enlightening regarding the question of war veterans allowance. My observation, however, is that it is unfortunate that such a statement was not made before the special committee which recently concluded its deliberations. Special committees are called together for the purpose of dealing with matters which are more or less contentious, and I do not think any 

hon. member will take exception to the statement that the subject of war veterans allowance is a rather contentious one at the present time. It is not possible to come to the close grips necessary in any discussion that arises out of the minister's statement to the committee of the whole on Thursday last. After my experience while sitting in the committee, I came away from the committee with a feeling of frustration with regard to this subject of war veterans allowance. Unfortunately the elucidation given by the minister has not dissipated that feeling because I feel certain that there is much more to be said on this subject that has received such great emphasis during the past three or four years by the veterans of this country and by those who are interested in veterans' welfare.
One point I should like to make particularly is the interpretation given by the minister with regard to the purpose served by the implementation of the war veterans allowance legislation back in the year 1930, I believe it was. In his statement, as reported at pages 6194 and 6195 of Hansardhe emphasized that it was legislation to provide for a premature old age pension at age 60; that is, it was considered that veterans, as the result of their war service, had aged prematurely by at least 10 years. Throughout the minister's statement he emphasized the continuing connection between war veterans allowance and the principle of old age payments.
It is true that he points out that the bounds of the war veterans allowance have enlarged considerably since the legislation was originally introduced, but in the argument supporting the government's present stand on the matter he comes back repeatedly to the comparison between war veterans allowance and old age pension legislation. It seems to me that in the application of the war veterans allowance legislation down through the years it has been expanded to include marginal disability cases as well as those who come under the terms of premature ageing. In many cases of disability that show up years after the veteran has been discharged and has returned to his civilian pursuits, it is almost impossible to rule whether the disability is the result of war service. This statement is particularly true in the case of functional or hysterical disorders. During the sitting of the committee I attempted to discuss this matter and I found that there was much hazy thinking on the matter of disabilities other than direct physical disabilities. Since the committee rose I have been checking the Pension Act, and I have discovered that section 32

of that act deals specifically with these problems in subsections 2, 3 and 4. Subsection 2 reads as follows:
(2)	When in the opinion of a medical neurological expert an applicant for pension or a pensioner has a disability that is purely functional or hysterical no pension shall be paid, but such member of the forces shall immediately be referred to a neurological centre for treatment.
Then in subsection 3 the act goes on to enlarge further on the point. Subsection 3 reads as follows:
(3)	In cases in which the functional or hysterical disability disappears as the result of treatment the commission may, in its discretion, award a gratuity in final payment not exceeding five hundred dollars but no pension shall be paid.
Then subsection 4 reads as follows:
(4)	When as the result of treatment the functional or hysterical disability has not disappeared a pension shall be awarded in accordance with the extent of the disability, if the applicant or pensioner has not unreasonably refused to accept or continue treatment.
In some of the cases which have become eligible for war veterans allowance and with which I have come in contact, I would come to the conclusion that they are victims of hysterical or functional disorders or, as the psychologists put it, they are victims of neurotic difficulties. It seems to me that because of the vague handling of the problem in the Pension Act the interpretation of the War Veterans Allowance Act in practice has been extended to cover this particular problem group. That being so, I think the terms of the act go far beyond the comparison that has been drawn between war veterans allowance and old age pension. In view of this conclusion, I maintain that the demands which have been put forward for several years now by the Legion are not unreasonable. If we literally interpret the war veterans allowance as being comparable with the old age pension and all veterans automatically become eligible at 60, resulting in an expenditure of some $27 million, under the proposed increases as the minister indicated in his statement the other evening, perhaps it would be necessary to review the interpretation of the legislation and to draw the lines more clearly so that adequate payment might be made to those marginal disability cases to which I have referred, particularly those suffering from functional or hysterical disability.
Unfortunately, discussion of this subject in the committee of the whole does not provide the opportunity to go into the detailed discussion that would have been possible had the minister made his statement in the special committee and had we been able to have a thorough give-and-take discussion there on this important matter.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
Supply-Health and Welfare
The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
DEPARTMENT OP NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE Department-
247. Departmental administration, $1,150,272.


William Gourlay Blair: Does the minister wish to make a statement?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No.


William Gourlay Blair: It is unfortunate, Mr. Chairman, that we cannot devote more time to a department as important as the Department of National Health and Welfare. In view of the large amount of money expended by this department, it would be impossible and futile, within the space of four or five hours in an afternoon, to attempt to investigate the financial end of the department's operations. It is true that a large proportion of the money expended by the department is statutory. I refer to the money expended on old age pensions, the new disability pensions and family allowances. These are purely statutory, and if there were any question about them it would be as to the adequacy of the administration.
Therefore I believe that the average member, in going over the estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare, simply takes the attitude that money spent for health is money well spent and leaves it to the minister and his officials to carry out this work. With an important subject of this kind it would be better if we could have a committee so that we might be able to spend a longer time in examining these estimates. There is nothing so important as national health and welfare, and it would be most helpful if we could spend further time not only in investigating the financial aspect but in making recommendations to the minister. I am sure the minister would be glad to hear them, and we would also be able to hear more from the minister on points of interest involved in the consideration of his estimates.
There is one thing that is always very important in the consideration of these estimates, the investigation and inquiry into the causes of mortality in the dominion in the last year. These do not seem to change very much from year to year. Some changes are taking place with new types of treatment, but we note that the same old enemies are at the top of the list. I refer to cancer, heart disease and the so-called vascular diseases. Changes are taking place with respect to them, and we cannot always trust statistics to show the true picture because people are living longer and it is only natural in their old age they should fall prey to some form of disease. There has to be something that carries them away.

Supply-Health and Welfare
Therefore while the statistics on cancer may seem to indicate that its incidence is greater, it is only natural that people living to an old age will develop this disease or others, particularly heart disease. With reference to heart disease, I should like to emphasize the necessity for some form of accelerated research into the many causes of sudden death by coronary disease not only in Canada but in other countries. Research is being conducted but there is a need for acceleration of the investigation of something that is really becoming a problem. Frequently our attention is directed to the fact that some person has passed away with coronary disease. In the newspapers we only see the names of people whose passing has drawn the attention of reporters. We know that public men are passing away early in life from coronary disease, and I should like to suggest to the minister that every dollar that can be spent on accelerated research into the cause of death from coronary disease should be spent because it is becoming a problem.
In looking over the causes of death in the Dominion of Canada, I was struck by the large number of deaths from accidents. It may be that part of what I am going to say was discussed at the time of the consideration of amendments to the Criminal Code. I am referring to traffic accidents, but in view of the fact that accidental deaths are now the fourth cause of death in Canada I think it well that something should be placed on the record in this regard. I do so for the reason that I believe that consideration of this matter in the federal parliament on the estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare may add some impetus to doing something about it.
I wish to place on the record certain statistics which I think are rather frightening. I also wish to read a short extract from that highly reputable magazine, The Canadian Doctor. It is true that some 5,000 accidents occur through other causes, but industry is striving very hard to avoid accidents. Organizations like the workmen's compensation boards are making inquiries into the causes of accidents in industry and are doing everything possible to cut down the mortality and injury rates. However, traffic accidents seem to be increasing. Two days ago the hon. member for Oxford asked one of the ministers for statistics regarding traffic accidents. The minister did not have them available, and I do not think they are issued by the dominion bureau of statistics. Therefore, with the permission of the committee, I am going to read a short article from The Canadian Doctor.
The article was written by a highly reputable medical practitioner, Dr. Harold Elliott, who is a prominent Montreal neurosurgeon, and I note that the article commences with a quotation from certain remarks made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I do not know where he made these remarks. Possibly it was in the course of some address that he delivered, but I must say that I agree with him. It was a very suitable introduction to the short article on the unenviable record of the Dominion of Canada. In the minister's statement I find these words:
In the past fifty years our general mortality rate has been reduced by one-third, placing Canada fourth among the nations of the world.
This is the important sentence.
Were it not for the increasing toll taken by accidents, our general mortality rate would be even better.
Accidents, as I said, are the fourth ranking cause of death in this country. I wish to read the article, and I will ask the permission of the house to place the statistical records on Hansard. The article reads as follows:
Last May in The Canadian Doctor Dr. Harold Elliott, prominent Montreal neurosurgeon, attempted to bring home to Canadian medical men in general the appalling and steadily mounting mortality rate from automobile accidents and stir them, as dedicated to the preservation of life, to a sense of responsibility for concerted action which would reduce this. As pointed out by him, a total of 2,500 automobile passengers killed and approximately 54,000 injured in 1952 ranked this as one of the leading causes of death and maiming in the dominion. One is not surprised at the statement of the world health organization, made after the first international study of transport mortality covering fifteen countries, that "mortality from transport accidents represents one of the most important causes of death at certain ages" but it is distressing to find that Canada has almost the worst and least enviable record in this regard.
Twenty-two types of transport accidents are analysed in the W.H.O. study. The motor vehicle comes far ahead of all other means of transport as a cause of death. Far lower in the statistical scale are railway accidents, followed by road accidents caused by non-motor vehicles, and water transport accidents. Aircraft accidents appear at the bottom of the list and mostly affect personnel in military aircraft.
A comparison between the death rate caused by transport accidents and that resulting from disease shows that in a number of countries transport accidents rank with tuberculosis as a killer, especially of men; they are far more dangerous than many diseases such as nephritis, diabetes, and sometimes influenza. And transport accidents kill more men than women.
But it is among the young, where the general death rate is naturally low, that traffic is the number one killer. In certain countries one fourth, one third, or even more young people who die between the ages of 15 and 24 are killed in transport accidents. In this age group males are more likely to be killed than females, the proportion reaching as high as five to one.
What it is wished to emphasize here is Canada's unenviable record internationally in this regard. Those who were appalled at the Canadian situation

as presented by Dr. Elliott must be further shocked to learn that both as regards general transport deaths and deaths from this cause in the age group 15 to 24 Canada has one of the worst records in the world. It should prove further disturbing to doctors and bolster the argument they concertedly make themselves responsible for doing something about it.
I am going to place these tables before the house. The first table shows the proportion of deaths due to all transport accidents compared with general mortality, from all causes, in percentage. I wish to remind the house of that sentence: "compared with general mortality, from all causes, in percentage". The table is as follows:
Males Age Group 15 to 24 Per cent 43-2	New Zealand	Females Age Group 15 to 24 Per cent 4*534-2	Canada	15*2341	U.S.A.	12*330-8	South Africa	2*829-7	(European population) Denmark	6*927-7	England and Wales	6*5231	Germany	7*221*1	(Fed. Republic) Switzerland	5*019*7	Netherlands	3*816*9	Scotland	3*1012*3	Italy	2*2
I point out the fact that Canada is the highest of all countries with a rate of 34-2 for male deaths between the ages of 15 and 24 and 15-2 for females. When we read of the holiday accidents in the United States we think the toll is very high, but it is -1 per cent higher than in Canada.
I point out that the other table may be more interesting to hon. members, and that is the rates per 100,000 of population. I fancy I can hear some hon. members saying that the other rates were high for the populations, so I bring them down to this table showing the rate per 100,000 of population. The table is as follows:
Transport Mortality Rates per 100,000 population
	Total Average Males Females		
Australia 	49*2	10*1Canada 1952 	39*6	10-9Switzerland 1951 	33-9	7-1South Africa 1950 	... 201	33*4	6-7(European population) Germany, Fed. Rep. 1951 .	... 19-3	33-2	7-1New Zealand, 1952 	30*5	5*6Denmark 1951 	24*5	5*9Scotland 1951 	22-2	5-4England and Wales 1951 .	... 12-8	20*7	5*5Netherlands 1952 	20-7	4*8Italy 1951 	20*8	3*9Finland 1952 	19-1	5*2Japan 1951 	14-9	4*2
I again remind the house that this is put on a percentage basis per 100,000 of population.
Supply-Health and Welfare It may seem unusual to some people that I have brought this matter before the house during consideration of the estimates of national health and welfare. I know that the minister has not any responsibility with regard to these casualties, but on the other hand we are considering the dominion estimates for the Department of National Health and Welfare and this cause of death is fourth in the list of mortality rates. While this subject was under discussion some weeks ago, and we had a fairly long debate in connection with it, I hope that bringing before the house this casualty rate will cause something to be done about it and institute some form of program across the whole of this dominion with a view to cutting down this cause of death, which is fourth on the list of mortality tables.
In the matter of health and welfare, I have always been rather jealous of the position of the provinces. The control of health matters is within the jurisdiction of the provinces, but sometimes across the country a misunderstanding seems to arise as to who is doing the greatest work in that connection. Sometimes, in my jealousy over the position of the provinces, I feel that the federal government is taking credit for some of the things the provincial governments are doing.
I should like to put on the record the position with regard to hospital grants. Many times during the last few years I have mentioned the amount of money that the provinces are spending. The federal government does not match the total amount of money spent by the provincial government. It is true the federal government gives matching grants for hospital construction, but in connection with the work done in my own province the provincial government spends $2.57 for every dollar spent by the federal government, that is so far as 1953 is concerned. The federal government does contribute thousands of dollars for hospitals, but does not contribute towards the maintenance of the hospitals. The Ontario government, for instance, makes a grant of $8,500 for beds in mental institutions, but the federal government only contributes $1,500 towards that work.
It is true the federal government does contribute money towards mental health, but I want to place on the record the fact that the provinces are still doing a tremendous job in the advancement of health projects.
While I am speaking about this matter of the work done in the provinces in relation to the work done by the dominion, I wish to bring before the house one item which I feel
6296	HOUSE OF
Supply-Health and Welfare should have consideration from this committee. I refer to the question of the growing number of mental cases in this country.
I was struck by a statement that came from the dominion bureau of statistics indicating that patients in mental hospitals and psychiatric units outnumber all other patients in hospitals by more than 10 per cent. At the end of 1952-and that is the last date for which the complete figures were available- there were 61,925 patients in mental hospitals, while the number of all other patients in public hospitals was 54,284. I shall repeat those figures: 61,925 mental patients, and all other patients in hospitals numbering 54,284.
This brings us to the question of the shortage of beds in mental institutions, and the difficulty of obtaining treatment for cases in those institutions of those we have found it necessary to send there. While I am not in active practice at the present time, people still come to me and ask me if I can do anything to help get a patient into a mental hospital, because the waiting period is so long.
It is difficult to treat a mental case in a private home, but sometimes these patients have to wait some considerable time before beds are found available. If we are going to deal with this question, and if we keep in mind that 10 per cent of mental cases over all other types of cases in hospitals, then we have to do a great deal, and possibly something more than we are doing at the present time. A great deal of good could be accomplished by the extension of mental health units. I note-and I agree with the procedure-that the federal government is giving grants for that sort of thing. But we have to go much farther. While the provinces with the larger populations are making beds available, and trying to accommodate these people as rapidly as they can, one wonders if it would not be good policy to have smaller hospitals, or branches of psychiatric units attached to our larger hospitals. Thereby something could be done by way of early treatment.
It is known at the present time that there is more to the treatment of mental cases than just the matter of custodial care. An increasing percentage of these people are coming out of the hospitals in a cured condition. If we could have smaller psychiatric units attached to our larger hospitals there would be a chance to treat these cases earlier, so as to try to bring the disease under control. A great deal of work could be done among younger people in the mental health units.
I am aware that the government in my province has been working on this scheme,


and has been doing good work in treating the cases early and attempting to make cures.
I now go back to the information given out by the dominion bureau of statistics regarding mental disease. Perhaps I might quote from a newspaper article based on a statement made by the bureau of statistics, as follows:
Advances in combating infectious diseases in prolonging life expectancy, and in the general improvement in physical health have not been matched by comparable reductions in the incidence of mental disorders. Indeed, the successful control of a number of deadly diseases has served rather to accentuate the seriousness of mental illness as the cause of much suffering and unhappiness, and from another viewpoint, a great wastage of our human resources.
I hope that in Canada we can institute a program. While I realize that health is within the jurisdiction of the provinces, I believe we can do something to combat a condition in which, as I repeat, the number of patients in mental hospitals is 10 per cent higher than the number of admissions to ordinary hospitals
I am not going to talk about the incidence of some of the diseases we have covered in years gone by. As I said in the beginning, the percentages per population are probably getting better. In the past I have criticized our rate of infant mortality as compared with that in other countries. I must say however that this rate is improving; and I give credit to the research done on the subject. Advances in forms of treatment as well as new drugs have helped a great deal.
At this time I should like to pay tribute to the people who are working on this problem. I refer particularly to the general practitioners who are meeting the problem of treating these children, in infancy, and at early ages. I think much of the progress we are now making in the matter of infant mortality is due to those practitioners, and we can congratulate them upon the work they are doing. But last year I was alarmed, as I have no doubt were also the minister and the department, by the growing incidence in the outbreaks of poliomyelitis or infantile paralysis. I have here the record of poliomyelitis in Canada for 1953. The information is given by provinces, and I note two things about it. First of all, the greater number of cases occurred in July, August, September and October, and even into November, and that they occurred in the western provinces.
We have not yet got the answer to poliomyelitis, but some wonderful research is being done throughout the world, and particularly in Canada. I refer to that being done at the Connaught laboratories in an attempt to prepare something that will cope

with this disease. But, so tar as cure is concerned, we must go back to the therapeutic measures which have been instituted to try to stop the horrible crippling that occurs.
In this connection I would refer again to the work being done in Ontario. I would call the attention of hon. members to the excellent results obtained when Ontario instituted a program under which every case of poliomyelitis or infantile paralysis becomes a ward of the province for treatment purposes. From the time a case is diagnosed, the province takes over all the treatment. Looking back on the results obtained years ago, before this program was instituted, I find it amazing to note some of the recoveries that have been made. Not only is it important that these young people should be spared the crippling effects of this disease, but it is important from the standpoint of the state.
Only a few days ago we were discussing a bill with respect to disability. We were proud and pleased to vote money to disabled persons by way of pensions. But I suggest that the program which has been instituted in Ontario, to which I have just made reference, could be carried out in all the provinces of Canada. So far as can be done by way of treatment, it would go a long way toward clearing up the crippling effects of this disease.
I should like now to say a few words with regard to hospitals. The financing and building of new hospitals requires a great deal of money. Sometimes it is difficult for the public to understand why there is this constant demand for more beds, more accommodation. But I am going to place before the committee some of the statistics from my own province so that hon. members may have some of the facts in connection with hospitalization. It is not generally understood why there is such a demand, but certain facts stand out. Our population is not static. Every year there is an increase in population and that increase means that we must have more hospital accommodation, more hospitals for treatment of that increased population.
I should like to point out that advances in medical science, new forms of treatment, have made it imperative that these people be treated in hospital. That means that hospitals that were once adequate in size must be enlarged, and for those rapidly growing communities hospitals must be provided. It requires a great deal more money now to construct new buildings than it did years ago. The costs have risen very sharply. The assistance from the federal government and the provincial government constitutes really only a small part of the actual cost of the 83276-398J
Supply-Health and Welfare hospital facilities. The citizens themselves and the municipalities have to share in the cost of providing hospital services for their own communities.
What is the position of the municipalities? It is true that a certain amount of money will be raised for this purpose by appeals to the public. On the other hand, the municipalities find it very difficult to finance the building of new hospitals or the expansion of existing hospitals, and very often the maintenance of older existing hospitals.
In the consideration this morning of the estimates of the Department of Veterans Affairs certain figures were placed on the record regarding the cost of hospitalization. I take these figures from the Ontario records. The average length of stay in hospitals now is shorter than it formerly was. It is 9-23 days; but the average cost of a patient in a hospital per day to provide for his treatment is $12.58-these figures refer to the year 1952 -as opposed to $11.54 per day in 1951. There is an increase of $1.04 within one year. Out of this amount-and I am referring to Ontario; I am not acquainted with the records of the other provinces, but I think the comparison will be practically the same in all of them- of $12.58 per patient per day, the patient pays only $8.83. The difference has to be made up by grants from the various governments, federal, provincial or municipal, or from another level, namely, donations from the people who are interested in hospitals.
Something further is happening; more people are going to the hospitals because it is increasingly difficult to get help in the home or to get nurses. And, as I said, much of this treatment that is now given has to be given in hospital. We have arrived at the stage where practically 90 per cent of the babies are born in hospitals. The expenses have gone up. At the end of 1952 there were 9,855 more employees on hospital staffs than in 1947. In the matter of wages and salaries, they have increased. I often hear people say: why are hospitals costing so much? Why this constant appeal to the public? Since 1941 wages and salaries have gone up 150 per cent. Not only that, but food costs have gone up 200 per cent, and the hospital cost for drugs and medical supplies rose in that period of not quite ten years by 114 per cent. Therefore one can understand quite readily, when I make this appeal for more money for the hospitals, that there is a reason, and these figures should be placed on the record so that people can understand why hospital costs have gone up.
I now come to the question of nursing staffs and nurses in Canada. I hear the statement
6298	HOUSE OF
Supply-Health and Welfare made that we generally suffer from a shortage of some 10,000 nurses in Canada, although I know somebody said that the distribution was at fault. It is difficult, but it is costing the hospitals something to give nurses an education. Again 1 turn to the records of Ontario, which has about 5,000 nurses in training at all times. But so far as the hospitals are concerned, it represents an expenditure of $1,500,000 on education, for which those hospitals receive no educational grants. The position of the hospitals is increasingly difficult, and any person who has had any experience on the board of a hospital trying to finance a hospital and keep out of the red will know it is a very difficult position. Many of the municipalities are very much worried in trying to maintain hospitals, although the demand for more hospitals and more hospital beds is constantly before us.
I am not going to speak on the matter of the statistics of this department any further, sir, but at this time I wish to bring before the committee a few remarks on health insurance. I am going to ask the minister one question only when we come to the item on health insurance studies, and that is this. What is the minister doing and what has been accomplished? Will the minister give us a full statement on the studies that are being made? I bring this question of health insurance before the committee because in the past statements have been made in regard to a vote that was taken here in December, 1953, on the amendment to the speech from the throne that was introduced by the C.C.F. party. I have found a certain amount of propaganda going out that the Conservative party voted against health insurance. I thought I explained to the house at that time that we voted against socialized medicine. I made it very clear at that time-


Clarence Gillis: What is the difference?


William Gourlay Blair: There is a large difference.


Clarence Gillis: Explain it to us.


William Gourlay Blair: I will, shortly. I made it clear at that time in the latter part of my speech that every party in this house is committed to health insurance. I admit, sir, that any form will produce and do some good, but we are committed to a form of contributory insurance. It is not sufficient to say that every form is the same. There is a great deal of difference in them, and the more you study them, the more do those differences become apparent. In the first place, one must realize that health is within the jurisdiction of the provinces. One cannot get around that. The second thing is that if you are going to make health insurance succeed at any time, one of the most important


things to remember is the matter of doctor-patient relationship. That must be preserved, no matter what happens. No health insurance scheme can be effective unless the doctor-patient relationship is preserved. The views of the doctor on this matter are very important. I say that not because I belong to that profession; but I hold that we must receive their help, their co-operation, their good will and their agreement before any form of health insurance can be a success. Our idea of health insurance is not state medicine. We believe in a minimum of controls, not a maximum.
We want this to be a free form, a free plan. I do pay tribute to the many forms of free insurance at the present time-Blue Cross, and some of the forms that have been instituted by the doctors themselves. They are doing marvellous work in this country. Therefore those facts become very apparent in the consideration of that question; but there are certain facts regarding state medicine, and I wish to place on the record the views of a very important and outstanding man from England, Dr. Reginald Hale-White, who addressed the Canadian Medical Association at its convention last week. I quote from a dispatch from Vancouver regarding a speech he made out there:
Dr. Reginald Hale-White of London says socialized medicine in Britain leaves "much to be desired, because it is not giving the general public its full worth."
And remember, sir, I stated that any plan will do a certain amount of good, but we in Canada are looking for the best plan. I continue with Dr. Hale-White's statement:
The doctor, on the council of the British Medical Association, is representing the BMA at the Canadian Medical Association convention here.
The service in England, he said, "is costing the public $1,400 million a year.
"It is not at all what the politicians said it would be," he said, "and it should have been introduced gradually, instead of with a bang, as it was.
Dr Hale-White listed four complaints against the medical scheme, which has been in effect since
1948.
They were:	, . .	..
1 The introduction of the scheme led to the belittling of the general practitioner, because the government stressed that the public would have access to the best specialists under socialized
medicine.	..	, .	. .
2. People began bothering the doctors and hospitals with trivial matters.
3.	The time a doctor could give his patients was boiinhalleneed by paper work necessary under
me swiciuc.
4.	Hospitals became cluttered with cases that should have been handled by general practitioners but were not because of lack of time.
The doctor, who is leaving Friday for a cross-Canada tour and then home, warned that these are some of the things that should be watched under any national or provincial hospital insurance plan in Canada.

I repeat, Mr. Chairman, that this party is in favour of health insurance. We are opposed to state medicine. We believe a contributory plan could be introduced which would cover the situation without having state medicine in Canada.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I am sure that all members of the house will agree that we have come this afternoon to a discussion of one of the most important functions of government. That applies to the work being done by the federal Department of National Health and Welfare. It also applies to the work being done by the various provincial departments of health and also the great amount of work being done at the municipal level. I think also of the great deal of work in the field of health care that is done by the school boards and school districts of this country.
As I say, we feel that this is one of the most important functions of government at all levels of government in Canada. I do not want anyone to infer from what I have just said that despite its importance there has been no discussion of health and welfare matters at this session. I do not rise to make the charge that it has been left to the dying days of this session. That would certainly be inappropriate for a department and a function of government which is so important, and we made sure that these matters were discussed all through the session.
The fact is that we have had quite a number of discussions during the course of this session on matters that come within the purview of this department. The hon. member for Lanark referred a few moments ago to the amendment which was moved by my leader, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, which was the subject of discussion during the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. The words in question were these:
We further represent that this house regrets that Your Excellency's advisers have failed to recommend legislation establishing a nation-wide health insurance program, with provision for provincial participation.
In addition, we have had discussions spread through the session on a number of other matters that come under this department. We have had two or three discussions on the subject of old age pensions, including both old age assistance and old age security. Indeed, on May 31 there was before the house in my name an amendment to the motion to go into ways and means dealing with old age assistance, old age security, and blind pensions. We have also had a discussion on the question of family allowances which was
Supply-Health and Welfare precipitated by a private member's motion presented to the house by my deskmate, the hon. member for Assiniboia.
As the hon. member for Lanark pointed out, we have also had a discussion on disability allowances arising out of the legislation which the Minister of National Health and Welfare at last introduced in connection with that matter. In addition to these formal debates, Mr. Chairman, there have been repeated questions throughout the session on matters relating to health and welfare which bear witness to the tremendous importance of this phase of government.
I think too of the meetings that have been held during the course of the session by the voluntary committee on health to which both senators and members of this house belong and at which we have had some very interesting lectures, including one a short while ago on the very important question of poliomyelitis.
I think it is true to say, Mr. Chairman, that parliament generally has been conscious throughout this session of the importance of the work of this department. I believe in fact that the department of health and welfare includes amongst its many divisions one division which is one of the oldest functions of government. I refer to the division which deals with food and drugs. In other words, it was recognized quite early in the history of this country that one of the jobs that had to be done by the federal government was that of taking protective or preventive measures for the health of the Canadian people. We have gone a long way since those early days when the extent of the responsibility for health was confined to that negative or preventive field covered by the protection of food and drugs. We have come to recognize that with an economy such as ours, and with the growing extent to which our society is one in which we are members one of another, it is our responsibility to provide for the health and well-being of the members of the community to the very limit of our capacity.
I welcome, as do all hon. members of this group, and as do all hon. members of the house, the progress we have made in that direction even though we might spend most of the time when we talk of these matters emphasizing the distance we have yet to travel. But welcome though we may the progress that has been made in the past, we feel that there is not really time enough to sit around rejoicing in that progress when there is so much yet to be done.
Having said a few things about the department in perhaps a little more complimentary
6300	HOUSE OF
Supply-Health and Welfare vein than that in which I am usually known to indulge, as the minister will confirm, I might add that we feel a great deal of good has been accomplished in the field of health and welfare, particularly since health and welfare was set up as a department by itself. It took a few years after the original organization of this new department for it to get into its stride, and such moves as it has made were made we think in response to pressures put upon the government from this house and in response to the pressure of public opinion.
Perhaps the most significant forward step in the field of health taken by the department is that which was taken in May, 1948, when the health grants program was launched. I will not allow the minister to forget that the prime minister of that day declared on that occasion that the health grants program was to be the basis for a nation-wide program of health insurance. I hope the day is not too far off when there will be built the superstructure for which that foundation was laid. Under that health grants program a great deal of assistance has been given in the construction of hospitals. Let us give credit to all those to whom it is due in that connection. Let us give credit to the federal government for the appropriation of federal public money for this purpose. But let us give credit also to provincial governments and to all others who have contributed toward increasing the number of hospital beds in this country.
In addition to the building of hospitals that has been done under the health grants program, there were other grants-there are a good many of them now-such as the crippled children's grant, the grant for the combating of cancer, the grant with respect to mental diseases and so on. We think too of the tremendous amount of research that is being done under the various grants. Some of it is done directly by the department and some of it involves money being made available to institutes or to organizations able to carry on research in the fields of cancer, poliomyelitis, multiple sclerosis or others of these diseases which, even to our medical people, are still a mystery and the solution to which would mean so much to the health of our people. We welcome the work that is being done under the health grants program; but, as I said a moment ago, Mr. Chairman, I hope the minister will not think that I am going to stop there. I shall continue to remind him of what Mr. Mackenzie King said, namely that one of the reasons for initiating this health grants program was so as to lay the foundation for a nation-wide program of health insurance.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I thank the hon. member for those kind words.


Clarence Gillis: Be careful; do not lead with your chin.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I hope the minister will express that appreciation in a practical way by fighting still harder within the cabinet of which he is a member for the right to introduce at an early date a nation-wide health insurance program.
I also want to say, Mr. Chairman, that one of the other forward steps that was taken by this department during the last few years was that which was taken when the means test was removed from the old age pension at least at age 70 and when we got started on a new concept of old age security as a right belonging to the people of this country rather than as a matter of charity. I am not going to take the time to repeat the speeches I have made on that question times without number in this chamber. I just want to add to my appreciation of what was done by saying that we want that principle, the principle that social security is a right, to be extended still further. As I indicated when I moved an amendment to the motion to go into ways and means on May 31, we believe that the amount of the old age pension should now be increased to not less than $60 a month, and we feel that the means test should be removed at age 65. We indicated also, with respect to that other forward step, namely the disability pension, that it too should be raised to the figure of $60 a month.
In connection with the progress that we made a few years ago with regard to our old age security legislation, and recalling the work of our committee which recommended the abolition of the means test, may I take a moment to refer in passing to a couple of items that I noticed in the press a short while ago. I may be getting off base a bit but it is late in the session, so why not? I must say, Mr. Chairman, that I shall never forget the real assistance that we had in our committee on old age security from one of the present minister's deputies. I refer to the deputy minister of welfare, Dr. George F. Davidson. The Minister of National Health and Welfare is very ably assisted by two deputy ministers, namely Dr. George F. Davidson as deputy minister of welfare and Dr. G. D. W. Cameron as deputy minister of health.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I knew the minister would agree with me.


Clarence Gillis: The hon. member may be accused of looking for a seat in the Senate; he had better be careful.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Not I. It is only proof of the importance of the work of this department that it has to have two deputy ministers. What I saw in the paper which disturbed me a bit was a rumour that we might lose Dr. Davidson from the Department of National Health and Welfare. There is no doubt that he could do a good job in the position to which it was rumoured he might move, but I must say I would be sorry if we lost him from this important Department of National Health and Welfare. However, if the Minister of National Health and Welfare is not able to hold Dr. Davidson against the inducements or blandishments that may be offered to him by one of his colleagues, I was also interested in noting in the press the rumour-one of those informed guesses, as it were-that if that happened the Prime Minister might then have the opportunity to appoint the first woman to become a deputy minister under this government. I am glad that she is within the sound of my voice and knows that if that happens it would have my approval. From the applause of other members I gather that the appointment of Miss Olive Waters as deputy minister of welfare would be approved generally in the House of Commons.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Are there any other appointments?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Not today. Perhaps that is enough along that line, Mr. Chairman. The Minister of National Health and Welfare may wonder whether I am not feeling well, having got this far in my speech without having something critical to say. I now come to that point. I have already indicated that we feel that greater effort should be made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare to persuade his colleagues that the time has come for increasing the amounts paid under various social security acts. I refer to old age pensions, blindness pensions and disability allowances. However, Mr. Chairman, the gap in our social security program which is the most serious of all-the one which I regret has not yet been filled-is that of national health insurance. As I have said already, Mr. King made it clear in May, 1948, that that was the purpose of the health grants program, namely to lay a foundation for nation-wide health insurance. Someone may say: That was only six years ago; what is your hurry? The minister knows that I must remind him again that national health insurance was first put into the Liberal platform in 1919. That was 35 years ago.


Mr. Mclvor:: And it is still there.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member for Fort William says that it is still there. I suggest
Supply-Health and Welfare to the hon. member for Fort William and to members generally on the other side of the chamber that the time has come to take that plank out of the Liberal platform and put it on the statute books of Canada. Thirty-five years is a long time ago, Mr. Chairman. I can remember back that far but I cannot remember much farther back.
I submit that the time has come for definite action on this question. As a matter of fact, a new generation of Canadians-indeed a new generation of Liberals-has grown up which is now getting interested in this question. I hold in my hand a clipping from the Montreal Gazette of Monday, May 31, 1954. The heading is "National Insurance Advocated". The first paragraph reads as follows:
Ottawa, May 30-CP-Canada's young Liberals Saturday urged the government to implement a national contributory health insurance plan in co-operation with the provinces.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member for Fort William, one of the young Liberals over there, says "hear, hear". I am glad to know that there is still support in the Liberal ranks for this plank of national health insurance. The hon. member for Lanark says he is going to ask one question of the Minister of National Health and Welfare when we get down to that item. I ask him the same question. What are you doing about this? When are we going to get national health insurance? Surely the minister and the government generally are not going to argue that they have got to wait any longer to ascertain public opinion in connection with this matter. Surely they must know that people all over Canada today are conscious of the heavy costs of medical expenses. They are conscious of how these expenses bear down on them when they have to be met. They are conscious of the fact that a great many people do not have the medical or hospital care which they should have because of the heavy cost.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare has had some part to play in having sickness surveys made, and I have been interested in some of the facts that have been brought out by these surveys. For example, I hold in my hand a portion of the dominion bureau of statistics daily bulletin for September 21, 1953, which shows several breakdowns of a sickness survey, the results of which had been announced at that time, and this one interested me in particular. Out of 1,322,000 family units with incomes less than $1,500 nearly one-fifth, 19-8 per cent, spent nothing on health care compared with 7-7 per cent of 1,864,000 with incomes of $1,500 to $2,299, 4-3 per cent of 833,000 with
6302	HOUSE OF
Supply-Health and Welfare incomes of $3,000 to $4,999 and 3 per cent of 271,000 with incomes of $5,000 or more.
May I pick out two figures there to make a comparison which drives home the point I have in mind. The point is that of those family units whose incomes are $1,500 a year or less nearly 20 per cent have spent nothing in the whole year on health care, but when you take those with $5,000 a year or more there are only 3 per cent who spent nothing on health care.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: May I ask the hon. member a question? Does he not think that the young Liberals showed good sense when they supported national health insurance in cooperation with the provinces instead of the dominion going it alone?


Stanley Howard Knowles: As a matter of fact that was the gist of the amendment which my leader moved last November 16. It asked for a nation-wide health insurance program with provision for provincial participation. That appears to be what the young Liberals supported in their motion the other day, but the hon. member for Fort William voted against it when we moved it in the house last year.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Want of confidence.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is the old dodge, want of confidence. We think that the health of the people is more important than the survival of any particular government. I was pointing out that of those family units whose income is $1,500 a year or less nearly 20 per cent spent nothing on health care whereas of those whose incomes were $5,000 a year or more only 3 per cent got through the year without spending anything on health care. We all know, Mr. Chairman, that it stands to reason that the people with low incomes are not going to be healthier than the people with higher incomes. The reverse is the case. What it means is simply this, that the people with low incomes cannot afford the health care that they so sorely need.
Surely it has been recognized by everyone, young Liberals and old and Canadians generally, that the only solution to the heavy cost of adequate medical care is to put it on an over-all or universal basis. We have had that brought out in other ways during the course of this session. I am not going to revive the debate we had a few days ago on a form of life insurance when the Minister of Finance and his parliamentary assistant both drove home the point, and did it very well, that the only way you could make sure that an entire group would have a certain amount of insurance protection was to put it on an over-all or universal basis.


They both said that that was the only way to make sure they would all have it. They said it was the only way to make sure that the cost of it would be kept down. That principle applies to health insurance for the nation as it applies to life insurance for a limited group of people.
I do not feel it is necessary to argue the principle of this matter. What we seem to have to argue for is to get action out of the present government. The only reason I can see for the government holding back is that the government might have the false notion that the people of Canada do not want national health insurance. I am convinced that they do. As the minister will recall, during the course of this session he and I were privileged, along with one or two others, to participate in what I thought was a very interesting "Citizens' Forum" discussion which was carried by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
In terms of "Citizens' Forum" discussions it was one of the most interesting in which I had ever participated. We did not do much preparation in advance. We were not too sure before we started what line each of the participants was going to take. The Minister of National Health and Welfare surprised me a bit. I found he was pretty well on my side, that the two of us were arguing for some form of nation-wide health insurance as opposed to a differing point of view which suggested that it should be done on a voluntary basis. The minister can correct me if I am wrong, but I think it is fair to say that he took the position that, some advantages though there might be in voluntary plans, they could not possibly cover the entire nation, could not possibly cover all the people of this country, and that sooner or later we had to get some form of nation-wide health insurance with government participation, including both the federal government and the provinces.
I am not going to bore the house with what the minister and I had to say on that occasion, but I was more than interested in a broadcast which was given in the "Citizens' Forum" series on Thursday, April 1, 1954, during which C.B.C. speakers summed up the reaction of the forum groups across the country to a number of "Citizens' Forum" discussions that were conducted during the course of the 1953-54 season. I found that the "Citizens' Forum" groups provided some very interesting information for the C.B.C. people when it came time to report on the discussions. For example, I find this, which was said, as I say, over the C.B.C. on April 1 of this year:
Saskatchewan is the only province where a majority of the groups feels that present services

in their community are fairly adequate. Everywhere else-even in large cities like Montreal- there would appear to be a good deal of dissatisfaction and concern. Listeners don't criticize the existing medical and hospital plans, as such. Indeed, some point out that they are rendering excellent service. But they don't believe that they provide for the people who really need protection most. The costs make them quite out of reach for poorer families-they argue-and they're uncomfortably high too for many in the middle income group- who have always had the worst of the medical deal -according to some maritime listeners.
That is just a sampling or a collection of opinions from across the country, indicating that the people who listened to our broadcast generally felt that the services we have now got are not sufficient and that the main problem is cost. Then I come to this interesting paragraph:
Under these circumstances it was interesting to see the reaction of the B.C. forums to the topic ''What Health Plan for Canadians'', and especially to the question of government participation in such a scheme. Surprisingly enough, every one of the forums-
The reference is to the British Columbia forums.
-favoured a compulsory national plan to cover every Canadian. The only disagreement was over the best method of collection of the necessary fees. While 60 per cent favoured the use of premiums, 20 per cent wanted the costs to come from general taxation. But the point that snagged all of the discussions was that though all Canadians are in need of medical care, not all are equally able to pay. Any health plan must cover this latter part of the population, but without imposing higher expenses on the rest of the people. We are all looking forward to the day when a government can solve that one.
My reason for reading these one or two excerpts from this summary that was given over the C.B.C. is that I think it gives, as nearly as one can obtain it, a report of what ordinary Canadians are thinking about this question of health insurance. I believe these excerpts which I have read represent pretty well what the average Canadian is thinking. He thinks the health services we have got are fine as far as they go. Many Canadians feel great debts of gratitude to doctors who have ministered to them and have saved their lives. Many Canadians are grateful for such hospital services as we have in this country. But Canadians generally are also very much aware of the heavy costs of medical care and how unfairly those costs impinge upon those in the lower and middle income brackets. You find, therefore, an increasing number of Canadians with the very strong feeling that the only possible solution to this matter is a nation-wide program of health insurance.
I listened with interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Lanark on this question. Earlier in my remarks today I read the 83276-399
Supply-Health and Welfare amendment of my leader, moved on November 16, and I still find it difficult to know why he and his colleagues voted against these words:
We further represent that this house regrets that Your Excellency's advisers have failed to recommend legislation establishing a nation-wide health insurance program, with provision for provincial participation.
Quite a few social security measures as well as other measures, Mr. Chairman, have got started in this country precisely on that basis, on the basis of federal legislation making possible provincial participation as and when the provinces wished to come into such a plan. It was that way we got old age pensions in the first place. Not all the provinces came into the plan at the start. I believe it was more than a decade before all the provinces were in the original old age pension plan. Without bothering to produce other instances in the interim, I point out that only a week or two ago we passed another social security measure on that same basis. I refer to the bill providing for allowances for disabled persons. It is a federal measure with provision for provincial participation, and it will come into effect only in those provinces that are prepared to join in it and to pay their share of the costs. At least in respect of that measure we have reached a point where Canadians in other provinces are not going to be told they have to wait longer because all the provinces are not ready.
Why can we not apply that same principle, that same modus operandi, to this question of health insurance? If there are, as I believe, a number of provinces whose people would like to see a health insurance program started, let us have exactly what we asked for in that subamendment, despite the fact the Liberals and Conservatives in this house voted against the proposal that there be federal legislation setting up a nation-wide health insurance program with provision for the provinces to participate in it, and to administer it, when the provinces are ready to do so.
The minister and members generally know of my own keen interest in social security matters. They know that I never miss an opportunity to advocate higher old age pensions and other forms of social security involving the placing of actual dollars in the hands of those who need them. I am not announcing anything when I indicate I shall continue to advocate increases in those other social security measures. But, Mr. Chairman, I want to say that, in my view, when we are dealing with health insurance we are
6304	HOUSE OF
Supply-Health and Welfare dealing with the most important item in an over-all social security program. It is the most serious gap in our program at the moment. It is the matter about which something must be done.
I urge upon the minister, as strongly as I can, that he carry on his fight. I believe he is fighting for it inside the cabinet-goodness, that must be an awful place to fight- and I urge him to carry on the fight for this most important improvement. Surely, with all of the capacity that we have for producing wealth, with all of the capacity we have for arranging our economy so as to meet the needs of defence or some of the needs of peace as they come along, it does not make sense that we have not found a way to devote an appropriate portion of our national wealth to the provision of the best possible health care for all our people.
Let us not have any quibbling about the cost of it. As the hon. member for Mackenzie said this morning when we were talking about burnt-out pensions, if a request came along, even before the end of this session, for another $100 million or $200 million or even more for NATO, the government would consider it very seriously. I would not be surprised if they asked for it before the end of this session. Why quibble over a corresponding amount that could be devoted to such an important question as this? It is not a case of giving our people something for nothing. All the wealth of this country, all the money this government or any other government has to spend has been created by our people through their work and their toil. They deserve, because of their work and toil and because of the wealth they produce, immediate action to make sure that a proper portion of that wealth will be devoted to this most important cause, the care of our health. I insist that the time has come for action by this government on the question of a nationwide health insurance program.


Frederick Davis Shaw: My remarks, Mr. Chairman, should not occupy the house for more than a few minutes this afternoon. After all, thus far during the session, we have had an opportunity of discussing a number of matters which would properly fall within the scope of this department. Moreover, with respect to the question of health insurance, we did have an extended debate during the month of November. However, I do intend to make a passing reference to that in a moment.
Previous speakers have indicated their belief in the importance of the Department of National Health and Welfare. We concur in those observations. We have said upon more than one occasion in this house that it is our belief that the health of the people is
CMr. Knowles.!

the nation's greatest asset. We are convinced that without good health all else would be of little avail. We are convinced also, and are not overlooking this fact in any way, that vast strides have been made in this field of health and welfare in Canada. When I was speaking in this house on November 26 last, I emphasized that belief of ours.
After all, when one stops to consider what is being done by the federal government in national health and welfare, by the provincial governments of the ten provinces, by the municipalities, by the voluntary health organizations, by the doctors, the nurses and those administering the hospitals, one cannot help realizing that the picture is a vastly improved one as compared with that of not very many years ago. And in speaking of the federal government, the provinces, and the like, I should have pointed out that it is not only a question of their working individually and independently to a certain degree, but of all of them working co-operatively to accomplish this most desirable result.
Having said that, however, I must hasten to add that there are some things which do not concern us very greatly. The hon. member for Lanark referred to the importance of research, and in doing so made mention of the infant mortality rate within this nation. I am not certain of the figures to which I shall refer. It may be that I am quite wrong, but I read recently that among the nations of the world we rank thirteenth, so far as infant mortality is concerned. In other words there are 12 nations with lower infant mortality rates than we have.
That staggers me. After all, when one stops to consider the very nature of this nation, the high standard of living we enjoy within the nation, our expanded facilities for health services, and the like, he cannot help asking himself why we should be thirteenth. I would ask the minister to deal with that matter during the consideration of these estimates. I am confident that others have been staggered by that information.
The hon. member for Lanark referred to another point to which I shall now turn. Anyone who will pick up a newspaper will observe the number of persons in middle life who, to use a common expression, just drop dead from heart condition. I wonder what research has been conducted in that field. Only a day or two ago I picked up a local newspaper and, on various pages of that newspaper, I found deaths recorded. I knew none of these people. One young man was 41 years old, another was 43 and a third was 47. Upon reading reports of these deaths

it became clear that these three at least- and there may have been others in the same issue of the newspaper-simply died suddenly as a consequence of heart disease. I would ask the minister to indicate to us just to what extent that particular aspect of our national health problem is being attacked, right at its roots.
I have certain ideas, myself. I am sure the minister had, too, when he engaged in his particular program of weight reduction. I have tried to follow the lead and with very happy results. However, I do hope the minister will comment upon that aspect of the whole problem.
I am not going to make reference to many other subjects, apart from that of health insurance, because I do know there will be opportunity to deal with most of them under the individual items. Each time I hear health insurance discussed I become just a bit more confused. I ask myself this question: Is it health insurance, or is it sickness insurance that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is actually talking about? I have been compelled to come to the conclusion that he is talking about sickness insurance, provision for people who become ill, rather than health insurance.
The most important problem facing us in Canada is not the sickness aspect, important as it may be: it is the cause of illness, the prevention of illness, which in my view is of prime concern. That is why, whenever we have talked of any health program in Canada, those of us in this group have laid emphasis upon the preventive aspect, that of teaching the people how to live so that they may not become ill. Because, after all, when people become ill the problem has been created and the damage has been done.
Let us not concentrate our attention upon sickness insurance, but rather upon a broadened health program which shall have as one of its prime purposes that of keeping people well. I agree with the hon. member for Lanark that we do not want what I believe both he and I call state medicine. I realize that state medicine will offer certain things. For example, I would not want the British program as it stands today. While there are aspects of it that are good, I see serious weaknesses in the British scheme. And certainly I think some of its weakness has resulted from the fact that the state has gone altogether too far into that field.
We realize fully that at least for people in certain parts of the country hospital costs are extremely high. One thing that bears down upon my mind when I am here in Ottawa is the knowledge that if I become ill 83276-399i
Supply-Health and Welfare I shall have to pay a very heavy cost for the privilege of occupying a bed in one of the hospitals. That is not such a heavy burden when I am at home because I can have that accommodation for a dollar a day.
I mention that for this reason. It occurs to me that costs to individuals who occupy hospital beds could be reduced by methods other than that of putting into effect an over-all sickness insurance scheme. I feel that grants payable to hospitals-grants which, after all, come out of the contributions of all the people of Canada-should be used toward reducing the cost of hospitalization to those requiring it. That scheme prevails in certain parts of Canada, without premium charges being imposed upon individuals as such. And when I talk about premium charges I would say to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre I am a bit confused as to whether he does actually advocate a contributory scheme or whether he advocates a scheme which would be financed out of the general revenue of Canada.
Today in connection with health insurance he quoted with approval certain statements, and throughout those statements I noticed the word "contributory" was rather heavily underlined. Yet I reminded him that last November 26, in introducing their amendment, they said, "We believe the plan should be financed out of the federal treasury"-or "out of the general revenue of Canada". I believe that was the actual expression used.


Stanley Howard Knowles: All of which comes from the contributions of the Canadian people.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Yes, that is true; but let us not forget that there is a fundamental difference between financing out of the general revenue, the consolidated revenue fund, and imposing a premium levied upon individual Canadians, earmarking those premiums and then paying them out for services rendered. In the discussion of this whole matter let us not forget that there are certain group insurance plans in operation in Canada. All of these apply to groups, but there are certain others such as Blue Cross. If consideration is to be given to this problem, then consideration might be given to this question of subsidizing certain of the schemes in order that the cost may be brought down to where it can be handled by the rank and file of the people of our country.
This might be of interest to hon. members. I recall that at least thirty years ago in the town in which I resided a voluntary organization of citizens came into being. The doctors worked closely in connection with this voluntary organization. Each family paid $25 into the scheme and each family

Supply-Health and Welfare was entitled to all medical services, apart from the treatment of venereal disease. I think that was the only exclusion. Today, after more than thirty years, that scheme is still in operation although-and I am speaking from memory now-I believe the charge per family is now $35. It is wholly voluntary. The family comes in under the scheme of its own free will. If it does not, it pays normal prevailing charges. Naturally, they have to pay before a certain day each year. The doctors voluntarily came into the scheme; there was no pressure in any way whatsoever. In fact the doctors had a good deal to do with initiating the scheme. There is nothing to prevent the doctors from taking cases outside the scheme. It is still in operation, and I think operating satisfactorily. In fact, speaking from memory once again, I believe there are two such organizations within that community, a town of about 2,500 people. It also takes in the surrounding community. I have often wondered-


Mr. Marlin:: That is Stettler?


Frederick Davis Shaw: No, Cardston, Alberta. There may be others in Alberta. The hon. member for Acadia says something similar is operating in Drumheller. It occurs to me that probably there is a field that the medical profession should explore. Perhaps they have already done so, but to me it offers much; it guarantees freedom to patients and to the doctor. The hon. member for Lanark, as a representative of the medical profession, indicated that he wanted those things preserved, and certainly I do, too.
Certainly I think the medical profession of this country realize that they are under pressure. I think a good many of them do realize that this pressure is bearing in from all sides, and just when the Minister of National Health and Welfare or his government may weaken, I do not know-weaken in the sense that they may be prevailed upon to go a whole lot farther than they should go into this field of national health insurance.
I say to the medical men, much is going to depend upon you. I commend the type of scheme to which I referred. There may be others which are even better, but let me repeat what I said earlier. We feel that medical and hospital costs could, generally speaking, be brought within the Canadian people's ability to pay, without the regimentation of those Canadian people, without setting up another broad comprehensive administrative organization, costly as they all prove to be sooner or later. Let me say this to the minister. I trust that he as Minister of National Health and Welfare will never be guilty of simply foisting a scheme upon this house and say, take it or leave it. I trust


that, if this health insurance study program advances to the point where the minister and the government may think "Well, now, it is time to do something", they will follow the same course of procedure that was followed in consideration of old age pensions, and that a committee of this house or a joint committee of both houses will be set up and be permitted to make a comprehensive study, and call in witnesses.
I am not too impressed by what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said about the views of these forums. I should like to know the membership of these forums. I should like to know where they are located, not only provincially, but where within the provinces. I cannot put too much value on that report until I know more about it. But I do know this. If a joint committee is set up-and I have served on a number of those joint committees-all interested national organizations are allowed to appear and make their representations on behalf of the people of this country. If that is done we shall find out pretty definitely what it is that the people of this country desire.
I know that a petition was circulated in the country not very many years ago. I saw a pile about two feet high on one of the desks of this house; but, Mr. Chairman, that did not impress me, because I for one was never told just exactly what the individual who signed was told or asked. Not only that: it is very easy for one to say, Yes, I want health insurance. But it is quite a different thing when it comes to discussing health insurance or a health program with him and finding out just what particular program he wants.
I stated last November, when we contemplated voting for the C.C.F. subamendment, that we did not want it thought for one moment that we were accepting any specific program that they or anybody else might come up with. We wanted a broadening of health services across the country. I think all hon. members desire to see something like that, but it certainly did not commit us to any specific program.
I should like to see someone in this house, who really wants health insurance, get up some time and give a fairly comprehensive outline of that which he wants us to accept, because the term "health insurance" can mean just about all things to all men, and I should like to know a little bit more about the details of any proposals.
We have said-and I shall repeat it quickly-we believe firmly in the maintenance of individual responsibility, self-help, as it were. I know that the people of this country desire to help themselves. They want to retain that. Certainly, we want to retain

the freedom of the doctors and the nurses and the hospitals, and the administrators of the hospitals in the sense that they are elected representatives of the community.
I have laid emphasis before on preventive medicine. In spite of all that has been done, we have slipped back as far as preventive medicine is concerned. I am not depreciating for one moment what the minister's department has done in this field; I am not depreciating for one moment what the provincial departments have done. But I still say that we are lagging behind as far as preventive medicine is concerned, with the result that all across the country people are talking health insurance when they mean sickness insurance. Well, let us attack this thing at its root; let us concentrate more and more on keeping people well.
I am going to say something in a moment about voluntary organizations, and it will be in connection with that. I have said that no matter what program is brought in, whatever services are extended to the people of this country, such can be financed by the federal government, the provincial governments and the municipalities. Decentralize administration as far as it is possible to do it. Let us have administration on the lowest possible level. Precedents have already been established in this field. Health grants are paid to the provinces for hospital construction. I believe the province matches that dollar for dollar, and the two put together will not build the hospital, and therefore the municipality-if it happens to be a municipal hospital-or whatever the local supporting body may be, will put up the remainder. That hospital is administered at a local level under the provisions of the provincial act. I have always felt and still feel that we should keep the administration there as close to the people as we possibly can if for no other reason than that when things do not go as they should the administrators will be close enough to be kicked where they will feel it most.
I said a moment ago that I trust we will not come into this parliament some session and have some scheme of health insurance suddenly slammed before us. I think the minister followed the proper course in consideration of the old age pension and, for example, in consideration of the veterans charter. This is another field in which that procedure should be followed.
From time to time in this house the minister has paid tribute to voluntary health organizations in this country, but I would point out, Mr. Chairman, that the minister's actions are certainly not a true reflection of his statement in this respect. Indeed, I do not have to go beyond the item provided in
Supply-Health and Welfare these estimates for the voluntary health organizations in this country. One would have to be blind to fail to see the important work that has been done and is still being done by these organizations in this country. But instead of the government creating the impression that they are finding less value in the work of these organizations as time goes on they should, in my opinion, convey to us their belief that these organizations can play an even more important part in the future. Some of these organizations are getting less in grants than they got years ago and some of them operate from year to year with what is nothing more than a paltry sum.
The minister must know that there are more people to be served by these organizations and he must know that their costs, including even postage, have gone up. He must know they are obliged to pay sales tax on many of the things they use to carry out these services. What the minister is indicating is that they should do as much today with their present revenues as they did years ago. That, of course, is fantastic. It seems that the minister has lost part if not all of his appreciation of our voluntary health organizations. Perhaps there is some other explanation but I for one simply cannot understand the present attitude.
The minister, with all the additional burdens which have been placed upon his shoulders, including civil defence covering an amount of $6 million in the estimates, should be tickled to death to see the voluntary organizations taking over more and more of the work in the field of health and welfare which they are perfectly competent to do. I do not think they are looking for any glory. But if there is any glory then the minister can share it.
I think I have given a fair expression to my views on this matter but when we come to deal with these items the minister should anticipate that I am going to put some rather searching questions to him. I said at the commencement of my remarks that while I may criticize I can also pay tribute. Vast strides have been made in this country in the field of health and welfare and I say that with conviction. I will give the minister all the credit in the world for the accomplishments which have been brought about. I think his heart is in the right place but we will still hope that he will not allow any group or body in this country to push him or his department into what I call state medicine.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Mr. Chairman, I have just a question or two to ask the minister. We
6308	HOUSE OF
Supply-Health and Welfare have all heard about the prevalence of cancer, heart disease, infant mortality and tuberculosis, but we have heard nothing about the causes. I know it is not popular to state what the causes are but I will give my own explanation. Today we spend $868 million on liquor. I know a person can take a drink without hurting anyone. We also spend $465 million on tobacco. A person can take a smoke and not hurt anyone. But we know that many of these illnesses come from hangovers. Lots of people in Canada do not touch drink, but there are many who do and there are lots of these hangovers which hang, as I have found from experience in dealing with many of these people. I say that the $868 million spent on liquor is the cause of mental illness and t.b. and it certainly is the cause of a lot of heart-burning.
My friend the former member for St. Boniface, Dr. Howden, now Senator Howden, told me "Put this in your pipe and smoke it. There are a lot of people who will suddenly drop dead because they are heavy smokers." He said that one of the greatest causes of heart trouble was the use of tobacco. I congratulate the minister on having organized some research along these lines. We are spending $1,333 million on something which does not do anyone any good and we could have health insurance for that amount of money. But my question is, can the minister give us the outstanding causes of cancer, t.b., heart trouble, and infant mortality?


Mr, Gillis:: Mr. Chairman, I am sure that if the minister could answer the questions posed by the hon. member for Fort William he would not be sitting here but in a laboratory somewhere drawing a lot of money. However, the figures the hon. member gave in regard to expenditure on liquor and tobacco perhaps add up to the principle enunciated by the hon. member for Red Deer, that this is a matter of individual choice. You can drink or smoke yourself to death if you so desire.


An hon. Member:: Why not?


Clarence Gillis: It is a question of individual freedom and of course we might as well smoke here as in the hereafter.


Mr. Pickersgill:: We may do both.


Clarence Gillis: It is rather unfortunate that a debate such as this, which means so much to the people of Canada, should take place in the dying days of the session when so many things which are not so important to our people are dragged along from day to day resulting in a great waste of time.
At the outset I want to say that when the hon. member for Lanark was talking and I asked him to define "state medicine", I was


not being offensive. He is one member in the House of Commons whose opinion I value highly on any subject pertaining to the health and welfare department. But I have heard that term thrown around rather loosely not only in connection with health insurance but in connection with many other matters. Any time that the suggestion is made that the government should be interested in any particular matter, someone starts to say, "Oh, that is socialism". I think that propaganda about "state medicine" emanated largely from the American Medical Association, but nobody ever defines it much. It is just a catchword that has been thrown around without anyone stopping to consider exactly what it means.
To my mind the situation in Canada today with regard to the health of our people and their ability to get any kind of health services, after at least 50 years of our present medical set-up, is such that it makes necessary some form of concerted action on the part of governments to ..try to sort out some kind of mechanics whereby it will be possible to bring to the people who need it the medical science that is now available. It has certainly been proven that neither the voluntary health organization nor the free, unrestricted system that many people like to claim is best has measured up to the requirements. There is a big gap there and that gap must be filled by someone. That someone must be the organization which has the facilities, the finances and the personnel with which properly to plan that over-all scheme. For my money, the only agency in Canada that is able to fill that gap is the federal government. We do not need to quibble about that matter; that fact has been fairly well proven.
As to the matter of money, although we used to quarrel about this question I do not think we should quarrel about it any longer. Before the last war a million dollars looked like a great deal of money, and money was a mysterious, elusive thing that was hard to get. But when that war broke out we did not have any difficulty in getting money. It is too bad we could not drive that principle home to Malenkov and all others who try to make war.
I was just looking at a return that was tabled in the House of Commons for the hon. member for York South on the cost of the last two wars. We spent $22,482,036,080. That figure does not take into consideration the interest, nor does it take into consideration the loss of life: 60,000 young Canadians in the first war and 45,000 in the last. That is just the actual money involved.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Dollars and cents.


Clarence Gillis: Yes, dollars and cents, without counting the interest. We now find ourselves in this position, in the kind of world in which we are living. If we are forced into that kind of thing again, we will not measure in terms of dollars and cents the services this country will render in that field.
I was looking over-and this is a good witness to call-the monthly letter of the Royal Bank of Canada. They are not particularly radical; they are not socialistic. This letter was put out in January. It was their contribution to national health week. I should like hon. members to remember this when we think in terms of government, the state and the nation. In the first paragraph of that news letter they had this to say:
Conservation of life is foremost among material things in the minds of men. Benjamin Disraeli, one of history's most distinguished practitioners of political science, remarked: "the health of the people is the foundation upon which all their happiness and all their powers as a state depend."
Unless you have healthy people, you have not a healthy nation. When we are talking about this subject, let us remember that fact and put it in its proper perspective. In the final analysis, the most important subject that the House of Commons can consider-and let us divorce it from dollars and cents-is the health of the Canadian people. How good is that health?
This monthly letter of the Royal Bank gives us a few figures. I think they fairly well pinpoint the fact that the great majority of Canadians cannot afford any kind of health services. They give us some dominion bureau of statistics figures, and I am going to quote them:
Out of an estimated ii million family units, there were 621,000 which spent nothing for medical, dental, hospital or any other sort of health care during that period, while 757,000 spent less than $20. Beyond that sum the figures were:
between $20 and $49	 938,000
$50 and $99	 994,000
$100 and $199	 839,000
$200 and $499	 343,000
over $500	 63,000
I think those figures reveal the fact that almost half of that group are getting no medical care whatsoever. As to the group in which from $200 to $499 was spent, I think those figures represent the average that should be spent by every Canadian family. No family which is not spending that amount of money on checking up on the teeth and proper examination-and this is where my friend's preventive medicine comes in-is spending what is necessary. That is the amount of money necessary to be spent in any family if you are going to call a doctor
Supply-Health and Welfare in for the ordinary ills of children from a year old up to about 15 years of age, when you must get their tonsils fixed up, their eyes looked after and their teeth properly cared for. If you are getting away with $200 to $400 a year, that is about normal. You are not spending what you should spend, but that is about the average that I think should be spent. Look at the terrific number of people who are spending under that amount and who are not able to spend anything.
I want to tell my hon. friend, for whom I have a great deal of respect-and he is a good friend of mine-that the only way to have preventive medicine is to have a system whereby the average family can call in a doctor when slight signs of some disability appear. It is too late for this to be done when there is a raging fever or when some disease has become fully developed. The only way in which to get preventive medicine is to make medicine and doctors available to people for proper examinations before real trouble develops.
With respect to the ability of the provinces to handle the problem, it has been the policy for some considerable time to let them look after it. But the provinces are not able to take care of the problem, and I think that has been very clearly demonstrated in the national health grants. I have in my hand the answers to two questions asked by the hon. member for York South, which answers were given on January 25, 1954. He asked two questions which make clear the ability of the provinces to look after health services even with the grants made at the present time. These were the questions:
1.	What is the amount that was available for each province for each year since 1948 under the federal health grant program?
2.	What is the amount that was actually paid to each province for each year since 1948 under that program?
The figures are given for all the provinces but I am not going to take the time to put them on the record. Over the period from 1948 to 1953 the total amount of money advanced to the provinces under the health grants was $93,981,553. What amount of money was available? The amount available to the provinces during that period was $167,407,851. Over $167 million was available under these matching grants and the provinces only took something over $93 million. They are not able to match the grants dollar for dollar as is mandatory.


Paul Joseph James Martin: This is a very interesting speech the hon. member is making, but there are only three matching grants. The others are non-matching.

Supply-Health and Welfare


Clarence Gillis: I am talking about matching grants.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Of all the grants there are only three that are matching. The others are all outright.


Clarence Gillis: That is right. But these figures clearly show that the federal government during that period had some $167 million which was available to the provinces under the matching grant scheme but all the provinces were able to take was something over $93 million of the amount that was available. That points up the fact very clearly that the provinces do not have the resources to co-operate with the federal government in building up a program across the country. I also have the Ontario figures here because I thought that was one province that would have been able to take all the money available to it. However, it did not. From 1948 to 1953 the total amount of money Ontario received was $25,409,171, but the amount that was available to them was $52,298,392. That province was not able to take some $26,889,221 that was available to it by way of grants because they did not have sufficient revenue in their own province. You can see that a huge amount of money was available for health services from the federal government if the provinces had been able to take advantage of it.


Mr. Mcllrailh:: Or chose to take it.


Clarence Gillis: That is right, either the one or the other. But in my opinion these figures definitely dispel the illusion that a solution can be found under any kind of scheme other than an over-all national health plan worked out in co-operation with the provinces, with the administration left to the provinces and the financing and direction left in the hands of the federal government, because they seem to be the only agency that has the money to do the job.
Voluntary organizations were perhaps all right at their inception, but the health problem has increased to such an extent that they are no longer able to do very much about it.
I am not going to criticize any particular organization but I am going to give an example right in this city. I am going to take the case of the civil servants, most of whom live in Ottawa. They have the Blue Cross and civil service plans available to them, but after having insured themselves for hospitalization they find themselves in the position that they cannot get into a hospital. At the Civic Hospital there is a waiting list of from 1,500 to 1,700, and at the General Hospital there are another 1,500 to 1,600 applications. Bed space is not available.


These organizations are selling hospitalization insurance and they are not able to provide hospitalization. You will find many civil servants in this city who are paying for both the Blue Cross and the civil service health plans, but when there is illness in the home that requires hospitalization they are not able to get a bed in a hospital and therefore they have got to make a little hospital in a room at home. They call a doctor and they pay $3 for each visit he makes. They hire a nurse if it is necessary. They are not protected against the cost of such an illness at home even though they are paying under two hospitalization schemes.
If the patient is in a hospital the doctor's fee is paid while the patient is hospitalized, but if the organization that is selling the insurance cannot provide the hospital space they do not pay the doctor's fee for attendance on the patient in his own home. I say that these organizations are selling a commodity that they are not able to deliver. While there are many good people at the head of these organizations, and while their intentions are good, the problem of health so far as hospitalization and doctors are concerned has increased to such an extent that these organizations are not able to deliver the goods. In my judgment the only answer is an over-all health program.
With respect to the question of the name, I am not particular what you call anything if it provides the service, and I do not care much what somebody thinks about state medicine, nationalization and so on. I say that because the great majority of the people who use these terms loosely are merely repeating propaganda they have been subjected to over the years without taking very much time to think the matter through or to read authoritative works on the subject.
Let us take an example we have right in Canada. Let us take our veterans hospitals throughout the country. I am sure that no hon. member would say that these hospitals are state controlled and subject to dictatorship and regimentation. In every province of Canada the best hospitals are the veterans hospitals. No private hospital has the equipment you will find in the veterans hospitals, and in each one of these hospitals they have all the necessary services. They are built near university centres. They have the services of the university people and the best doctors in the Dominion of Canada who are found in the areas adjacent to these hospitals. That is paid for out of the consolidated revenue fund. On this question of contributory or non-contributory, I may say that is contributory. The taxpayers of Canada contribute towards it. We have a graduated

iax structure in Canada under which he who makes the most pays the most. It is as close as you can get to a taxation system for that purpose of helping to pay for these hospitals. These hospitals are working well. They are fully staffed, and their services are unlimited. Improvements are made from month to month as they come along and new equipment and new techniques are adopted.
In considering other institutions, I do not need to go outside of my own area. We have had a panel system operated on a co-operative basis for a good many years. In this instance, we are paying to keep well. We pay the doctor and the hospital approximately $130 a year between the two of them. We pay that when we are well, and when we are sick both the doctor and hospital are available to us for as long as we are sick. There is no limit to it. These institutions are certified, they are up to date and they meet the requirements. While that is so, the report on them for the past twenty years has been one increase after another in the rates. The services and equipment are deteriorating and the hospital is going further and further into debt all the time.
The hospitals in that area today are in the position where they are asking for either the provincial or federal government to help them to keep their doors open and maintain some kind of service. In the face of that, something has to be done. The only agency of which I am aware is this agency, the federal government.
Now, if anyone wants a definition of the kind of thing we have in mind by way of a national health service for this country, I may say that my conception of it is the sort of thing that has been done in our veterans hospitals. If we can do that for the veteran population, there is no reason why we cannot do it for the civilian population right across this country. I hope the time is not far distant when, instead of those inside this house or outside of it quarrelling about terms and about regimentation, we try to get our heads together and develop a system in this country whereby we can make the benefits of medical science available to all our people.
I recall that in 1944 I had the privilege of visiting France for a short time. I spent an evening at a big military hospital near Saint-Malo. There was a group of Canadian doctors there, and before we left there was one little fellow who sat down and said, "I should like to talk to you fellows before you go". He asked what progress we had made in Canada on this question of an over-all medical scheme and I said, "We are doing a lot of talking about it, but we have not done very
Supply-Health and Welfare much about the actual mechanics of it". He said, "I hope you will". "You know," he said, "before I came into the army I was practising medicine in a city in Canada and I specialized in abdominal surgery. I had a little office to myself. I was not on the hospital board, so I could not work in a hospital. I had two miracle bottles, one on this shelf and one on the other shelf, and when people came in to see me, I knew a lot of them needed surgery. I could not afford to give it to them, and they could not afford to buy it. When the war broke out my qualifications were checked, they sent for me and I went down to Ottawa. I put on a uniform and they made me a lieutenant colonel. I came over to England, went into a hospital and found myself with nurses at my disposal. I found myself with laboratories, technicians and all kinds of equipment of which I had dreamed. My wife was receiving an adequate allowance and I was receiving a salary cheque. I no longer had any economic problem, and I began to think in terms of a doctor. I was really a doctor. I had heard a lot about the question of state medicine before I came into the army, and I was scared to death of it, but I am convinced this is it; this is the kind of thing about which the people were talking. I hope when the war is over you will not scrap all this wonderful equipment we have built up, so that when I leave the army I will have to go back to those two miracle bottles". That was his conception of it, and it is true. I say that merely for the purpose of trying to get this business of terms straightened out.
I do not think there is any quarrel amongst very many of us in this house about wanting to get something done. We will not get anything done as long as we continue throwing this kind of talk across the house to the minister, who I know wants this sort of thing done as badly as any of us. I believe the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was quite right when he said the minister has to fight the treasury board on this question. I do not believe money should be considered when we are considering health. I believe that medical science in Canada is available in abundance if we would only unharness it from the economic disability under which it now exists. I believe the federal government can do the job if some of the provinces would give up this wish to preside over a little domain they have.
I rose, Mr. Chairman, with the intention of saying something else, but in listening to the discussion I was led to make these remarks. The subject I wanted to discuss is one that I know the minister would rather leave until another time. However, it is

Supply-Health and Welfare so quiet this afternoon, and everyone is in such a receptive mood, I feel it would not be a bad time to get it on the record and let other members think about it. I believe it would be very helpful to the minister. I have another thing in mind. On March 12 the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys suggested to me that I might leave a certain discussion on his estimates until the item for the coal board was under consideration. I have been waiting since March 12 for a statement of policy on that subject. While I have all the faith in the world in the honesty and integrity of the minister, I still believe this is a very good time, in this quiet atmosphere, to get this subject off my chest.
I believe it is important because, like health insurance, the matter of civil defence is a controversial subject. It is mentioned in all the newspapers, and has been debated in the British House of Commons. I have read a lot of statements about it. The statement that impressed me the most was made by Sir Winston Churchill to his own House of Commons. He warned them not to fool themselves by scrapping everything they had built up by way of civil defence. He told them not to adopt an attitude that because this atomic bomb or hydrogen bomb is a desperate weapon we do not have to do anything about it except to sit around and commit mass suicide. I disagreed with the minister-


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. I wonder if the hon. member would permit me to interrupt him at this time, not with the slightest intention of making a ruling. I understand quite well that we are considering the first item of the Department of National Health and Welfare. I was going to suggest to the hon. member that the subject of civil defence is such a wide and specialized one that if we held our discussion on item 288, which makes provision for more than $6 million, we would then have consecutive and concentrated debate on that one subject; whereas if the hon. member raises the subject now, while the next two or three speakers may not refer to it, it may be referred to again by others, and the debate would not be devoted solidly to that subject.
The hon. member is certainly within his right if he prefers to discuss the matter now, but I do feel that if we could hold this discussion to one particular time it could be carried out more satisfactorily.


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Chairman, I always try to accommodate the chairman and obey the rules of the house. I appreciate fully what you say. However, on the first item of the


minister's estimates you will find there will be all kinds of discussion on all kinds of subjects.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I make one observation, because I know my hon. friend is interested in this subject. I would have no reluctance whatever to having this item discussed under the general item, but I think in fairness I should say that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration did say, when today's business was being discussed, that there would be agreement to discussion of the estimates of this department on the understanding that, because of the absence of certain hon. members, there would be no discussion of the specific item of civil defence at this time.
If my hon. friend were to proceed to speak on civil defence, then he would put me in a position where I would find it very difficult to make a statement of policy, or whatever reply should be made, in the absence of those hon. members. I just offer those observations for the consideration of my hon. friend who generally-not only generally but always-is co-operative.


Clarence Gillis: I appreciate the minister's position. It may be that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration may have made an agreement with some hon. members who are absent from the house. Likely they will be back on Monday or Tuesday. But I have not made any commitments on that score. If the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration wants to blame me for it, I am quite prepared to take the blame. But let me say that any hon. member who wants to be away for a day or two has no right to expect me or other hon. members who are here to sit around the House of Commons waiting for him to come back to speak on any subject.
So long as my forty minutes last, I am going to discuss this subject now. I like always to bow to the will of the Chair, and I like to accommodate the minister. But this is a subject concerning which I have done considerable thinking. I might point out to the minister that I was invited to go back to my riding in connection with matters that were very important to me, but I did not go. And I did not go for the simple reason that I was expecting subjects in which I was interested to come up in the house. I had four invitations to be away-one to open a hospital, another to attend a mock parliament, which the hon. member for Nanaimo very kindly took in my place, and there were two other functions. But my place is here; and there is no other member in the House of Commons who can make an agreement for anyone else, or who can say that members who are here are not to be permitted to discuss certain subjects.

I am very sorry, Mr. Chairman, but this subject is one-the only one-in the minister's estimates that I wish to discuss. And as I am within my rights I am going to say a few words on it. And I want to say those few words for this reason, that this matter now is a controversial one-as to whether it should be under the Department of National Defence or under the Department of National Health and Welfare.
We will soon be discussing the estimates of the Minister of National Defence, and this subject will get a drilling there also.
I have thought out pretty carefully what I have to say on this subject, and because I have wanted to be careful I have made some notes. Civil defence is directed toward providing protection and security for our people in the event of war, just as the other social measures that come under the minister's department help to provide some measure of security and protection in time of peace. And on that point, as to whether it is the responsibility of the Department of National Health and Welfare or that of the Department of National Defence, in my judgment it belongs definitely within the Department of National Health and Welfare.
Civil defence is essentially a humanitarian activity, directed toward saving life, not taking life. For this reason it is a most appropriate responsibility for the department of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. And there is another consideration: civil defence is primarily a civilian activity. While it must be closely co-ordinated with military preparations, it is not properly a function of the armed forces.
National defence, in so far as military requirements are concerned, is a national concern and, as such, is a purely federal responsibility. But civil defence is the joint concern of federal, provincial and local authorities; and in the final analysis the main burden must rest upon the individual community, since for the most part civil defence is a matter of utilizing to the best effect a community's own services-police, fire, hospital, welfare and other facilities already in existence.
Because of the co-operative nature of civil defence, concerning as it does all three levels of government, it seems appropriate that this matter should come under a department of the federal government that, perhaps more than any other, has a record of successful co-operation with the provinces in so many areas of health and welfare activities.
Civil defence in Canada is now five years old. I do not think many Canadians would
Supply-Health and Welfare claim that we have as yet developed anywhere in this country civil defence organizations that could cope successfully with the full effects of modern warfare. But I do believe that most fair-minded persons would concede that very considerable progress has been made over the past few years. For this progress, the credit must go in large measure to the leadership provided at the federal level.
Members of the House of Commons had an opportunity to visit the new civil defence college at Arnprior a short time ago. I did not have the privilege of making that visit. On the morning I was supposed to go the committee on veterans affairs was to meet, and the chairman of the committee suggested that any members who had planned to take the trip should postpone it because important matters were being discussed by the veterans affairs committee. But my friend, the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, made the visit and took notes of it. Upon his return he briefed me very thoroughly; and I am sure that before this debate is concluded he will have something to say as to the facilities available there.
I understand those facilities will provide for the training of approximately 2,000 persons a year. It should be acknowledged however that these 2,000, in turn, are able to train many additional thousands in their home provinces and communities. I have made some inquiries and I find that in my own province of Nova Scotia 235 persons have been trained in civil defence, many of these at federal schools and at federal expense. Perhaps this is not a large number, but it provides a useful nucleus around which to build an organization.
Another field in which leadership is coming from Ottawa is in the matter of providing certain types of equipment for training purposes which I am told now exceeds $2 million. Many of the activities now being undertaken will have peacetime value. For example, the federal authorities have agreed to pay a share of the cost of standardizing hose couplings in any province wishing to go ahead with such a plan. I am told that in some provinces there are as many as 70 or 80 different sizes, shapes and threads of fire hydrants and fire hose couplings. Obviously, without standardization one community is helpless to answer a call of a neighbour who happens to have a hose of a different size. This program would be most advantageous for normal firefighting purposes, quite apart from its civil defence application.
I note in the estimates that the grants to the provinces have been increased from
6314	HOUSE OF
Supply-Health and Welfare $1,400,000 to $2 million. We welcome this substantial increase in federal aid available for civil defence. However, from the information I have I understand that only a small proportion of the money available was actually taken up last year. It is the same thing over again as the hospital and health grants. The provinces find themselves unable-


George James McIlraith: Or unwilling, which?


Clarence Gillis: -to take the money that is available because they just have not got the facilities to handle it. Perhaps the minister would be good enough to tell the committee what steps he proposes to take to encourage the provinces to make fuller use of this additional money for civil defence. I want to say to the minister I am not expecting an answer now. At any time it is convenient to him, before his estimates are disposed of,
I shall be quite satisfied to get an answer to any question I am posing at this time.
Every hon. member will have been concerned over reports we have had in recent months on the destructive effects of the latest weapons devised by science. Many people are suggesting that the H-bomb and similar weapons make civil defence planning useless. The wider area of destruction that is now possible means that communities round and about the target area must be organized to come to the help of the stricken community. This means that in communities, [DOT] large and small across Canada, civil defence activities should be stepped up rather than curtailed.
The senior governments are now giving good leadership, and it is up to the authorities in individual cities, towns and villages to take whatever steps are needed to bring their local plans and programs to more adequate levels. Naturally we do not agree with everything done by the federal government in this field or in any other; but it is only fair to commend the minister on the realistic way in which this problem has been tackled over the past three years.
Now, Mr. Chairman, whether I put these remarks on the record at this time, or whether I did it next week, my reason for doing so would have been the same. I was alarmed over the attitude taken in many communities in Britain, the attitude of abandoning civil defence altogether, and that there is no defence against the hydrogen bomb. Then, there is the growing feeling in at least some sections of the press that we are wasting money on civil defence and all that kind of thing. Well, I am not one who is convinced that we are going to live in peace for the rest of our natural lives. With the arms build-up that


there is in the world today there is always the danger of someone getting trigger-happy.
As far as civil defence in Canada is concerned today, it is a matter of coming in to do rescue work. If Ottawa, Montreal or Toronto were hit, it would not be a matter of what is available in the city that counts, but what is available in the surrounding area and the availability of the equipment that will work in any section across Canada. The standardization of hose couplings is very important, and if we never have a war, the type of training that these men and women are getting today in the civil defence schools can be used in this country or in any other country for a good many years to come. Disaster can happen anywhere. The burning of the Noronic in Toronto harbour caused such casualties that it required a lot of trained assistance along those lines. Then there are mine explosions. We have had too many in Nova Scotia in the last three years, three of them to be exact, with a great loss of life. A condition of that kind requires the immediate help of those trained to assist in a disaster of that kind. Earthquakes are still not ruled out. Bad fires still break out in many communities, and the more people we could have trained in the field of civil defence work at the present time the better it would be for Canada. This should be done not only in anticipation of war; it is good training to be carried out at any time.
I am sorry I was not able to co-operate with you, Mr. Chairman, in making those remarks at this time, and I am certainly sorry I was not able to accommodate the minister. This is one subject in his estimates that I have done some thinking about, and I felt that at this time it was my right to put my thoughts on the record.


Mr.   Paiierson@: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to-


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I make a suggestion to my hon. friend? We have had a general discussion now, and the estimates of this department, as the committee knows, particularly those members who have been here for some years, are particularized. In view of the general discussion, would my hon. friend not find it convenient to discuss whatever he has in mind on the various items as we come to them? I think we would make more progress in that way. I make that suggestion to my hon. friend, if he would acquiesce.


Ernest George Hansell: May I make a suggestion to the minister? The hon. member for Fraser Valley has other engagements today. It is Saturday, you know, and tomorrow is Sunday, and he would like to discuss something on this item. I do not think he will require any more time than just once.


Mr. Patterson:: I appreciate the minister's attitude, and I assure him that the remarks I shall make are going to be brief. One of the matters is not referred to at all in the estimates and I believe there is a separate section dealing with the other. However, I want to say how much we do appreciate the legislation brought in dealing with matters of health and welfare in our nation. I was thinking just recently of the legislation in regard to the disability pensions. At the moment right across Canada there is a great deal of joy and satisfaction that that particular matter has been dealt with.
However, as I looked over the estimates I failed to find anything at all with respect to assistance to the Canadian Arthritis and Rheumatism Society. Some time ago I had quite a number of communications-


Murdo William Martin: That is under health grants. We give quite substantial grants to them.


Alexander Bell Patterson: I do not see it listed at all.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is under health grants; it is almost $80,000.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Is it listed as a separate item?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No; it is under the general grants. We make many of these. The hon. member will find it when we come to them.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Some time ago I had a
considerable number of communications with regard to the Canadian Arthritis and Rheumatism Society. Those who were suffering from those diseases and had received the benefits of the treatment from that particular organization urged me to give my support to any matters that came up in this particular respect, and to urge the department, the government and the minister to do all they possibly could to assist this worthy organization in carrying out their splendid work.
I am very happy that this item is included although I fail to see any reason for it under this particular heading. There is one other matter to which I wish to refer and to which reference has been made on a number of occasions. I would again urge upon the government and the minister the importance of giving further consideration to the matter of old age pensions.
In the Montreal Gazette of April 7, 1954, there was an article which presented very vividly the plight of many of those who are on old age pension. The article is headed, "Starved Woman's Case Shows Pensioners' Plight". I would like to read a few brief excerpts:
Out of her $40 old age pension each month, $35 was taken to pay the rent.
Supply-Health and Welfare
The remainder, five dollars, bought a month's ''supply'' of food.
Her plight, by no means an isolated case, has focused attention on the struggle of unattached pensioners to subsist on their monthly allotment.
The article then goes on to quote Mr. G. B. Clarke, general secretary of the family welfare association, as follows:
"There is no doubt about it, $40 per month is a Godsend to old people living with their families, or for those who have some additional income.
"But in this day and age, it is impossible to live on $40 alone. I would say $60 would be the very minimum for a month."
Then further down in the article we have this brief statement:
There are many old people on a bread and tea diet in this city.
And they are the most pathetic cases, living out their old age in want and poverty.
Then I would like to refer to an editorial taken from the January 20 edition of the Vancouver Province:
Now that the federal cabinet ministers and members of parliament have arranged among themselves for a handsome increase in yearly income . . . they might give some thought to the plight of people vastly poorer off than they-people who are really suffering.
I do not quote this editorial in any spirit of criticism because I am sure the house will remember that our group gave its support to the increase made at that time. However, I think I am justified in drawing the plight of these people to the attention of this house. Further on this article states:
But in the cabins and bare apartments and chill furnished rooms where some thousands of old age pensioners drag out a sorry existence, there is not even an appearance of comfort. There is just enough to get by with at the best of times, and in these freezing winter days, any penny that goes for extra heat must be deducted from the allowance for food. How could it be otherwise on a pension of $40 a month? How could it be much different even in those provinces where the pension is augmented a little?
I might point out that in British Columbia there is a $15 supplement to the pension from the province. The article continues:
If the country can afford to double the salary of a member of the Commons or the Senate, it can afford to be just, if not generous, to the people who have worn themselves out making this country and have won little or nothing for themselves in the making.
I thought it advisable to bring that to the attention of the minister to emphasize again our plea on behalf of those who are living on the old age pension. Of course there are many other cases we could draw to the attention of the government, but I feel one is sufficient, and I would just like to place myself on record this afternoon as requesting that further consideration be given to our old age pensioners. I appreciate the courtesy

Supply-Health and Welfare extended to me by hon. members in permitting me to make these remarks at this time rather than later on in the discussion.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry not to defer to the suggestion made by the minister but I promise I shall not take any longer now than I might do later on, and I will not be any duller now than I might be later on. I would like to have the same confidence as the hon. member for Cape Breton South that the quiet and peaceful atmosphere in this house means that everyone is listening. At any rate, there is a kind of calm which it is suggested to me will not be continued if we sit tonight.
I want to say a few words following what the hon. member for Red Deer said in regard to encouragement to the voluntary organizations. When we spend $816 million in the department and, I think, something in the nature of $150,000 for the voluntary organizations then there seems to me to be a terrible disparity. I want to make some suggestions to the minister along that line. The hon. member for Cape Breton South told us to forget about regimentation, get our heads together and do something. My comment on that is that I think we have got to be very clear in our own mind as to what we believe is a proper division between government activity and the activities of the voluntary organizations, and it is because I think there is a danger that the voluntary organizations-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would the hon. member permit me to give an illustration of the difficulty? We are now talking about assistance to voluntary organizations. But in the estimates my hon. friend will find there are grants to the national Health League of Canada, the Canadian National Institute for the Blind and other voluntary organizations, and from the limited number mentioned by my hon. friend he concludes that the grants to the voluntary organizations are very limited. But that does not give a true picture and it is only when we get into the estimates that a true picture can be given. For example, take the national health grants but under that item there are grants of $3 million to the voluntary organizations. That would not appear except when we are discussing the national health grants program. Consequently I think my hon. friend will find that he will obtain more information in the way I have suggested. I do not want to ask him to fall in with my suggestion if he feels he cannot do so, but I thought I would explain the situation.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Again I am sorry I cannot defer to the minister, but I might encourage him by saying that I shall be reasonably


brief. One of my reasons, and I think this will make him smile, is that I have not yet abandoned hope that something might be done for some of these organizations which in the midst of the universal plenty in the department are actually getting less than they got 20 or 30 years ago. It is because I wish to raise certain points which arise in my mind in regard to this that I might seem to the minister to be rather disobliging.
Now, monopoly is monopoly wherever we find it. It could be under the aegis of a socialist government, and we have an indication this afternoon that the hon. member for Cape Breton South would like it that way, or it could be under the aegis of a government that does not call itself socialist. I am sure it is not displeasing and indeed comforting to the minister to feel that over $800 million is flowing out from his department in a kind of beneficent stream which goes into hundreds of thousands of homes. I do not suppose there is any reference to authorization by the Minister of National Health and Welfare when the cheques are received, but still the people do know it, and they associate these cheques with the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Now I think this comforting thought might very easily develop into a belief that what is done by the minister in his department is really better done than it can be by anyone else, and it could easily run into the feeling that, after all, "what are these private organizations. They are very small potatoes, so why bother about them." It is because I want to suggest to the minister that the voluntary organizations are very much worth while, not only by reason of what they themselves do but by reason of what they assist him to do that I want to read onto the record one or two opinions of people whose opinions the minister will value more than he will value mine.
I think there are two main reasons for keeping these voluntary organizations alive and vigorous. The first one is to keep alive in the community those feelings which are represented by voluntary organizations, namely a sense of responsibility for other people and a quickening of the sympathy and understanding which is necessary if the community is to be the kind of vital community which it should be. In this connection I want to make reference to one or two short quotations from a book by Sidney and Beatrice Webb who, of course, approach this matter strongly from the socialist point of view but who have one or two extremely interesting things to say about the important place left for voluntary organizations. I say again, Mr. Chairman, that it is only because

of the fact that it is quite possible for this consideration to be lost sight of or to be underestimated that I take a few minutes of the time of the committee.
It is interesting to go back into the nineteenth century and to realize the two extreme and contrasting attitudes which there were in existence at that time. I am quoting now from page 222 of this book entitled "The Prevention of Destitution":
There are still many good people among us who Instinctively resent any discouragement of the personal impulse to give alms or to perform "good works" as a religious duty by which we "acquire merit" or do glory unto God, quite irrespective of the effect really produced upon the recipients and beneficiaries. To them, at least in theory, personal charity is everything. On the other hand, there are still amongst us representatives of the unspoken views of the "early Victorian" economists, who regard every kind of philanthropic action as a hideous mistake, calculated to undermine the independence and lessen the energy of the poor, and even to promote the survival of the unfit. To them, personal charity and government provision are, at least in theory, alike anathema.
We have got away beyond the idea of charity in this matter; we have got beyond it to the point of the rights of the citizen in the community, and we are now conferring benefits on the citizens of the community, not as a matter of charity but as a matter of right, which we all accept. It is because, in that situation, I think there is so much that can usefully be done by the private organizations that I wish to read another short paragraph from page 250 of the same book. The writers have just referred to the responsibility which must rest on public authorities for dealing with various types of need. Then they say:
On the other hand, though the public authority concerned must be responsible for the adequate treatment of all the cases needing attention, this does not mean that it need do, for all cases, everything that needs to be done. There is, as we shall see, an enormous part of the work which voluntary agencies can do better than the public authorities, in which they can bring to bear their specific advantages on particular cases or classes of cases, or in particular parts of the treatment of all cases. In every branch of social work, with regard to every conceivable class of case, there is the utmost need for the initiative, the inventiveness, and the practical experimenting which voluntary agencies have so much at their command.
I might read more, Mr. Chairman, but I am trying to keep this speech as short as I can.
I now wish to read an extract from an article by a man well known to the minister as well as to all who are interested in social work. I refer to Philip S. Fisher who has occupied many important positions in the field of voluntary effort. He says one or two things
Supply-Health and Welfare that I wish briefly to quote. At page 27 of Canadian Welfare of May 1, 1953, he states:
May I give you my definition of welfare? Whether it is case work or group work, whether it deals with indigency or sickness or maladjustment, the function of welfare is to make a dependent person less dependent.
Then, a little later on, at page 28 he states:
I suppose of all the differences between government and voluntary operation, the most fundamental is that a government has the power of coercion whereas a voluntary operation must rely on co-operation. Frankly, I recognize that the power of coercion must exist in certain areas, but no one will ever make me like it, or make me believe that it should be used except in situations where all other means towards uniformity of action will fail.
I value tremendously the freedom of will and freedom of action used, not in the direction of irresponsibility, but in the direction of voluntary collaboration for the benefit of the community.
And finally, from page 31:
If a government department spends $10,000, it presumably gets $10,000 worth. If it gives $10,000 to a voluntary agency, that frequently breeds an expansion of service, and of giving on the part of volunteers, with the result that twenty, thirty, forty or fifty thousand dollars may be available for welfare.
More than that, government support is a moral endorsement which can be very helpful to a volunteer operation. Here is an area where government can give leadership in advance of public opinion-at least as long as the stakes are reasonable.
As a quid pro quo, there is one service which private organizations can often perform for government departments, that is, the service of interpretation and support. Who better than the private agency can help the public agencies in interpreting their functions to the public, and in promoting their budgets? Government grants to private agencies can be good for government departments as well as for the agencies they help.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I wish to refer briefly to one or two comments made regarding one of these agencies in particular, namely the Health League of Canada. Its grant has been grievously cut down. Out of a great many statements in support of the league, I wish to read briefly from three. The first is from Mr. A. R. Mosher, president of the Canadian Congress of Labour:
In this, however, as in the other activities of the league, I believe that constructive and valuable work is being done, and I have therefore no hesitation in joining in the representations which you are making to the Hon. Paul Martin, Minister of National Health and Welfare, in this connection.
Second, I wish to read a short quotation from Msgr. Ferdinand Vandry, rector of Laval University. I have the pleasure of knowing him. He is a wise and eminent citizen of our country:
(Translation):
In order to continue to fulfil its duty with efficiency, this organization needs considerable additional revenue. Accordingly I would be very happy if the Canadian government could see fit to give in accordance with the recommendations con-

Supply-Health and Welfare tained in the brief of the Canadian health league and to raise the annual grant from $10,000 to $25,000 in favour of this meritorious organization.


Murdo William Martin: Very well spoken.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Ah! thank you, sir.
(Text):
I venture to translate that quotation as follows: In order to continue to fulfil its duty with efficiency, this organization needs considerable additional revenue. Accordingly I would be very happy if the Canadian government could see fit in accordance with the recommendations contained in the brief of the Canadian health league to raise the grant in favour of this meritorious organization from $10,000 to $25,000.
Finally, I wish to read as my third quotation one from Mr. B. K. Sandwell:
I desire to extend my unqualified support to the brief of the Health League of Canada and to the league's request for the increase of its government grant to $25,000.
I am convinced that this expenditure, made through a voluntary society, will produce far better results in the education of public opinion on health subjects than any direct action by the government itself, and that these results will amply justify the grant-as indeed the results in past years have more than justified the very moderate grants which the league has received.
I just wish to end where I began. The minister is going to point out that my figure of $150,000 is not a fair comparison with $816 million. I shall of course accept the minister's correction when he gives it, but when he has made that correction I am sure that having regard to the totals involved the grants to these organizations, assuming that they are doing good work, are beggarly in the extreme. To be able to say with truth that the national health league gets half, I believe, of what it got many years ago can only be construed, so far as I can see, to mean that as we have extended public participation in welfare we have sought to dry up and lessen the work of the voluntary organizations. I hope that is not so.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You would be surprised at how much of our money goes to voluntary organizations.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I hope that is not so. I hope the minister will be able to satisfy me it is not so. I have to say to the minister what he already knows, that there are some very responsible people who feel most disappointed at the attitude of the department.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Indians and Eskimos health services-
261. Operation and maintenance, $15,440,038.
Mr. Hahn:: As the hon. member for Red Deer said, Mr. Chairman, I want to give you a chance to catch your breath. However, that


is not my prime reason for rising at this time. The hon. member for Fraser Valley, who had to leave a few moments ago, asked me to draw an article in the Chilliwack Progress to the minister's attention and to get information first of all as to whether or not the matter referred to has been approved by the government. The Chilliwack Progress of Wednesday, April 14, 1954 has this to say:
Authorization of an additional expenditure of $15,451.33 for improvements to the Coqualeetza Indian hospital brings the total expenditure on the institution to $624,451, it was announced today by George Cruickshank, former Fraser Valley M.P.
It goes on to say that the minister will be there to open the new wing officially. I was asked to ask the minister whether the government had authorized this expenditure, whether it had been approved and whether we are to consider in future that defeated candidates are the official spokesmen so far as releases from the minister's department are concerned.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We are going to complete the work at Sardis at a cost of some $340,000, and the Coqualeetza hospital will have the very doubtful honour of being reopened by the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Ernest George Hansell: What about the latter part of the question?


Frederick George Hahn: Are we to consider that in future Mr. Cruickshank will be the minister's spokesman for that area?


Murdo William Martin: I will have to give consideration to that important matter.


Mr. Sfuder:: How do they do it in Alberta?


Daniel Roland Michener: I have been interested in the treatment of the item having to do with provision for increases in salaries which appears in all of the departmental estimates. I notice that it ranges from as low as 3 per cent in some of the branches of the minister's department to 9 or 10 per cent in other cases. I also notice that the allowance for increased pay does not seem to vary very much depending on the increase or decrease in staff. Would the minister say something about the method of making provision for increases in pay generally in the national health branch?


Murdo William Martin: Our salaries, like the salaries of any other department, are generally fixed by the civil service commission. We do not have any control over the situation except to make recommendations with respect to the length of service and the grade of the official. The salary range itself is something that is not determined by the department.


Daniel Roland Michener: I assume these estimates are largely to cover routine promotions according to principle and scale depending on seniority.


Paul Joseph James Martin: And the general salary
increases throughout the government service.


Daniel Roland Michener: And 8 per cent is roughly the average throughout the government service under such items.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right. The only salaries we would really control would be those of the two deputy ministers, the minister's private secretary and that sort of thing, but generally speaking the situation is as I have outlined.


Daniel Roland Michener: My calculation of the numbers employed in the health branch last year was 2,751 and there is an increase of 155 or thereabouts for this year.


Murdo William Martin: Yes, that is right.


Daniel Roland Michener: This item having to do with Indians and Eskimos health services may be the opportunity for me to satisfy my curiosity about the cost of the hospital at Moose Factory. Can the minister tell me that?


Murdo William Martin: About $2 million.


Daniel Roland Michener: And it is now in operation.


Murdo William Martin: Yes, and it is one of our most successful ventures. I only wish we had built the hospital twice the size and capacity.


Daniel Roland Michener: Has the minister had any regrets about having built it on the island rather than on the mainland?


Murdo William Martin: No, I think the recommendations made by the Department of Public Works and certain ecclesiastical authorities resulted in a very wise decision.


Daniel Roland Michener: With respect to the question of cost accounting in these hospitals, which I also raised this morning on the veterans affairs estimates, I notice that the minister's department has quite a number of hospitals which I take it are operated mostly for the benefit of Indians, with perhaps some for Eskimos. According to the public accounts they had some 1,744 beds in the year ending 1953, and the total cost of operation was given as $4,500,000 which, according to my figures, works out at about $7 a day. I would be glad to have from the minister the exact figures of the cost of operation per patient day of the hospitals which are provided for in this grant.


Murdo William Martin: We estimated the cost as approximately $6. The extra dollar would be for public health services generally.
Supply-Health and Welfare


Daniel Roland Michener: That is about half the cost of the veterans affairs hospitals. Perhaps the minister would like to say something about the difference in service.


Murdo William Martin: I do not think there is any difference in service except that our general salary scale for professional people is not as great as it should be, not as high as elsewhere. During the time I have been minister the budget for Indian health services has risen from about $1 million to a little over $16 million. My hon. friend, who has had very distinguished service in government, will appreciate that one has to keep within one's allotted budget.


Daniel Roland Michener: But these figures would be comparable with those for veterans affairs, and the complete range of hospital services necessary for the patient are provided at something less than $7 per patient day. Am I correct in estimating that the corresponding cost at Moose Factory hospital is $9.50 a day?


Murdo William Martin: I do not think it is that high, but it is a higher cost. As my hon. friend knows, it is a very costly operation situated where it is. It is not a nursing station. It is a large hospital in a region more thickly populated with tubercular people than almost any region in Canada.


Daniel Roland Michener: Would that be about the figure?


Murdo William Martin: I do not think it is quite that high, but it is higher than the average. I will give my hon. friend that later before my estimates are finished.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Indians and Eskimos health services-
264. Health insurance studies and administration of the general health grants, $99,337.
Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: In view of the fact that we have voted over $20 million in the last while I am sure the minister will appreciate having a few comments on this item. I should like to support the suggestion which has come from several parts of the house that we reach these estimates earlier in another session. I believe that if we could get consent to have these estimates referred to a special committee it would serve a useful purpose. I was a member of the party that made a tour of the laboratories earlier in the session, and I found those visits very valuable. I should like also to thank the minister for arranging the exhibition at Lansdowne park.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Thank you for going.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I feel that all members
who are interested in health would find it very helpful if officials from the department could be brought to one of the committee

Supply-Health and Welfare rooms here where we would have several hours in which to hear about the important work the minister is doing in the field of health.
We have had some discussion about health insurance studies. I appreciate the fact the minister cannot go much faster than public opinion will permit, but I think he can go faster than he is going. I realize that there is a good deal of opposition, particularly amongst the medical fraternity in Canada, regarding any form of socialized health service. We faced this problem ten years ago in Saskatchewan, but we have made a good deal of progress. However we have not been able to introduce a complete scheme of socialized health services because we believe in democracy and we cannot carry out that sort of program without the cooperation of the doctors.
I should like to tell the house about some of the very important fields in which we have introduced socialized health services.
I refer to cancer, t.b. and mental diseases. Saskatchewan is not the only province that has introduced socialized ideas in connection with t.b. The C.C.F. government cannot claim the credit for that. When the first sanatorium was built in Saskatchewan many years ago-


Paul Joseph James Martin: By Dr. Ferguson, one of the great men of Canada.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Yes; I appreciate that
voluntary comment from the minister. He had some new ideas regarding the treatment of t.b. He thought that the cost factor should be reduced to the minimum. When the first sanatorium was built we had a marked drop in the death rate from t.b. When the cost was reduced from $2.50 to $1 per day, there was a further drop in the death rate. Then when free treatment was introduced we had a further drop. For years Saskatchewan has had one of the lowest death rates from t.b. anywhere in the world.
I should like to submit to my medical friends that today the doctors and nurses in our sanatoria in Saskatchewan are held in very high regard by the citizens of Saskatchewan and elsewhere. I believe that, on balance, they probably have as high a standing as any doctors in the country. The same thing applies to cancer.
I am sure that many of the members will recall the former hon. member for Melfort, Mr. Percy Wright, who was here for many years. I am sure he would not mind my saying that he recently underwent a serious operation for cancer. Mr. Wright has been in the fortunate position during his lifetime


of being able to have the best medical service available anywhere in the country. Some eight or nine years ago he was advised to go to the best surgeon in Canada, the late Dr. Roscoe Graham in Toronto. He went there and underwent a successful operation. But when an operation for cancer was necessary he wanted to know whether Rochester, Toronto, Montreal or Saskatoon would be the best centre to which to go. He went to some of the best authorities in Saskatchewan, who said that making a decision as to where he should go is rather important and one should make the final decision oneself. Some of his medical friends, who were not personally interested in the case said, "If we were in your position we would stay right here in Saskatoon because we believe the people here who have been specializing in cancer have had advantages that are not found elsewhere." Mr. Wright accepted that advice, the operation was performed in Saskatoon and I am happy to say he has been enjoying very good health.
Socialized services in Saskatchewan in the field of cancer have provided for our people services which we believe cannot be surpassed anywhere in Canada. The same thing is true of mental illness, which is a very costly type of illness. In many places in Canada people who have the misfortune to become mentally ill find that all their earthly possessions are used up before they are able to earn again. In Saskatchewan those who have the misfortune to require treatment for mental illness find that the entire cost is carried by all the citizens of the province.
There is one further service I should mention, and that is the air ambulance. Again we are proud of the fact that we are the only people on this continent who have the good fortune to have a publicly-owned and operated air ambulance service available for anyone in the province if a doctor or nurse or justice of the peace or any responsible citizen expresses the opinion the air ambulance service is necessary. There is a $25 fee charged for the ambulance, with a trained nurse to go with it. It is available to go anywhere in the province to move a patient to the hospital. If the patient cannot pay the $25, the air ambulance makes the trip in any event.
I suggest that having experimented in these several fields we have come to the conclusion that the time has arrived when we should make some further progress. I might mention that I live in a municipality which has had socialized medical services for quite some time. This was a depression development when the municipality found itself in a position where it was liable for indigent

cases. The doctors were being paid $3,000, $4,000 or $5,000 a year for looking after these indigent patients, upon a fee for service basis. Some of the members of the council thought if they were going to have to pay out that amount of money they should make a bargain with the doctors to pay whatever would be necessary so that everyone in the municipality would be able to have medical treatment. Again the present C.C.F. government cannot take credit for the development.
At one time about one-third of the rural municipalities in the province had municipal doctor schemes. In our municipality we have two doctors on salary. I appreciate the arguments advanced that the individual must be permitted to select the doctor. We are in the position where we can select either of two doctors, and we realize that if it were not for the municipal scheme these young doctors would probably be in Winnipeg, Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver, where they know larger incomes are available. The young doctors out of college have been able to go to these municipal appointments. They have been able to have plenty of work from the time they come into the office. I want to tell the house that there have been very few criticisms about the quality of the service.
I have the highest regard for my neighbour, the hon. member for Lanark, who has given me some valuable training in the field of medicine since I first knew him, and who has never charged me for that medical advice. However I did not ask for any personal advice. I am sure that the people in his community have a very high regard for him. If I were to take sick tonight, and if I could get to my own doctors in Preeceville, I would rather call them than any doctor in Ottawa. I am not saying there are not doctors in Ottawa who are not as trustworthy as the Preeceville doctors, but I happen to know and trust them. If they thought they should operate, they would say they should, but if they said, "we would advise you to go to Saskatoon or Regina", I would accept whatever advice they gave. I think there has been very little criticism on the part of taxpayers about the quality of the service, or on the part of the doctors on the ground that people have been abusing the service. So I suggest to the minister that he move more quickly in trying to educate public opinion in Canada regarding the need for an over-all health program.
Then, there is one other matter that I planned mentioning earlier. I am sure the minister will allow me to bring it in here. I was down to Montreal-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Could we carry this item first? I assume the hon. member is referring to the neurological centre?
Supply-Health and Welfare


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: What item would that be?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The next item.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Possibly the minister does not have to be reminded that the hon. member for Lanark did request that he make a rather detailed statement on the progress that has been made in connection with health insurance studies. I notice that health insurance studies and the administration of general health grants are grouped together. I assume the same persons who are administering the general health grants are making studies with respect to health insurance. What I do wish to know is this: Is it possible to break down that item of $99,000 in order to show what part of it is being spent for the carrying out of health insurance studies, and what part is being spent for the administration of health grants.


Murdo William Martin: That is hard to do.


Frederick Davis Shaw: I realize that as it is put together here there might be some difficulty. And for that very reason I am going to suggest to the minister that possibly something could be done about separating these two costs. It is hardly fair to say to me or to another hon. member, "Well, because the same people are doing two different things we cannot tell you how much it is costing us to have them do one thing". And since, in my mind, these two things are related, but to a degree are still separated, I think there could be some justification in asking that consideration be given to some method of breaking this down so that we could know what it is costing the taxpayers to have studies made with respect to health insurance.


Daniel Roland Michener: I find in the details recurring references to educational and informational publications, and educational and informational material, other than publications. These items are scattered through the estimates of the health branch, and I daresay they will be found also in the welfare branch. I have seen many departmental publications and I have an idea what they cover, but it would be interesting to know the cost of that kind of general information. Would the minister give that information for both branches of the department?


Paul Joseph James Martin: We have passed that item. It would come under the general administration grants. We have passed that, and we are on a particular item in connection with which there were two informational votes, one for $5,250 to provide a film for wide distribution on medical and allied professions, and a statistical report amounting to $5,750. Our total vote-and we have passed it-is slightly less than last year, by some $4,000.

Supply*-Health and Welfare The total amount for publications for the department as a whole is $453,000, which does not include the much bigger item of civil defence, which is in a class by itself.


Daniel Roland Michener: That is the amount for this item.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, for the whole of the publication services.


Daniel Roland Michener: Of the department?


Murdo William Martin: Yes.


Daniel Roland Michener: Both branches?


Murdo William Martin: Excuse me, I was wrong in my former answer. It is the whole thing. It includes civil defence. Civil defence is $117,500, and it is $335,000 for both health and welfare publications.


Daniel Roland Michener: The item is No. 264. What I want to get is the total for the health branch of the department and for the welfare branch.


Murdo William Martin: I have given that. As I have said, we passed it. I wish to be as courteous as I can; but we are now dealing with a specific vote in connection with which there is an informational vote of a little more than $10,000. Strictly speaking my hon. friend is not permitted, under the rules of the house, to discuss anything but that specific vote. However, I appreciate his position. The total vote of the department, inclusive of civil defence, as I gave it a moment ago, is $453,000, in the field of publications.


William Gourlay Blair: In connection with health insurance will the minister tell us how health insurance studies are progressing. Have they arrived at a conclusion, or are studies being made in the branch?


Murdo William Martin: I can say briefly that the health insurance studies division is continuing its studies of this important problem. Not only have we made studies of costs situations in our own country, but we have had some of our officers go to the United Kingdom and Scandinavian countries. Dr. Jackson, who sits in front of me now, has made some of those journeys. He is recognized as one of the outstanding experts in the country.
In addition to that we have carried on and are carrying on assessments of the most important national sickness surveys, five interim reports on which have already been given. This matter is receiving our fullest consideration, and we have been discussing voluntary plans that are carried on outside the auspices of the government, schemes in two of our provinces; and on the ministerial

level we have had discussions with the various provincial ministers of health, including some provincial premiers. And I can say at this time that so far as the provinces are concerned, I know of only one provincial government that would be prepared to embark upon a scheme along the general lines that have been indicated here this afternoon. And I say "general lines" because we are not particularizing.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is precisely because I thought the minister might make some reference to the stand of the provincial governments that I made reference earlier today to what I think might be called the grass roots views-and I refer in particular to the views of the very intelligent and well-informed people who listened to our broadcast a few months ago. I suggest that their views, and the views of the people in the country generally, might be ahead of the views of provincial governments. On that basis I would like to put to the minister just one simple little question; When is the government going to bring in health insurance?


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Chairman, I think this is the time, before six o'clock, to put this statement on the record, so that it will be there. This is the statement of the Prime Minister on July 9 last when, speaking for this party, he said;
The Liberal party is committed to support a policy of contributory health insurance to be administered by the provinces. But, under our federal system, to get health insurance started the people and the governments of the various provinces have to take the initiative in working out plans adapted to local conditions.
We are ready to assist in a sensible and practical nation wide scheme, but that depends on satisfactory agreements with the provincial governments.
I am more convinced than ever that this is a field which should, as far as practicable, be left to provincial administration. Conditions differ vastly from one province to another, and services which are suitable for one region are quite unsuitable to another. We now have had a great deal of experience with health schemes of all kinds in this country, including full-fledged hospital insurance in two of our provinces.
But I do not think it would be fair to the taxpayers of Canada in all the provinces to make federal contributions to provincial schemes in only one or two provinces.
Federal contributions should be regarded as a supplement and an evener-out, when most of the provinces are prepared to undertake satisfactory schemes.
And it is Liberal policy to go on improving federal health grants which have done so much to place all the provinces in a better position to discharge their primary responsibility in this important field.
I can add no more to that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say that I regarded that statement at the time it was made-incidentally, it was

made during the course of last year's election campaign-as one of the truest statements that was ever made by a politician in the midst of a political campaign. The Prime Minister, the leader of the Liberal party, told Canada that the Liberal party was committed to a program of health insurance. That was then true for 34 years; it is now true for 35 years, that the Liberal party is committed to health insurance. But when is that commitment going to be implemented?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at seven o'clock. General health grants-
265. To authorize and provide for general health grants to the provinces, the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory upon the terms and in the amounts detailed in the estimates and under terms and conditions approved by the governor in council including authority, notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act, to make commitments for the current year not to exceed a total amount of $48,433,939, $31,750,000.
Frederick George Hahn: Mr. Chairman, this vote has to do with the federal health grant to hospitals and at the present time the grant set by the federal authority is $1,000 per bed for active treatment, and $1,500 per bed for chronic, convalescent, mental and tuberculosis beds. That figure was arrived at when the former prime minister, the late William Lyon Mackenzie King, was in office, and he indicated that it was to be an assistance grant. At that time there was a shortage of something like 60,000 beds in this country, and I think he quoted that figure at that time.
Now before I go any further I would like to commend the people in the various communities throughout the dominion for the work they are doing in attempting to build hospitals. They are carrying out an extremely difficult task, particularly when people are being asked to contribute to every form of society under the sun. I see the minister nodding his head and I think that indicates he is aware of the difficulty.
Since the act came into effect 100 beds have been provided in the mental hospital in my own riding, as well as 169 at the Royal Columbian hospital, 48, I believe, at the Langley hospital, and there have been additions at the White Rock hospital though I am not aware of the exact number. That would indicate that the population is growing
Supply-Health and Welfare in my riding and of course hand in hand with that must go a greater need so far as hospitalization is concerned. But it is very far from true that the supply is keeping pace with the demand.
In the case of British Columbia and particularly the lower mainland the population has practically doubled within the past 20 years but certainly the number of beds for hospital purposes has not increased proportionately. Earlier in the year, speaking on the budget debate, I raised the question of the old age pensioners, and I indicated that we had to face hospitalization problems because about 6-84 per cent of the population of the riding were elderly people in receipt of old age pensions. The comparative figure in the province of Alberta is 4 per cent, Saskatchewan 4-5 per cent and Ontario, with all its wealth, has a figure of 5-3 per cent. What I am indicating is that people of that age, as everyone is aware, are more in need of hospital assistance than anyone else and we have a greater problem proportionately speaking than any other area in the Dominion of Canada.
We therefore require more assistance. In fact, the North Surrey people have been trying to build a hospital for a matter of 10 years now and each time they reach the point where they think they will be able to complete the hospital the costs go up and the actual need increases because there are many more hundreds of people in the community. Actually they have reached the stage where they have found it absolutely impossible to go ahead with the building of the hospital. This thing has been snowballing and is continuing to do so. It may be said that this is true of only one locality but I do not think that is correct.
The price of a hospital bed unit some years ago was $3,000, and in 1948 that cost had risen to $5,000 or $6,000. I understand the price today is $11,000 and the people I have mentioned are no nearer their goal today than they were 10 years ago. They are perhaps worse off because the area now requires a very much larger hospital.
The people in that area have been asked to vote money for a municipal hospital but even if they do so it will by no means be large enough to meet our needs. The White Rock hospital board has indicated that they realize that their hospital is too small already, and added to that the Langley and New Westminster hospitals are trying to raise funds in order to increase their size.
In view of the fact that a large number of people come to our province from other provinces to spend the latter part of their days

Supply-Health and Welfare ' in that region, these people feel that they should receive some further consideration, and they feel that the hospitalization vote is much too low. 1 believe there is some merit in their argument, particularly when we consider that every person in the dominion is paying only one cent towards the federal grant. They feel it should be something like two and a half cents per person. If that were done they would then become eligible for the $2,500 grant per bed. The present act says: "The hospital construction grant is to be distributed on the basis of $1,000 per bed for active treatment beds or bed equivalents in the case of health facilities, $1,500 per bed for chronic, convalescent, mental and tuberculosis beds, and $500 per bed for living quarters for nurses. The provinces are to match or exceed the federal contribution which shall in no case exceed one-third of the actual total cost."
Instead of the federal government paying one-third of the actual cost with the present cost at $11,000 per treatment bed, it means that the federal authorities are paying $1,000, which is one-eleventh, the provincial government is paying one-third, and the bulk of the cost of looking after our senior citizens is left to our municipalities. I have called attention to the fact that these elderly people are adding to the burden on the community, but we must shoulder that responsibility. In doing so, however, we require to build new hospitals and in order to do that we must have more assistance. I am sure the minister is well aware of that and while people may say that there are many people who require help I think some regions are more in need and deserving than others. I would like the minister to reply to my suggestion that we should receive at least $2,500 per bed.


Irvin William Studer: In connection with agreements for grants for health services throughout Canada, I have been somewhat interested in the grants as they pertain to the various provinces and how they have been equalized, met or matched, as we have been speaking about them, in the various areas. From the trend of the conversations today, it may appear as though there were no health services in Canada available from the federal government; and again from other trends it would appear that if there were, they were not sufficient. From what the figures show it would appear to me that in some of the provinces the federal government is considerably ahead of any of the provinces with regard to national health. It appears to me that the provinces could perhaps exert themselves to grant to their people national health services that the federal government is pre-

pared to grant and is granting and matching the amounts that have been made available. In the grants to Saskatchewan, for crippled children, for instance, I notice that $31,874 is available and the amount matched or expended was only $24,230. The amounts available and expended are as follows:
Amount Available and Expended 1953-54
Saskatchewan
	Amount Available	Amount
Grant	(a)	ExpendedCrippled children 	.$ 31,874	$ 24,230Professional training 	. 31,874	22,739Hospital construction 	. 2,066,522	499,585Venereal disease control .	. 31,874	30,647Mental health 	. 372,459	338,891Tuberculosis control 	. 236,535	236,523Public health research ....	(b)	26,664General public health 	. 411,500	352,289Cancer control 	. 210,244	210,244Laboratory and radiological services 	. 252,900	154,483Medical rehabilitation 	. 33,134	4,042Child and maternal health .	. 32,895	30,830All grants 	.$3,711,811	$1,931,167(a)	Includes transfers of funds between grants(b)	Unallotted by province
The total of $1,931,167 used is a little over one-half of the entire amount available. So, having regard to the discussions, Mr. Chairman, I wonder where the federal government is at fault. Some suggestions have been made that the provinces perhaps have not sufficient funds to meet what the federal government offers. According to a return, to be found at page 5689 of Hansard of June 9, as to the amount of money that is being spent in Saskatchewan by the federal government, we find that the amount is $139,918,000, which includes the $26,121,000 grant through the dominion-provincial agreement. It would seem to me that these grants that are apportioned to the provinces under the dominion-provincial agreements should be utilized for the purposes of health.
The federal government have taken over taxation in the fields of income, corporation and succession duty taxes in most provinces and are paying in lieu thereof certain amounts of money over and above what they would receive if the federal government did not have that jurisdiction. It figures out on this basis. For every man, woman and child in Saskatchewan $33 is taken out of the province of Saskatchewan in taxation, from all federal sources. But handed back to the province from all sources, again from the federal government, is $74 for every man, woman and child.


An hon. Member:: In Saskatchewan.


Irvin William Studer: In Saskatchewan. So one would imagine that this province that is

supposed to lead the world in health, or at least makes that claim, would have a better record than the one we see here. It is not much better than that of Ontario which used approximately half of what was allotted to them. However, the point is this. If Saskatchewan had the income tax field and the succession duty and the corporation tax fields, that would be where they would obtain their money to meet the cost of social services, health services and the education of the people. The federal government has taken over those fields and hands them back double over and above what they would have received and they should in turn use that income tax money which is more than the equivalent of what they would otherwise have for the furtherance of public health in that province.
Under this national health insurance or national health plan I wonder how far the federal government can go before the provinces are prepared to agree with them or what kind of agreement the federal government can make with the provinces, when we have had agreements for five years under this national health plan which I have already spoken about. Not only have we an advanced program here in Canada but it is an advanced program that all countries of the world will admit once they have acquired the information necessary to realize what Canada has been doing in leadership in that connection.
Only recently new grants, together with what I have mentioned here, are being added. One is of $11 million and is going to be expended for better health care for mothers and children; there is another grant for better health care for the disabled and better facilities and services to help doctors diagnose their patients' illnesses. In every field the dominion is prepared to take the leadership and to provide it in the amounts that are allotted to the various provinces.
I want to know what share are the provinces prepared to accept. What I want to know is why the provinces do not utilize this dominion-provincial agreement money to the full extent that they should, in the places where they should, namely, in the fields of national health and education. If they did so I am sure there would certainly be a national health insurance plan in Saskatchewan that could possibly be looked up to by all of the world. In any agreement that may be entered into in any future national health plan I would want to be assured that the various provinces are going to spend the money that has been granted them for the purposes for which it should be expended and not utilize that money for other purposes within the provinces so as to be in a position
Supply-Health and Welfare to reduce taxation within their own province and then make additional claims on the federal government.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


Irvin William Studer: I am not saying that they are doing that. However, I would like to know why only the $10 million mentioned in the provincial treasurer's report of 1953, or rather in the budget speech of the provincial treasurer, is being allotted for the department of public health, exclusive of grants under the hospital services plan, and why that amount should not be increased and other moneys utilized that they are receiving from federal government sources, in the form of this $140 million running through the field of taxation in Saskatchewan.
They tell me that the amounts that are expended for building hospitals has to come under this 3 per cent tax that they have in Saskatchewan, as are other services and grants that are rendered for our taxes. This all involves added taxation revenue for the province. I would hope that in any future plan, as I have outlined, the provinces would fully co-operate and utilize the money that all of the people of Canada are so willing to expend on that great necessity, namely, public health, and utilize it to full advantage for the benefit of all of their people.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, it will be noted that the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek has been away for some time, but he has been able to make a political speech again tonight on a matter-


Irvin William Studer: I do not make them in the province of Saskatchewan when I should be here in the House of Commons. I can tell the hon. member that.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I may say, Mr. Chairman, that I have not been in the province of Saskatchewan making speeches. I have been here.


Irvin William Studer: I did not say that I was referring to the hon. member.


William Alfred Robinson: Order.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I have been here doing my duty. As to these matching grants that the hon. member has been mentioning should be made available, may I say that instead of having matching grants, I think these grants should be made available where there is need. I think that the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek would agree with me when I say that all the people of Canada are enjoying the benefits of the leadership we gave ten years ago in setting up new hospitals and giving our people better health services. At that time it looked as if we

Supply-Health and. Welfare might form a government in Canada and the government of the day decided they had better get into the field of health and get some credit for participating in what everyone in Canada considered was a must. I am sure the hon. member will agree that income taxes, succession duties and corporation taxes are collected in large centres like Toronto or Montreal on profits that are built up by all the people of Canada. When we buy our farm machinery we make it possible for International Harvester or Massey-Harris to build up taxable incomes which are payable in Ontario. I think it is only fair that revenue from that sort of income should be made available for people in all parts of the country.
I do not apologize for my province in any way. It has been our misfortune that we have had tariffs that have built up these large fortunes in central Canada. However, I think it is not appropriate that the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek and I should extend our political argument at this time. I have in my hand the very popular book, "The Canadian Mother and Child". Perhaps the minister will say how many hundreds of thousands of copies have been distributed.


Murdo William Martin: The figure is 1,300,000.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I am very sorry to find that a book that was distributed free for many years is only available now at a charge of 25 cents. However the C.C.F. government of Saskatchewan is paying the federal government for it and it will be distributed free in that province. I am very sorry that the minister, with the very large appropriation he has, could not have continued to make this book available to Canadian mothers in all parts of Canada free of charge as was the case in the past.


Irvin William Studer: Page the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre for his saving and economy drive.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: My reason for rising on this particular item is to inquire whether the department could not treat the Montreal neurological institute on a more generous basis. The minister was in Montreal, as I was, on November 20. He was able to get into television there, while I had the pleasure of a seat in the gallery. I am sure he was impressed with the very able remarks by Dr. Alan Gregg who was the guest speaker on behalf of the Rockefeller foundation. Dr. Gregg said:
In but very few if any of the enterprises to which the Rockefeller foundation has been privileged to contribute in the last twenty years have the results equalled those you have created here


in this neurological institute. If I were asked to name a single grant that the medical sciences division of the foundation has made since 1931 that I consider ideal in purpose, in performance, in local response and in national and international influence, and in the character of our relationships maintained from the very beginning, I would say without a moment's hesitation the grant to the neurological institute of McGill University. But that is only one way and perhaps a trivial one of expressing the admiration and the satisfaction the Rockefeller foundation has for what you have created here. More rare still is the compliment I would offer you, not without some fear that it will fail its target, in saying that in this neurological institute, the staff, the chief and the trustees are so beautifully fused into one shining amalgam that if I were to name one to thank I would be naming you all who have worked with him, for him and through him, and if I were to name all of you it would come to the same thing-for you are all the neurological institute of McGill University, each to the other, responsible, essential and inseparable.
I am sure everyone in Canada would echo Dr. Gregg's appropriate remarks about Dr. Penfield and the institute. But I was quite disturbed when Dr. Penfield gave a review of some of their work during the year. The minister will recall that Dr. Penfield said:
It was back in 1950 at a crucial interview that the turn came in the tide of the economic affairs of this institute. Conditions had been going from bad to worse and it appeared that the doors of the hospital portion might have to be closed. We must, it seemed, get support for clinical deficits and we must rebuild and expand. There was no other way.
Dr. Penfield outlined his visit to Mr. Duplessis together with that very good friend of the institute, Mr. McConnell, and the provincial government undertook to provide $90,000 annually on condition that the friends of the institute would also do something. But it amazed me to think that as recently as 1950 Dr. Penfield, with his international reputation, had been placed in the position of having to go with cap in hand to try to get additional revenue so that their work might be carried on. In the very interesting report he gave of the work they have been doing it was made clear to me that this is one place in Canada where generous federal grants should be made.
I understand that Dr. Penfield has given up some of his activities now in the hope that he can find additional revenues so that their research work can continue. It would seem to me that with the very large amounts of money available for all sorts of things in Canada the minister should be able to give some undertaking so that this institute, which has done such outstanding work, could carry on indefinitely without these worries about balancing budgets.
On the day of the opening along with the minister and others I visited the new wing and I found there were patients there from

every province in Canada and from a number of other countries. I wonder whether the minister could not indicate whether or not this would not be an appropriate field for the federal government to make a grant on an annual basis so that the work that is being done by Dr. Penfield and his associates may continue unhampered by lack of financial resources.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I do not propose to speak on these items as they come along unless I really have to. I do not suppose that any estimates have been passed at this session with as few observations on the part of the minister as has been the case today. The only reason I rise now is that the hon. member has touched a point on which I am very sensitive. It is regrettable, as several hon. members have said, that these estimates are always discussed at the end of the session. I think it is most regrettable, although it is nobody's fault, because I am not given the opportunity of really explaining what I think the people of this country are interested in. The fact that the hon. member could make the speech he has just made is confirmation of what I have said.
This government is proud of what it has done for the neurological institute, and Dr. Penfield would be the first to say that that is the case. I am sure the hon. member made the speech he did not because of ill will but because he was not informed as to the situation. I am sure that the neurological institute would have found it very difficult to operate at all if it had not been for the combined efforts of the federal and provincial governments a few years ago. An annual operational grant of $40,000 is now given by the federal government to the neurological institute under a national research council vote. In addition, we made a grant to the neurological institute of a little over half a million dollars, $400,000 of which was for some very valuable equipment that is now in the institute.
While I am on my feet, I want to pay a tribute to a very outstanding Canadian citizen, Mr. J. W. McConnell. I suppose I know more about his benefactions than any other man in Canada, not only for the neurological institute but for many other health projects in Canada.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: I know.


Murdo William Martin: I think he might not like my having said this publicly, but I feel his generosity deserves this mention.


Frederick George Hahn: Before we carry this item, would the minister indicate what consideration, if
Supply-Health and Welfare any, would be given to the plea I made a few minutes ago concerning an increase in the hospital grants?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I can offer my friend no encouragement on that particular whatever. This is a field that normally belongs to the provinces. We assist the province of British Columbia in its health budgets to the total of about $4 million. We have also helped with the building of over 5,000 hospital beds in British Columbia. In the city of New Westminster we have helped with the building of nearly 500 beds. Any new moneys that may be made available we propose to use in fields in which the provincial governments feel they cannot undertake a more particular responsibility.


Frederick George Hahn: Would the minister let us know how much closer we are to meeting the shortage we had some years ago when we were about 60,000 beds short in the Dominion of Canada?


Paul Joseph James Martin: In less than five and a half years, through dominion, provincial, voluntary and municipal efforts, we have built almost 60,000 additional hospital beds in Canada. Our objective was 40,000 in a five-year period. We estimate now that there is, generally speaking, a shortage of about 23,000 hospital beds in Canada.


Mr. Yuill:: I have a small problem, Mr. Chairman, in so far as assistance to hospitals is concerned. It seems to be common in the national parks. I refer to Seaton hospital in Jasper national park. Because of the natural growth of the personnel in the park and the town of Jasper, plus the increasing tourist trade, it became necessary to build an addition to Seaton hospital at a cost of around $70,000. There is a very peculiar situation there. The people of Jasper have been denied the right to form a municipality, and thereby have authority to sign an agreement with the provincial health authorities and in that way qualify for the normal $1,000 per bed grant that is traditional across Canada.
I do not know whether or not there is a solution to the problem. In my opinion, however, the matter might well be handled in this way. The taxing agencies within the park for school purposes have a system of bookkeeping set up there, and I would suggest the minister give sympathetic consideration to the idea that they be permitted to collect sufficient revenue, taxes if you will, from the people of Jasper so that they may be able to avail themselves of this $1 per day hospitalization. I have communicated with many of the people, and I am quite sure they
6328	HOUSE OF
Supply-Health and Welfare are quite willing and anxious to avail themselves of that $1 per day hospitalization. The technicality involved is the fact that there is no authorized signing authority.
I believe that the parks administration could enter into that agreement and with very little extra cost or labour collect the necessary money to equal the three mills or whatever it may be and thereby get the people of Jasper and the Sisters who are responsible for operating the hospital what appears to me to be at least a square deal. It seems rather ironical that because we have dual control or lack of it, I do not know which, they are denied the benefits of this $1 per day hospitalization. I should like to ask the minister if there is any possible way by which you could give the necessary consideration to seeing that that is carried out.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Grants to health organizations-
266. Canadian Mental Health Association, $10,000.
Frederick Davis Shaw: I presume I might just as well ask the minister a question or two here as elsewhere. There are possibly 13 organizations that receive grants from the federal government. I indicated this afternoon that for the first 12-the 13th being a new one- the grants are the same this year as last year, and possibly have been the same for years. The minister indicated this afternoon that the mere fact grants are made to these organizations would indicate the government considered them deserving organizations. If they were deserving of this amount last year or a few years ago, certainly favourable consideration should now be given to increasing those grants, principally because the grants mean less to the organizations now than before.
I understand that taxes are up, and that these organizations pay a sales tax on the paper that goes into the publications they send out. They pay postage, and those rates were recently increased. I should like the minister to indicate to this committee just why it is that full recognition has not been given to these organizations, and why such recognition has not been reflected through some increases in the amounts. This afternoon the minister said something to the hon. member for Greenwood when he was speaking about this, but it was one of those semi-private conversations and hard as I tried I could not hear what was said. I should like to have the minister comment, even though I appreciate he prides himself on not having said very much while these estimates have been before


the committee. I would not expect him to think he might be as fortunate from here on.


Paul Joseph James Martin: When I was talking about the brevity of speech, I was not only speaking about requests from this side. I have to operate within a budget, and we have established the principle of making grants to organizations on the basis of their national character and the assistance that they receive from the provincial governments. My hon. friend well knows that the grant for the Canadian National Institute for the Blind is larger this year than it was six years ago. The same is not true in the case of a number of other organizations. I do not want to specify any particular organization, although I am sure we all have in mind the one that is mentioned.
I have told the Health League of Canada that we would be prepared to give consideration to an increase in their grant provided we saw evidence of a willingness on the part of the provincial governments to bear their share towards the operations that are said to be undertaken all over this country.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Would that apply to each of the other organizations listed?


Murdo William Martin: That would apply to each of the other organizations. Now, on the general subject: I have made much in statements in public of the desirability of voluntary effort. We have laid down as the policy of this government that the federal government should not undertake anything in the field of health or welfare that might more properly be done by the provinces. We feel that nothing should be undertaken by the provinces, although that strictly is not our legal concern, if it can more properly be done by the municipality, the private organization, the family or the individual. That is our general philosophy in the matter. And to give evidence of the sincerity of this view, under the national health grants over $5 million of the money appropriated last year has gone to voluntary organizations of one kind or another-the hospitals, the Canadian Arthritis and Rheumatism Society, and so on.
One hon. member from British Columbia, I believe it was the hon. member for Fraser Valley, wondered why we had not given anything to the Canadian Arthritis and Rheumatism Society. Last year we gave that association over $135,000 to carry on its operations through its various branches. So I think it would be fair to say that we have recognized the importance of the voluntary partnership in this important matter.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: No, it is not carried. I must say that the minister's statement is most unsatisfactory. I attempted to make some comment this afternoon following the hon. member for Red Deer. To be told in one breath that the minister is really interested in the work of these organizations, and then to realize the trifling amounts they get-and I am not attempting to assess what they do at all; I have nothing to do with that-I am bound to say that these amounts are utterly inadequate. Certainly they are not large enough, if the government considers these organizations to be of the value which the minister's words would seem to indicate. So far as I am concerned, the words and deeds do not match at all, and I am terribly disappointed in what the minister has said. I do not think he should ask anyone to accept it. I do not accept it. I hope these organizations will be able to do something to make their wishes felt. I feel in the strongest possible way that what is being proposed is utterly inadequate.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Mr. Chairman, may I make it clear that I am not satisfied, even though I did not rise and say anything further. The minister and hon. members in the committee should know how I feel about this matter. I say there is justification for an increase in these grants, because of the increased cost and the wider varieties of work these organizations are doing, in the sense that there are more people in the country. I said this afternoon that I felt we were not doing enough in the field of preventive medicine. I certainly believe that these organizations could play a most valuable part in that particular field, and I am not picking out any specific field. The minister mentioned one organization. I hold no brief for any particular organization. I look upon them as a group of organizations engaged in a particular kind of work.


Mr. Barnett:: Mr. Chairman, I rise to take part in this discussion because I find myself completely and utterly bewildered by some of the statements I hear coming from seats to my right and, may I say, a seat in front of me. On the one hand I hear people getting up decrying the evils of state medicine and regimentation. On the other hand, from the same place, I hear people getting up and saying that these organizations should not, really, be voluntary organizations at all, that the government should pay for them.
Now, that simply does not make sense. I am not saying that I oppose the government when it indicates that it has an interest in 83276-400i
Supply-Health and Welfare these organizations and feels they are doing a good job. In a sense this parliament has bestowed its blessing upon them. But to argue, on the one hand, that a thing should be voluntary and to argue, on the other hand, that it should be paid for by the government seems to me nothing but a lot of nonsense. I think these people should make up their minds where they stand.
If we are going to have a compulsory health plan paid for entirely from Ottawa, then let them come out and say so; but, on the other hand, if they believe that there is room for a voluntary effort on the part of individual Canadians, let them recognize that it should be a voluntary effort and come from the hearts of the people. I must say I find myself quite confused by some of the conflicting arguments I hear from every side.


Frederick Davis Shaw: May I point out that if the hon. member for Comox-Alberni cannot recognize a voluntary organization as continuing to be a voluntary organization, even though it may receive a gift, then all I can do is express sorrow for him in his lack of capacity to understand the situation.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: May I make one comment. In my experience the hon. member for Comox-Alberni usually has had his mind well tuned to the facts. But it seems to me that, as has been indicated, in this instance he completely misunderstands the situation. Nobody suggests that these organizations should be wholly maintained. In the one case with which I am familiar I think they get from the government somewhere between 10 per cent and 15 per cent of their budget, or even less than that. I do not think there is anything derogatory about a voluntary institution asking for help. I agree that if a voluntary organization came to the government and asked it to carry the whole load, then I think the hon. member's remarks would be just as well-directed as I now consider them to be ill-directed.
I should like to have one or two facts with regard to these grants before we pass on. Do these figures, these amounts, go back a long way, or have they gone up or down? In other words what do they represent in the work of these voluntary institutions, as compared with five or ten years ago, in view of the changing costs?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Well, the World Federation for Mental Health is new. And it does not represent the full amount of assistance in the mental health field because under the health grants we are giving to the Canadian Mental Health Association assistance in connection with their operations in Alberta and

Supply-Health and Welfare in British Columbia. There is another $10,000 in the case of those two provinces. Then, my hon. friend will know the record with respect to the Health League of Canada. May I say I was in error. I had told him privately that that amount had always been the amount of the grant. I find at one time it was $20,000; but in the period between 1931 and 1935 the government of that day cut the amount from $20,000 to nothing. I am not saying what that government was. The amount has since been restored and in 1946 was raised to $10,000. Then, the inclusion of the Canadian National Institute for the Blind represents a very substantial increase. In the case of the Canadian Public Health Association the amount remains stationary.
With respect to the Canadian Tuberculosis Association there has been no increase. The St. John Ambulance Association had an increase in 1950. The vote for the Canadian Paraplegic Association is new, having been put in six years ago. The grant to the Canadian Ophthalmological Society is new this year.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I shall make only one comment. I recall when the government reduced the grant. It was a Conservative government and was done at a time when, as the minister knows as well as I do, we were going through desperate difficulties. Those difficulties were described last night by the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek.
I am just pointing out that the minister is continuing at a low level, at a point 50 per cent of what it had previously been, a grant which was reduced 22 years ago, at a time of great difficulty when, no doubt, every conceivable economy in every direction was being made. I am glad the minister corrected what he said earlier. I can only hope that he will not continue to feel that that is a fair way to deal with these organizations, if that is a fair illustration.


Frederick George Hahn: The minister indicated that last year's grant to the arthritis and rheumatism association was $135,000.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes.


Frederick George Hahn: Is it the same amount this year; it is not included in the list as such?


Paul Joseph James Martin: It does not appear; it is under the national health grants made to the provincial divisions of the association.


Frederick George Hahn: Would there be any large grants to organizations along that same line?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes; we give the Canadian Cancer Institute almost twice that amount and also the heart foundation both in Montreal and Toronto.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
National Physical Fitness Act-
2S3. To provide for the administration of the act, the sum hereby provided, notwithstanding sections 8 and 9 of the said act, to be credited to a separate account in the consolidated revenue fund, to be subject to section 35 of the Financial Administration Act and to be paid out by the Minister of Finance upon the requisition of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, $78,141.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: Am I correct in assuming that this item involves a grant of $78,000 under the National Physical Fitness Act that was buried the other day. We gave it a quick burial. May we have an explanation?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member will know that we had an agreement with one of the provinces that came to an end only in December 1953. It was a ten-year agreement, and but for that I would have earlier recommended to my colleagues and, subject to their acceptance, I would have brought into this house a suggestion that we repeal the National Physical Fitness Act much earlier than we did. That explains why the action taken a while ago was not taken earlier. However, we have to consider our relations with the provinces, and in view of that terminal date, in the meantime not knowing what the outcome would be, we have carried on the agreement. We have signed agreements with all the provinces to carry on the grants for another year, ending in 1955. At the end of that time the grants will cease and we shall no longer be committed to the principle of making grants to the provinces. That is of course apart altogether from the operations of the national physical fitness division which is not covered by the legislation, and at the end of this year we shall have to see to what measure of liquidation we can bring the operations of that division.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Can the minister say a word about one item here? As I understand it, this act has been at the point of death for some time, and its uselessness presumably recognized, so why are we voting $17,000 for educational and informational publications under this act, even with the explanation the minister just gave us? What is the money going to be used for? The figure of $17,700 for educational and informational publications apparently is under the National Physical Fitness Act.


Paul Joseph James Martin: These are commitments made last year for various publications.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: These were made last year, but the approaching demise of this act must have been contemplated.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It was certainly in my mind. If my hon. friend will look at section 4 of the act he will see the extraordinarily wide powers given to the national physical fitness council, powers that extended to not having to report to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, although the latter was obliged with respect to some of their commitments to seek a vote in this parliament.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I do not think the minister's explanation is satisfactory. Although the act has been repealed, apparently the same amount of money is being voted to carry the thing on as when it was in full operation last year. Surely if the act is expiring rapidly and if this is still being continued to some extent because of the agreement with the provinces, this $17,700 for educational and informational publications and the next item of $7,300 for educational and informational material other than publications, are not required this year and therefore should be dropped.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I cannot say any more than I said a moment ago. Agreements with the provinces are not to run out until 1955, and this was an estimate of what was formulated in the light of a continuing obligation. That obligation comes to an end in 1955, when we shall be in a position to deal with this particular item.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Does the agreement with the provinces call for an expenditure of $25,000 for educational and informational publications and other informational material?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The commitments made last year do.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The minister says there was a contract. Is there any contract or agreement with the provinces that $25,000 worth of these publications and other educational material will be supplied? Either there is or there is not. What are the publications?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Some of these are publications we had in the process of printing, bills for which are coming in currently. I cannot give my hon. friend the names.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Bills are coming in currently. Are they against last year's operations?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes-some are.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Surely the department is not going to ask for another $25,000 for publications unless they have an agreement with the provinces that they must supply them.
Supply-Health and Welfare The minister has not told us that they have any agreement that they must supply those publications.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I want to emphasize the same point. We should have here a definite contract produced, a statement that there is an obligation clearly existing which cannot be got out of, that we have to go ahead and spend this money. After all this act is quite dead. These expenditures are covering a year, only two months of which has elapsed. Unless we made a firm contract with a province on the basis of which it is going to go ahead and incur expenditures, regardless of the termination of this act, then surely the hon. member for Calgary North is right, and we should have distinctly before us what it is, and this item should stand over.


Mr. Fairey:: May I say a word on this vote? Since I had something to do with the operation of this particular act may I suggest that in certain provinces the act is still in effect, and the obligations of both the dominion and provincial governments continue until those agreements expire. Therefore the expenditures that were estimated for last year, let us say, in the province of British Columbia, will be duplicated in the coming year because the act is still in effect in that province. That is why the same amount is required in the estimates this year as last year, and will be so required until the agreement expires.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That does not meet the question at all. I asked the minister definitely whether there was a contract to supply $25,000 worth of those educational publications, and he has not yet said there is a contract.


Murdo William Martin: I have said there were certain commitments. There were no contracts in the sense of a consideration passing from one party to another, but we have verbal understandings with the provinces in connection with these publications. We are writing to the provinces seeking to extricate ourselves from the obligation in the light of our over-all policy with regard to the act. It would be certainly wrong on my part, having in mind our general intentions, not to have budgeted for these amounts, in view of these understandings with the provinces.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Has the minister succeeded in extricating himself from $5,000 or $10,000 worth of these expenditures?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am hopeful of doing so. All I can say is that in one breath I am accused of overexpansion and overspending and in another breath on another item I am accused of being too parsimonious.
6332	HOUSE OF
Supply-Health and Welfare


Douglas Scott Harkness: I have not accused the
minister of one thing or the other. This is the first time I have said anything on these estimates today and what the minister means by this statement in reference to the questions I asked I do not know, but his remarks are completely inapplicable. He still has not given any satisfactory explanation of this item.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I want to know what the minister can give us on this. He says he is trying to extricate himself. So far so good, but in the meantime I do not think we should vote this rather tidy sum without some indication as to how much of it is really being used. The interpolation from the hon. member from Victoria did not seem to me to add anything to the situation. I can understand if there were commitments which had to be carried out but the minister has indicated already that having regard to the situation he is certain to cut down some of the commitments due to the fact that the act is no longer in operation. But that is an unsatisfactory situation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I wonder if I could help to extricate the minister from the difficulty in which he is-


Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister is never in any difficulty from which he has to be extricated.


Douglas Scott Harkness: You have not told us how the extra amount is to be allocated.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I cannot give understanding.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I trust these two hon. members will pardon me if I interrupt their tete-a-tete. I think I might perhaps clarify the situation by reading clause 2 of Bill 475 which we dealt with a few days ago. This was the bill repealing the physical fitness act. It reads as follows:
Notwithstanding section 1, the said act continues in force for the purpose of carrying out and giving effect to any agreement made with a province under section 7 of the said act and in effect at the coming into force of this act.
Does that not cover the situation?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That merely indicates that the minister will have the legal right to extend the agreements which are in effect but that is not what we are looking for.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The whole point is this,
that the next item deals with assistance to the provinces amounting to $157,670.


Paul Joseph James Martin: These are grants to the provinces.


Douglas Scott Harkness: But this is under the
National Physical Fitness Act and it is $7,000 more than last year for an act which is now


declared to be null and void, and that is in addition to those grants which are more this year than last year in spite of the fact that the act has been repealed. The minister is extricating himself by saying in addition to this he has all these other items for educational publications and he still insists on putting this through when the act has been nullified.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend obviously does not understand the operation. The vote to which he refers deals with contractual obligations entered into between the dominion and the provinces under the National Physical Fitness Act. The other vote has to do with publications and educational material committed to by the national physical fitness council operating under the act. Now the 10-year agreement with Saskatchewan ended in December and that gave us an opportunity of declaring our over-all policy. But in fairness to the provinces and so they would not be caught unawares, and after discussion with them, we agreed to carry on the agreements for one year only and to extend those agreements to the year 1955.


Douglas Scott Harkness: If the minister could tell us what was agreed to with each of these provinces in the way of educational publications that might clarify the situation. We will start with British Columbia, Alberta, and then work eastward.


Paul Joseph James Martin: These are commitments in most instances made by the national physical fitness council and not by the government or Minister of National Health and Welfare. I said a moment ago that if my hon. friend will look at section 4 of the act he will see the very wide powers under which the council acts. First of all, there is the reprint of a book to which the hon. member for Greenwood drew my attention some weeks ago, entitled "Posture's Important When You're Growing Up", $5,000; reprint of guide for leaders, a handbook for voluntary leaders in small communities, $5,000; production in the department of simple folders and leaflets on various subjects such as play areas for children, stage settings, etc., $4,500; recreational facility film strip, $2,000; preview film library service, $2,000 and miscellaneous displays to be used at British empire and commonwealth games, $2,000.


Douglas Scott Harkness: There is no commitment to any province in that. This is evidently just a general program laid down in spite of the fact that the act has come to an end and the minister is going ahead with it in any case. In other words, he is going to throw away the money because it is available.


Mr. Nowlan:: I do not think the minister should try to satisfy us with that pleasant smile of his and by reading that list of publications. He has referred my hon. friend for Calgary North to section 4 of the act but what we are concerned with here are the agreements. And the agreements with the provinces came into effect when the act went into force. That presupposes first an agreement and secondly that it is in effect now. I think the minister should tell us what agreements were made with what provinces. The mere fact that he cracked some jokes about some publications does not mean anything and has no connection with the agreements. We are dealing with agreements which came into effect with the coming into force of the act and I think the hon. member for Calgary North is right and the minister knows he is right. The minister always extricates himself very adroitly from a bad situation. This time he should tell the committee the nature of the agreements which are in effect at this time with the provinces. That is all we ask.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall the item carry?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have nothing more to add, Mr. Chairman.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, apparently the situation is that in spite of what the minister has said there are no agreements in connection with this expenditure, and particularly in regard to the publications he is going to go ahead with the program when the whole scheme has come to an end. This story that this is due to contractual obligations just does not stand up because he cannot tell us what these contracts were or anything else in connection with this matter.


Murdo William Martin: There is nothing I cannot do that I have said I can do and no amount of frivolity on the part of the hon. gentleman can alter that fact. I am prepared to enter into the amusement just as genially and vigorously as he is, but let me tell him when he asks for the agreement that we can make available to him copies of the agreements with the provinces. Indeed I have copies of the agreements made with seven of the participating provinces which terminate in 1955. We can send down to the department for them but I cannot say any more than I have already said on that particular point.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The minister seems to think this is a matter for levity. I did not approach it in a spirit of levity and I do not think he has any right to get up here and attempt to get out of his inability or refusal to answer
Supply-Health and Welfare questions by saying that the questions were asked in a spirit of levity. There is nothing particularly funny about $78,000 which relatively large amount is being expended on something which is a completely dead horse.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: I do not think the minister should run away from his obligations. I think he should stick to the obligation he has made.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall the item carry?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: No, Mr. Chairman. The minister cannot wheedle us quite as easily as he thinks he can. The minister could undertake to give us the details of these agreements. He has made no statement which would allow anyone to understand what these agreements are. The minister admits there are agreements and we have asked him to tell us what they are. He has not told us and we are being asked to make an assumption. I am not prepared to do that.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall the item carry?


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, Mr. Chairman. I suggest that it be allowed to stand over unless we get further information.


George Clyde Nowlan: The minister said he could produce these agreements. I think they should be produced, Mr. Chairman. You will also notice that those agreements he has referred to are only agreements under section 7; that is, contractual obligations for the printing of comic books or whatever they may be, these various things.


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Chairman, I did not say there was any contractual obligation with regard to these agreements. I said the contractual obligation was under the National Physical Fitness Act in respect of grants that are provided by statute to the provinces pursuant to the act of 1943. What I said with regard to commitments was that they were not in the nature of legal commitments. I explained that there was not the usual form of consideration and so on. We naturally do not carry these agreements around with us. I will be glad at some subsequent date to table them. They have nothing to do with this issue. They are in the usual form under which we agreed, under authority of section 7 of the National Physical Fitness Act, to make certain grants to the provinces.


George Clyde Nowlan: What I say is that we should have tabled the agreements under section 7 of this act with which we are concerned, and no other obligation whatsoever. The parliament of Canada has seen fit to pass Bill No. 475 on the recommendation of the minister. In that bill-it is not yet an act, I suppose, because it has not received assent
6334	HOUSE OF
Supply-Health and Welfare -the minister and the department can authorize only commitments or obligations entered into under section 7. If the minister says that these obligations are entered into under section 7, and he is tabling them, well and good. But so far the minister has not said that. I think we are entitled to have the agreements tabled.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is clearly the case. I thought I had clearly indicated that I would table them.


George Clyde Nowlan: No.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall the item carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, it is carried subject to these agreements being tabled.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I shall be glad to table them on Monday.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
285. Assistance to schools of social work, $32,370.
Stanley Howard Knowles: I just want to say that I am glad to see this item restored in the estimates. I am sorry that it was missing for a year or two. Can the minister make any comment on the fact that although the item has been restored it is only $32,370 whereas it used to be of the order of $100,000?


Paul Joseph James Martin: This is only for the province of Quebec. As my hon. friend knows, the former grants were absorbed by the general grants made to universities, a system of allocation that was not acceptable to the government of the province of Quebec. In view of the fact that we were not able to make grants to universities directly from the federal government to the province of Quebec and having in mind the urgency of training in schools of social work, this item was put in the estimates in the amount indicated.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is a corresponding grant to schools of social work in the other provinces included in item 119 under finance?


Paul Joseph James Martin: They are covered by aid to universities, whatever item it is.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is it; item 119.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Health services-
685. Administration of the Food and Drugs and the Proprietary or Patent Medicine acts-further amount required. $22,900.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I should like to ask a question on this item and to bring a little matter to the attention of the minister. While it came up in the discussion of the main estimates, I happened to be called out for a moment or two. Before I do that, I should like to endorse What others have said in
tMr. Nowlan.]

respect of these important estimates coming before the committee at such a late time in the session.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I fully agree.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am glad to hear the minister say that he agrees. Here is a department spending over $812,000,000. I believe that the minister-and I am quite sure he is willing to do so if there is time-should have the opportunity to explain a great deal of the details of these estimates. That is something which it is not possible for him to do under these circumstances. I am always extremely interested in having an explanation of these important items and I always enjoy the minister's explanations. I must say that I regret that I have not had that opportunity today.
I happened to cut this article out of a newspaper recently. I have not the date of it and I forget which paper it was, but I think it was the Journal. I want to bring this article to the minister's attention. It is headed "Raps 'Dishonest' Practice by Drug Supply Houses" and it reads as follows:
Kitchener, April 8,- (CP)-Dr. John McKelvey, professor of obstetrics and gynaecology at the University of Minnesota, Wednesday criticized the "dishonest" practice of drug supply houses in connection with iron supplied women during pregnancy.
Addressing the Kitchener-Waterloo Academy of Medicine's clinic day gathering, he said only iron salt is needed to combat most anaemias of pregnancy but drug firms insist on mixing in other expensive ingredients.
He said that, as a result, the treatment costs $60 instead of about $1.50.
That is a fairly wide margin of profit. The article continues:
"These treatments are dishonest and the drug companies know they are dishonest", he said. He added that doctors should share some blame for the situation because they continue to prescribe them after medical science has proved them outmoded.
I do not know whether the minister's officials have noticed this newspaper comment. I would ask the minister whether it has been brought to his attention, whether he can give me any explanation of this statement and whether he will tell us what his department has done about it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I could not hear very clearly what was going on. Does this article refer to something in the United States?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: No. It does not say clearly. It is a gentleman from the United States speaking at Kitchener, but it does not say clearly whether it refers to the United States.


Paul Joseph James Martin: All I can say is that, as my hon. friend knows, we have amended the Food and Drugs Act. By the way, I may

say that the act will be proclaimed as of July 1. Some of these measures will, I hope, enable us to give a stronger and more enforcing quality to some of the things to which my hon. friend has referred. We are doing our best, at any rate.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I will send the clipping over to the minister.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister answered one question I was going to ask. He has said that the new Food and Drugs Act will be proclaimed on July 1. May I ask him whether satisfactory arrangements have been made for the recruiting of sufficient personnel to carry on the inspection work that will be necessary under the new act?


Murdo William Martin: Yes, I think we are making progress in that matter.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does that apply in particular to cheese factories?


Murdo William Martin: I would not say it applied particularly to them, but we are making progress in the selection of inspectors.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I also ask what steps are being taken to administer the sections of the new act having to do with advertising for various products. The minister may recall that earlier in the session I put some questions on the order paper relating to advertisements for toothpastes. As a matter of fact the minister's answers were at least partly satisfactory. They seemed to me to reveal recognition of the fact that some of the advertising of products of that kind is exaggerated, if not misleading. I wonder whether the department has set up whatever staff is necessary to check on this kind of thing and to make sure that our people are not, misled with regard to such products?


Murdo William Martin: Under the Food and Drugs Act we have a division that enjoys generally the full co-operation of the industry in these matters. There are some people, of course, who are abusing the privilege which comes from a co-operative endeavour such as this one we are seeking to establish. But I think that we are making considerable progress in arresting people like that who do not recognize that they have responsibilities to the public.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You have good people in this division.


Murdo William Martin: Oh, yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Supply-Fisheries

[Stage Direction]
General services-
130.	Information and educational service, including grant of $3,000 to Nova Scotia fisheries exhibition, $185,500.
William Alfred Robinson: Hon. members will find the vote on page 21 of the blue book and the details commencing at page 188. Shall the resolution carry?


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, I assume that the minister is going to be present?


Mr. Harris:: I am present, Mr. Chairman.


George Alexander Drew: Is the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration going to answer the questions?


Walter Edward Harris: No. I will answer any questions for the moment, but the Acting Minister of Fisheries will be here before the first question is asked.


George Alexander Drew: Who is the Acting Minister of Fisheries?


Walter Edward Harris: The Secretary of State.


George Alexander Drew: The old salt. Mr. Chairman, this house should not proceed until the minister responsible is in his seat.


Walter Edward Harris: If we wait for one minute he will be.


Stanley Howard Knowles: While we are waiting, I wonder whether I could once again make the suggestion that perhaps for the balance of the evening we could do our own messages and let the page boys go home. It is Saturday night.


William Alfred Robinson: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Could we not go home and do
our messages too?


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, with all respect to the Acting Minister of Fisheries for whom we are waiting, unfortunately I was not able to be here when this department was first called but while lying in the hospital I had the opportunity of reading the very interesting, very long and very detailed statement of the achievements of the Minister of Fisheries in administering this department, all of which was interesting and all of which was creditable to his administration, and he is the man who has the knowledge about the situation. After all, the fishing industry is of some interest to people on the east and west coasts of this country, and I think the Minister of Fisheries should be here to deal with it himself and to answer questions. I am sure

Supply-Fisheries
the acting minister could convey memoranda to him but that is not good enough in dealing with a department such as this, and I do not think the proceedings should be carried on in that way.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Mr. Chairman, I wonder what has got into the opposition tonight. The parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance was able to take care of certain matters, as have other parliamentary assistants, so why not let the parliamentary assistant carry on?


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, I think it is appropriate that this matter be dealt with immediately. This is the longest session in the history of this parliament.


Walter Edward Harris: By no means.


George Alexander Drew: If there is one that was longer then I stand to be corrected. I was accepting a statement I saw a few days ago that it was the longest. However, it has been long for no other reason than the complete inefficiency with which the business of the house has been presented during the whole session. There has been a course of planned confusion and over and over again the opportunity-


An hon. Member:: I do not know what you would do without the Journal.


George Alexander Drew: -to deal with matters of very great importance-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Here is the old salt.


George Alexander Drew: -has been denied by the devices that were followed to postpone proceedings in this house. We now find ourselves dealing with estimates-


William Alfred Robinson: Order. May I interrupt the Leader of the Opposition to indicate that the Acting Minister of Fisheries is here and that we are now discussing item 130.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, that in no way affects the comments I propose to make.


Walter Edward Harris: On a point of order, if my hon. friend proposes to go on with a general debate about the business of the house it will naturally follow that I will answer him and we shall have a lengthy debate on that point. I suggest we could have that debate much better on another occasion when I am sure more than the two of us would take part in it, and that we might confine our remarks now to the item before us.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, we are dealing with a subject tonight that is of very considerable importance not only to the people of the two seaeoasts-perhaps I might say the three seaeoasts-but also to the people along the inland waters who are affected by the

operations of the Department of Fisheries. There is no valid reason why the minister charged with that responsibility should not be here when we are taking up the items having to do with the Department of Fisheries. The remarks I am making apply with equal force to any other department. Anything that I say is no reflection on the parliamentary assistant.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Alexander Drew: The parliamentary assistant, however, for very obvious reasons cannot speak on behalf of the government. On different occasions in the past statements have been made by parliamentary assistants which aroused some comment in the house. The government has been very careful to point out that parliamentary assistants do not speak with responsibility on behalf of the government. It should be remembered that the only assurance hon. members can have with regard to answers given is that the minister is a member of the privy council and speaks on behalf of the government.
No matter what the good will and good faith of the parliamentary assistant may be, he is not in a position to bind the government by his statements. Therefore answers given in the house by any parliamentary assistant do not have the sanction of the combined responsibility of government under our traditional parliamentary system. If we are to proceed on the basis of answers being given by the parliamentary assistant, then in any case where any question arises whether the statement is made on behalf of the government there should be agreement in advance that the item will stand until such time as the minister can be present to answer that question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a point of order, I am temporarily vested constitutionally with authority to act for the Minister of Fisheries in every capacity the Minister of Fisheries has, and I am quite prepared to do so and to accept that responsibility here and now.


George Alexander Drew: Then is it the intention of the Secretary of State to answer every question in connection with the estimates now before us?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Certainly not. I will make use of the services of the parliamentary assistant as provided for by parliament when provision was originally made for parliamentary assistants, but I will take the responsibility for what is done.


George Alexander Drew: No, Mr. Chairman, that is not our parliamentary system. That is not the system that we have been accustomed to.


Mr. MacNaughl:: On a point of order, during the session of 1948 when I was

appointed parliamentary assistant to the then-minister of fisheries, Mr. Mayhew, we followed that practice throughout the whole time our estimates were before the house, and nobody raised any objection on that occasion. Mr. Mayhew sat by me. I answered all questions respecting the Atlantic coast and Mr. Mayhew dealt with the Pacific coast. No one questioned the propriety of it then, and in sessions thereafter we followed the same practice.


George Alexander Drew: The parliamentary assistant will be well advised to let some member of the government speak on behalf of the government.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman, may I do so immediately and say that the present situation was well known to hon. members opposite. For something like two weeks now it has been known that on this particular day the Minister of Fisheries would be absent.
I have called the Department of Fisheries on at least five or six occasions and it was fully understood that this procedure would be followed. I would expect hon. members opposite to accommodate the leader of the house by warning him in advance if they were not prepared to go on with this particular item at this time. This is the first I have heard of any such argument.


George Alexander Drew: There was no notice to the house that the Minister of Fisheries was going to be away.


Walter Edward Harris: Of course not. I do not say all these things in public that are said in private, but if we cannot arrange matters in that manner then I am not going to try any longer. There has to be a certain amount of arrangement of affairs and at no time that I am aware of have I been lacking in courtesy to hon. members opposite in attempting to meet their wishes, and in particular with respect to the business for this day.
I quite realize that all hon. members are not cognizant of these things and if they feel that they have not been properly arranged of course this is the only time that they could make an objection, but at the same time I would hope that we could avoid these difficulties before the event rather than at the time. If my hon. friend takes the view that an acting minister, with a parliamentary assistant here, cannot answer, then I must confess that the business of this house will be held up at some length on occasion because I can well recall former occasions when I acted in the absence of a minister on the estimates. This is an entirely new proposition that I am not prepared to argue on its merits at the moment. I would hope we would be able to proceed with the items on 83276-401 i
Supply-Fisheries
the statement made by the Acting Minister of Fisheries that he will accept responsibility.


George Alexander Drew: Let there be no suggestion there is any breach of understanding or that there is any question about the attempt that has been made from time to time to facilitate proceedings in the house. I, for one, urged that there be a wide understanding between both sides of the house as an alternative to any rigid pattern in dealing with matters of this kind. We now have the minister who informs us he is the acting minister. I would point out that since the time mentioned by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration we have, on different occasions, been called upon to discuss the responsibility of parliamentary assistants. We are not in any way challenging the statement of the government in respect to them. The position of the government has been that parliamentary assistants cannot bind the government.
My remarks were directed to that point, that it was evident the parliamentary assistant proposed to take up these estimates. The Secretary of State has now stated he will assume full responsibility. I would point out, further, that we do not want a return to the position explained by the parliamentary assistant, where the parliamentary assistant is speaking with authority on behalf of the government. Now that the Secretary of State is prepared to take full responsibility, I think we can proceed. If there is any comment on any specific item which needs the minister's attention, we could defer the item until the return of the minister and we could deal with it on that basis.


Walter Edward Harris: Just so that we will not have any difficulty in this house, it must be remembered that on the last item of national health and welfare I asked one of my colleagues to telephone the Acting Minister of Fisheries to have him here. There was no intention of proceeding with this department until he had arrived. Because the hon. members on the other side were generous enough to pass that final item a little quicker than I expected the minister had not arrived when this item was called.


Mr. McWilliam:: I wish to make a request of the minister's department that he give further consideration to extending the educational services to maritime fisheries, and in particular a program of education designed to fully inform and bring home to the fishermen the devastating results that will follow if the present tempo of illegal fishing for lobsters, quahogs and salmon continues. We need a process of education that will turn the fishermen towards becoming conscious of the dangers of this procedure and will

Supply-Fisheries
enlist their co-operation in taking strong means to stamp out the illegal fishing carried on by poachers, who are a small minority of the fishermen. Such a program would aid in the propagation of the species. The educational program should point out that some of our maritime fisheries are reaching the point of exhaustion, and the co-operation of fishermen is necessary to assure the success of a conservation program.


John Watson MacNaught: In reply to the hon. member for Northumberland, I might say that that is a point that is receiving consideration of the department, and has been receiving consideration for some months now. An active program is under way; literature and pamphlets are being prepared and sent out to the various fishing communities showing the effect of catching small lobsters, for example, and the effects that will follow from taking fish that are too small or immature. I assure the hon. member the matter has been given very active consideration.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
131.	Markets and economics service, $239,500.
George Clyde Nowlan: I should like to venture just a comment on this item. As I said on the opening item, I was very pleased to read about the development which had taken place in the industry, with particular reference to this innovation of what I think is called fish sticks or the new method of selling fillets of cod and other groundfish. According to the minister this type had attracted a tremendous amount of attention in the United States. As a matter of fact I have heard from him, and from others, that the demand was so great that the United States buyers were worried about being able to buy larger quantities of this fish rather than being worried about sales.
Having read of that, and heard that, there was a feeling that some of the problems of the fishing industry might be solved, so I was rather shocked to read in the press that apparently representations had been made to the President of the United States by the tariff commission that duties should perhaps be increased on the importation of Canadian fish. I could not reconcile the very glowing picture painted by the minister the other night with this account which I read afterwards in the press. I presume one explanation might be that the recommendations of the tariff commission had taken place before the importation of these fillets had increased to the tremendous extent it did. Either the United States is not as dependent on this as we were led to believe or else the tariff commission has made a serious mistake in making recommendations to the President or else the newspapers are reporting wrongly.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Since this is a matter that involves another country as well as our own, perhaps I should answer. I may say that as the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings has said the tariff commission of the United States is reported to have made a recommendation to the President. As the Prime Minister informed the house on two different occasions, the Canadian government has made very strong representations on this subject. There are some encouraging features about the situation.
No action has been taken by the U.S. administration, though a report appeared in the press that recommendations had been made. In the second place, I was informed by the Minister of Fisheries himself after he returned from Cleveland, where he was the guest of a meeting of the fish trade association, that although a year ago the trade association had supported the application to the tariff commission for a restriction on the importation of these fresh frozen fillets, this year they had refrained from doing so. I understand there is divided opinion in the United States industry. Some of those who do the actual fishing, I understand, are still in favour of protection, but there are a great many United States processing firms who now get a large portion of their fish from Nova Scotia and Newfoundland in block form. Their business would be seriously interfered with if these supplies were cut off. I think we have reason for modest hope that the views we have put forward, and the views that many people in the industry in the United States have put forward, will prevail in this matter.
I certainly hope so because it would be quite disastrous, were the contrary the case, to the riding that I happen to represent, and to the whole Atlantic area. I may say, sir, that what the hon. member has said is quite correct. The demand for these fish sticks is growing more rapidly, I am told, than the demand for any other food product on this continent at the present time. I can assure any hon. member in the committee, on either side of the house, that having eaten almost a pound of them myself for dinner tonight-


An hon. Member:: At one time?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, at one time-that they are simply delicious. They taste like fish that has just come out of the water. I strongly recommend these fish sticks to every member of the committee.


George Clyde Nowlan: I am sure the people of Canada should see the radiant smile on the face of the minister. Were they to do so

they would realize what a wonderful advertisement it is for these fish. I quite agree with him that they are good.
I have one other question. Without going into too much detail in a field into which I do not wish to trespass, can he indicate, either as a result of the experience of similar recommendations in the past, or as a result of inquiries the government has recently made, when one might expect some answer would be given with respect to recommendations made by the American tariff commission to the President of the United States.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We hope no action will be taken. I think there is one very reassuring thing. I had the record examined recently and I find that the present administration in the United States has not yet accepted a single recommendation that involved action under the escape clause in GATT. I am sure everyone in the committee hopes that record will continue.


Daniel Roland Michener: Mr. Chairman, perhaps this is a department into which a landlubber should enter with caution. But being fond of fish, perhaps I may offer that as a reason for asking some questions. I refer to the matter of publications and general publicity in the department. At page 188 of the estimates I find reference to the publication of reports and other material, and the amount is $20,000, the same as last year. Then there is an item for films, displays, advertising and other informational publicity for an amount of $89,700, an increase of about $36,000 over last year. What is the anticipated additional publicity and what films and displays are contemplated. Generally speaking, what is the total of this department's budget for publications and publicity?


John Watson MacNaught: The total for the Department of Fisheries is $89,700, and the increase is largely accounted for by the fact that a special film is being prepared relating to fisheries. That accounts largely for the increase.


Daniel Roland Michener: Could we have the price of the film, the subject matter and information as to who is preparing it?


John Watson MacNaught: The national film board is doing it, and it relates to methods of fishing, processing and marketing.


Daniel Roland Michener: Is that for the information of fishermen, or for the advertising of fish products throughout the country?


John Watson MacNaught: It is mostly educational.


Daniel Roland Michener: What is the total budget of the department, in all branches, for that kind of work?
Sup p ly-Fis heries


John Watson MacNaught: I have given that figure, $89,700.


Daniel Roland Michener: I see that amount in one item; but I find other items for publicity. What is the departmental total?


John Watson MacNaught: There are other details throughout the various items dealing with the publication of reports. But that is not in the sense to which the hon. member is referring. The publication of reports is informational publicity. The total amount for the item to which the hon. member has referred is $89,700.


Mr. Siuari (Charlotte):: Mr. Chairman, there is one matter I should like to bring to the attention of the parliamentary assistant.


John Watson MacNaught: On item 131?


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Yes, I think it can be dealt with here. I can speak on some other item, if that is the wish of the committee.


John Watson MacNaught: It will be satisfactory if the hon. member speaks now.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Before I proceed to my remarks on this subject I wish to say that I was greatly interested in the discussion which took place tonight when the Leader of the Opposition mentioned the fact that we were discussing a matter which was of great importance to the Canadian people. It is always good to realize that the fishing industry is recognized as a major rather than a minor industry in this country. I am always more than pleased to hear remarks of that kind.
For a few moments this evening I should like to bring to the attention of the department a change which I believe should be made in the lobster regulations, and one which I feel is long overdue. I refer to spawn or berried lobsters which become berried after they are impounded in licensed pounds which are licensed by this department.
Realizing that there might be some opposition to this change I should like to give the committee some information in connection with this industry. Lobster pounds are a great asset to the lobster industry. During the fishing season the operators purchase lobsters to be impounded, or stored, and sold after the season closes. This has a most stabilizing effect. Without these pounds, or storage facilities, of necessity all lobsters would be offered on the open market at whatever price might be offered by dealers in all parts of the United States, particularly, because over 90 per cent of the lobsters we produce are sold in the United States.

Supply-Fisheries
One can imagine what would happen in western Canada if storage were not provided for wheat and other farm commodities. The same condition would prevail in the lobster industry without lobster pounds, or the facilities for holding them over different periods of time. Again I wish to make a few comparisons to emphasize the importance of this industry.
The impounding of lobsters by pound operators is a great gamble. You are dealing with live lobsters, a most perishable commodity, unlike farm commodities. Hundreds of thousands of dollars are invested by private enterprisers-not by the government-without any government guarantee as to price, or financial support, or anything else. Should some sort of malady strike the lobster industry, as has happened within the last few years, these operators would be obliged to take the full loss which, as I have said, would amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars.
A few years ago thousands of lobsters died in the pounds of Charlotte county, and in the state of Maine. We have yet to understand why it happened; but it did happen. The operators at that time lost hundreds of thousands of dollars, but the total loss was absorbed by the pound operators. They did not ask for government assistance. No appeal was made to the government in any case for assistance of any kind. They took their loss and stood on their own feet.
When the foot-and-mouth disease appeared in western Canada-and I suggest this is a very fair comparison-a much different view was taken. I am not saying this in any critical sense. Each and every one of us stood in our places in the House of Commons and did everything that was possible to help in that situation. I would do it again if necessary. But I just wish to make this comparison to show that these men today, the private enterprisers in this business, act in a different fashion. It is true that they are trying to make a dollar for themselves, but at the same time they are giving financial assistance to the lobster fishermen of the maritime provinces and they are receiving very little by way of assistance.
Every farmer in western Canada was fully paid for his losses when we had the foot-and-mouth disease in this country; and for that I congratulate the government upon its speedy action. Then when disaster struck the hog raisers in Ontario a year ago, again the federal government came to their assistance and the losses were sustained by the taxpayers of Canada. Again I wish to congratulate the government on the action taken in that connection.

When there is an overproduction of butter in Canada, the government purchases the surplus and furnishes cold storage. At the present time I believe there is about 30 million pounds in this position, with a guaranteed price to the producer on that butter held in storage. Again I congratulate the government on their efforts to stabilize the situation. I could also mention the $20 million which we voted just two years ago when the wheat was under the snow in western Canada. I stood in my place here and voted for that assistance to the farmers. When it came time to seed the next spring it was discovered that less than $1 million was used. Assistance of this kind has never been provided to any branch of the fishing industry.
In this industry it is a case of supply and demand, and those individuals who are making every effort to stabilize this industry receive very little encouragement. During the spring lobster season, which is in operation right now, hundreds of thousands of lobsters go into the pound for storage, to spread the supply over the twelve-month period, rather than putting them all on the market at one time, which would have a very ill effect in so far as price to fishermen is concerned. The fisheries inspector or inspectors supervise the purchase of these lobsters to be sure that each and every one is of a legal size. They are present when the lobsters are placed in the pounds. No berried or spawn lobsters may be purchased or stored in lobster pounds at any time. Every effort is made by the pound operators to comply with this regulation, and at great additional expense to themselves all the males and females are separated and placed in different compartments of the pound. It means an enormous amount of work and a lot of expense.
The approximate date that spawn or berries would appear on female lobsters is known to these owners. If they sell every female before that date and kill them before the berries appear, they have the full support of the federal government; but if some are left until after the spawn appears, any junior officer of the department has full authority to liberate every spawn lobster that may be found in the pounds, without paying the owners one single penny. We must remember, however, that these lobsters were legal lobsters when purchased. Hundreds of thousands of dollars were involved in the purchase of female lobsters during the open season, a legal procedure in every way. They were carefully inspected and passed as legal lobsters by authorized officials of the fisheries department.

In my opinion, once legal lobsters are purchased and placed in pounds they are the property of the owner. No one should have the authority to liberate a single lobster without paying the full price. The department may argue that this would encourage illegal fishing of female lobsters. I have heard that argument used. Illegal fishermen who fish for lobsters do not fish for female lobsters only, and if they catch a berried lobster the berries will be removed before it is sold. This is a very simple operation. But no fisherman is going to bring a berried or spawn lobster to a dealer and sell it. They will be removed before he brings it in. Any illegal lobsters caught in the area in which I am interested are sold on the other side of the border in the state of Maine. There, there is no restriction in so far as the lobster season is concerned. They fish twelve months of the year. It is very simple for fishermen to take their catch over the border at any season, and dispose of it at prices which would be comparable to the prices they would receive in Canada.
The department might also suggest that the change I have suggested would give pound operators advantages which are denied individual fishermen. Again I would say that you were giving the pound operator nothing. It is a matter of justice, and you are giving him the privilege of protecting his investment of hundreds of thousands of dollars.
As I stated just a few moments ago, lobsters are a most perishable article, particularly in cold weather. In the wintertime the lobster is a most delicate thing to handle. The loss sometimes is tremendous. These operators are using their own money. They are building pounds which are of great benefit to every lobster fisherman in the maritime provinces. They purchase lobsters, which are not berried at the time they are purchased. They are placed in pounds. They have paid for them with their own cash. They are impounded legally because they are inspected when they are put in there. But if berries appear on thse lobsters when they are in these pounds fo rthree months, any officials of the fisheries department can go to the pounds and liberate 10,000, 20,000 or 50,000 without paying the owner and the operator one single dollar.
I hope the department will see fit to make a change in this regulation. As I stated at the outset, it is long overdue. These men are free enterprisers. They have done a lot for the lobster industry. They have done a lot for the fishermen of the maritime provinces. I believe they must have some little consideration.
Supply-Fisheries
The regulation that we have on the statute books today could be changed very simply. All that it needs to improve the situation is to put at the end of the sentence: "except in licensed pounds". These pounds are licensed by the federal government. The licence fee is paid by the operator. I am not one of the legal profession, but I do believe that if an officer went into a legal pound today and found berried lobsters it would be hard to find a jury in the maritime provinces who would condemn the pound operator. He bought them legally; he impounded them legally and they are his own property. I believe it is time that some consideration was given to these men who are, as I say, free enterprisers, doing so much to build up this industry, and some little encouragement should be given to them.
Before I resume my seat I want to emphasize this once more. We will find some fishermen who will be opposed to this suggestion. I have fished lobsters myself. I have some idea about the industry. I have spent many hours around lobster pounds, putting lobsters in and taking them out. I have seen the loss involved in the handling of lobsters, and I realize the great risk that is taken by these men, these free enterprisers. A regulation that gives a government department authority to seize and release anything that belongs to these men, that they bought and impounded legally, is something that should be adjusted, and adjusted without any great delay.


John Watson MacNaught: The matter brought up by the hon. member for Charlotte is one that received the attention of the department about two years ago. At that time the department convened a meeting of all interested parties, but no unanimity could be arrived at. I might say that it is a matter of considerable controversy. The department is prepared at the present time to convene another meeting as soon as possible to see if the viewpoint of the persons opposed to the change in the regulations has changed and, if so, then a satisfactory change in the regulation may be arrived at.


Thomas Miller Bell: I have a matter that I would like to bring up. It concerns the salmon weirs in Saint John harbour. I think I can relate it to fish economics and to this item. I mentioned it when the estimates of the Department of Transport were before the committee, but I do feel that some action should be taken. Perhaps it would be up to the Department of Fisheries to press for some remedy. It concerns the weirs on the

Supply-Fisheries
west side of Saint John harbour. I understand that they are auctioned off in three-year lots to fishermen by the national harbours board. They set an arbitrary reserve price at this auction. Perhaps they do not have the knowledge that the Department of Fisheries would have as regards the economics of the fishing and as regards conservation, and consequently when the price is not met they simply say: let the weir go, and we will not bother to use it for another three years. Three or four fishermen have brought this to my attention. They feel that a study should be made by the Department of Fisheries of the reserve prices that seem to be set arbitrarily. In some cases they feel that they are much too high. If they could be brought down to lower figures then the weirs could be worked. Some are not as profitable as they used to be in the past but the fishermen feel quite strongly about it because there is some revenue there for them and they do not like to see the weirs lying unused simply because the department really has not the full knowledge of the salmon in Saint John harbour. I wonder if the parliamentary assistant would like to comment on this and say whether he will look into the matter and take some action because if it is left up to the national harbours board I feel the situation will go on indefinitely and these weirs will be of no value in another five years.


John Watson MacNaught: I can well understand the concern of the hon. member for Saint John-Albert in connection with these fishing weirs. As he said himself in his remarks, they are on the property of the harbours board but I can assure him the Department of Fisheries will be only too pleased to look into the matter and discuss it in all its aspects with the Minister of Transport.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
132.	Administrative expenses of the Newfoundland fisheries board, $25,450.
Thomas Miller Bell: I am wondering about the increase in regard to the Newfoundland fisheries board, perhaps merely out of curiosity. But I understand that with the reorganization of NAFEL and the new plans to hand all the marketing over to the fisheries board and hence the Department of Trade and Commerce there will be some changes in the Newfoundland fisheries board. In that event surely the board's duties would be cut down and the administrative cost would be less.


John Watson MacNaught: These estimates were prepared last October before the change mentioned by the hon. member for Saint
[Mr. Bell. 3
John-Albert took place and any economies made by the changeover will be reflected in next year's estimates.


Thomas Miller Bell: Could the parliamentary assistant tell us what the fisheries board will be doing now? To what extent are their duties and expenditures to be cut down? I understood when the announcement was made that the NAFEL organization was being completely changed. I realize this is not a government body but this is quite important and I would like to know what is being left of the entire organization.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps I should say a word about this, Mr. Chairman. The functions of the Newfoundland fisheries board with respect to marketing were transferred from the board to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, but it also had other functions. The Fisheries Act has never been proclaimed in Newfoundland and the law of Newfoundland with respect to fisheries is still the old law that existed before confederation. The fisheries are administered through the Newfoundland fisheries board which is an agency of the Department of Fisheries of Canada and it has all the functions of the fisheries department to perform in so far as Newfoundland is concerned, or at least a substantial part of these functions. There may have been a few things not done before confederation that are not done through this agency but most of them are, and the only way in which the board's duties have been lightened is by transfer to trade and commerce of the supervision over NAFEL which, of course, is a private agency, as the hon. gentleman knows.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
133.	Industrial development service, $1,000,000.
Mrs. Fairclough:: Mr. Chairman, as a matter of curiosity I notice that although on the face of it there appears to be a considerable decrease in this item over last year's estimate, I see on looking at the details that although there was $1,250,000 appropriated last year the total expenditure was only $350,000. Despite that the appropriation this year is $1,000,000. I wonder if the parliamentary assistant would care to explain.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I did not really intend to usurp the function of the parliamentary assistant but as the questions seem to be mainly about Newfoundland, a subject in which I have a lot of interest, I cannot resist the temptation to answer. The fact of the matter is that it was rather expected that certain developments with respect to the fisheries could be carried on a little more

rapidly than in fact proved to be possible last year. As the hon. lady no doubt knows, there was a joint committee set up by the federal government and provincial government under the chairmanship of the chief justice of Newfoundland and they made a report some time during May last year. This vote is not entirely for Newfoundland. There are certain other developments elsewhere, although the major portion of it is used in Newfoundland. The purpose there is to get on with development work in co-operation with the province, but as quite often happens in developments of this kind the planning takes a good deal longer than people expect.
Mrs, Fairclough: It seems to me that the minister has succeeded in spreading a nice thick blanket over this item because the amount for this year is still three times the expenditure which they were able to use last year. Just what type of development is anticipated that would run into $1,000,000?


John Whitney Pickersgill: As I indicated a moment ago, it is not all for Newfoundland. There are some developments in other provinces. But there is one development in particular which is perhaps of more interest to me than most of the others. It is proposed to establish an experimental dryer at a place called Valleyfield or Badger's Quay. I am not well enough acquainted with the geography of the settlement to know where one ends and the other begins, but the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador, who is a constituent of mine, no doubt knows the area even better than I do. I have seen it from a ship, from the air, and from the ground and it is a very promising area for fishery development. This experimental dryer which is to be established there is going to mean perhaps as much to the salt fishery as the experimental farm means to agriculture, and it is intended to experiment not merely with drying fish but also with packaging and with new methods of preparing the product to see if a higher class of product can be produced which will appeal to a better market than has been the case for salt fish in the past.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: From my rather scanty knowledge of the fishing business it seems to me that this is an industrial project. Or is it a basic government research project intended to aid the industry generally?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am very pleased the hon. member has raised that point because there has been a great deal of misunderstanding about this very point in Newfoundland and elsewhere. The federal government does
Supply-Fisheries
not participate in the financing of commercial plants and the object of this vote is not to set up a government owned industry. It is to assist the fishing industry to develop a new type of plant for the processing of salt fish and to assist in the expansion of the fresh fish industry, and an experiment designed to assist the industry in getting into new and more profitable markets. Unfortunately, because of exchange and other difficulties, the markets for salt fish have been very unsatisfactory for the last five or six years, though there are distinct improvements this year as a result of the agreements with Spain and Portugal and as a result of the improved exchange situation in Brazil, and also as a result of the arrangement my colleague the Minister of Public Works recently concluded with Italy. However, it is felt that there is still plenty of room for improvement in the industry both in producing a good product and in finding good markets and getting what I think is called in the trade "market acceptability". I do not care much for such phrases. It is for the purpose of assisting the industry to improve its methods that this vote is used.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Either I did not make myself clear or the minister did not quite understand me. I did not for a moment mean to infer that this amount was going to put the government into the processing business or anything like that. What I intended to intimate was that this type of work, if I understand accurately the type that the minister has described, is the type of research that is usually done by the industrial firms themselves. I wonder whether this is a departure on the part of the government. If so, will the knowledge so gained be available to all of the fish packing industries in Canada, whether they are on the west coast or the east coast, or is this something that is primarily for the benefit of Newfoundland?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No. I will not say it is not primarily for the benefit of Newfoundland.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Be careful.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is not solely for the benefit of Newfoundland. In so far as it is related to the salt codfish industry

and it is primarily related to that industry-I do not think it would be of much benefit to the west coast. But anything that is done by the federal government is done for the whole of the industry. In fact, when I was in Newfoundland last August, after the election-because unlike the hon. member for Hamilton West, I had to do my campaigning after the election instead of before it-I spent a week end at Clarenville. There were half a dozen of the leading fish processors of Newfoundland there at Clarenville the

Supply-Fisheries
first evening I was there. They spent the night there and went on the next day to Bonavista where the government has been experimenting with mechanical drying of codfish and has had some quite marked technical success. We are now trying to see whether we can get costs down so that it will be a commercial success as well.
Practically everyone interested in the processing of salt fish in Newfoundland was going down to spend the week end to examine this whole process. I was still at the same hotel when they came back at the end of the week end and I heard what they had to say about it. They went there sceptical. They came back much less sceptical. It is a new process. If it is really successful it is going to be of great help to the industry.
But it is like something else that I was fairly familiar with a long time before I became very familiar with Newfoundland. I lived in Winnipeg when the rust research laboratory was first established on the university grounds there. For a long time a great deal of money was spent without any assurance that it was going to be the immense boom that rust-resistant wheat has proved to be to the wheat industry. It is the same kind of thing that is designed for the salt fish industry.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I should like to say a word on this matter. Listening to the discussion and the explanation of the acting minister made me think back to this industry in my own county. For many years the fishermen who are interested in the dried fish industry were obliged to dry all their fish with the sun. They had nothing else to depend on but sunshine by means of which to dry the fish. Along those coastlines we have a great deal of damp weather. We came to the place where the markets were demanding a drier fish than we could produce. The moisture content of the fish which we were trying to cure in the Atlantic provinces did not meet the standards in the West Indies and other countries to which we were shipping dried fish. It became necessary for those who could afford it to instal dryers which are most expensive. I know of men on the three islands in my constituency who are in that business and who were obliged to take what we call the green fish to Saint John or to some other part of the province or of the country in order to have them dried, because they could not afford to put in the equipment which would do it properly.
This matter which is now being discussed is along that same line. In Newfoundland there is a great deal of dampness. The fish they are producing must be dried to a much greater extent than they were 10 years ago
[Mr. Piekersgill.I
or 20 years ago. We do not get sufficient sunshine to cure them. The only alternative is to instal dryers, and they are most expensive. This experimenting which they are doing in my own area-I cannot speak for Newfoundland-has been most helpful to the industry. Today we have perhaps 12 installations of dryers where 10 years ago we had none. As the fishermen are able, they will provide these additional dryers which are most necessary if you are going to stay in the dried fish industry.
I hope that the department will continue on with these experiments in that line. In my opinion items in connection with the biological board and items like the one we are now discussing come exactly in the same category as do our experimental farms in agriculture. I believe these men should be encouraged. If we are going to build up this industry-a thing that I have talked about in this chamber on many occasions- we must provide a better product. When we provide a better product-and that is being done today; the product today is much better than it was two years ago or five years ago-a great many of our worries in connection with the fishing industry will be solved, in my opinion.


Daniel Roland Michener: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to detract at all from the assistance that is being given to the fishermen. I see that the next item is a bounty of $160,000. On looking into the bounty I find that it is paid not for catching predatory fish or something of that kind-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. Is the hon. gentleman speaking on item 133 or on the next item?


Daniel Roland Michener: On item 133.


John Whitney Pickersgill: All right.


Daniel Roland Michener: I am not sure. I am speaking on this item of $1 million.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is right.


Daniel Roland Michener: The bounty which I find in the public accounts was paid not for the destruction of predatory fish or the catching of big fish but for the-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am afraid the hon. member will find that the bounty has nothing to do with the item that is now under discussion.


Daniel Roland Michener: I appreciate that fact. It is just a preliminary expression of good will towards the fishermen. I have no objection to it. I appreciate it is paid to the fishermen and boat owners directly. The item under discussion for $1 million is described as providing for technical services to fishermen

and fishing industries. In this chamber I dare say members have become accustomed to very scanty descriptions being given, but when public funds to the amount of $1 million are to be voted on a resolution which is in such indefinite terms as that, particularly after the explanation which has been made by the minister, it seems to me that it is time for the committee to intervene. I would suggest that this item should not be passed in its present form.
Perhaps my nature is unduly suspicious but my suspicions have not been allayed by the statement of the acting minister, or by the fact that the acting minister is here to deal with this item, or by his statement that his electioneering goes on after the campaign. I would be disposed to question this item as being something in the nature of a blank cheque for the acting minister, and it is a fairly substantial one. It seems to me that if the committee is to be asked to provide funds for technical assistance to the fishing industry, for some specific project, it is all very well; let us pass it. But if it is to be described in general terms and put into effect, it leaves the matter open really for the department to spend this money in any way it sees fit. Particularly as this item appears to be intended largely for the province represented by the acting minister, I suggest that it should not carry without more detail being given.


Mr. Ashbourne:: I should like for a moment to speak on this item because I realize what has happened since Newfoundland entered into confederation and became a part of this great Canadian nation. At the time the discussion was going on as to whether or not Newfoundland would become part of Canada one of the arguments used was that in becoming part and parcel of this great nation we could look for greater expansion and also for greater aid and help in industrial matters such as the fisheries. I do not want to repeat what I said the other night when the Minister of Fisheries was here. I realize that tonight he is in Newfoundland, and while he cannot answer questions of hon. members of the house he is answering the questions that are no doubt being put to him by various fishermen there who are greatly interested at this time of the year. Only this morning I received a telegram from Newfoundland saying that the fish had struck in there. Although there has been plenty of ice on the northeast coast from Labrador down to cape Bonavista for several weeks, it seems that the ice has moved off now and we are glad to hear that the fish have moved in. In fact one trap set and hauled yesterday morning produced 25 barrels of fish which was good
Supply-Fisheries
news to the fishermen and good news to me because the season is rather advanced.
The point I should like to make is that we were hoping that by becoming a part of this great nation we would receive every assistance possible in order to utilize to the fullest these great reservoirs of food off the east coast in the Atlantic. I realize what an important item of food fish is and how necessary it is for the body to have a certain amount of protein. We realize that the eating of fish is an admirable way of providing the necessary protein for the body.
But in order to do this thing scientifically, in order to get the very best advantage and the greatest amount of money out of our food resources, naturally some experimentation must take place. I think the Acting Minister of Fisheries has already explained the situation very well. This vote is provided in order to carry on experimentation. Our traditional markets were in the Mediterranean; for centuries past they were provided with fish by the fishermen of Newfoundland in order to supply their needs. That was also true of the West Indies, and there was a time when Newfoundland shipped something over 400,000 quintals of fish to Brazil in one year.
We know that a lot of that has changed with the changing times. Today we have refrigeration and we know that the food value of fish is much better in the fresh form than when it is salted, put out to dry and cure and has to withstand the various vagaries of the weather. The salted fish had to be transported for thousands of miles, then at times taken into the hills and delivered to the people who had to eat the fish perhaps months after it had been caught.
In order to change this situation and bring about a new era through a revolution, so to speak, in fishery development, naturally some money had to be spent. I believe that the committee will agree that this is a move in the right direction. By having mechanical dryers, which have been explained by the hon. member for Charlotte, they will be able to do away with the old method of the fishermen and their wives spreading fish by hand. Now the process will be mechanized, and it is hoped that a larger volume of fish will be caught and processed and a greater number of dollars brought into the Canadian economy than was the case with flake dried salted fish. The end result before was a rather indifferent quality of fish, and we are hoping now that there will be a greater standardization of quality and thus a better article of food.
Of course this can only be done on a large scale by having such things as mechanical

Supply-Fisheries
dryers. We have been delighted to hear the results of the efforts of the Minister of Public Works and the deputy minister of fisheries in concluding trade agreements in Europe. We are delighted that they have made agreements to sell fish from Newfoundland to Portugal, Italy and Spain. We realize that we are dependent upon these foreign markets, but we find that today the situation is different from what it was before we entered confederation because we now have to sell for dollars where before we could sell for sterling. We could arrange sales in sterling in the soft currency markets. The result has been that we have found that there has been a certain lessening of the exports of fish because of the inability of these countries to provide dollars to buy our codfish. Therefore we have to change from salt fish to a certain degree and move in the direction of fresh fish.
There are physical handicaps which will prevent the full utilization of fresh fish plants on the whole of the Newfoundland coast. There are areas where it will still be necessary to salt the cod as it is caught. As I said before, the purpose of the experimentation is to perfect mechanical dryers operated through power. The exposing of Newfoundland fish to the beneficent rays of the sun makes it a very good article of diet. It may be possible through experimentation to develop a method of treating the fish with ultra violet or other rays if the necessary electrical power is available, but these things are matters for research and experimentation.
Personally I am very glad to see this vote. As has been pointed out by the hon. member for Hamilton West, the full amount of the vote was not expended last year. I think we can take it for granted that all expenditures under this vote will be carefully scrutinized and that it will react to the benefit of Newfoundland and other fishermen.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think I should perhaps say a word in reply to the hon. member for St. Paul's. I think the best way I can do it is by reading two or three extracts from a statement made on October 1, 1953 after a joint discussion between representatives of the government of Newfoundland and the federal government. It reads in part as follows:
The policy of the federal government was outlined as one of undertaking experimental and exploratory work in determining location of fish populations; of experimenting in mechanized handling and processing of light salted fish on which so many shore fishermen depend; of providing normal federal programs such as the construction and maintenance of harbour works and aids to navigation. The federal government will not finance the construction of commercial plants; the facilities of the industrial development bank and other national legislation like the Cold Storage Act are of course available in Newfoundland as elsewhere.

That is a general statement of policy. The actual operation of the program in Newfoundland for this current year was indicated to be as follows:
1.	The construction of a breakwater, necessary dredging, wharves and breastworks-
Some of these things of course are not in this vote but are in public works.
-as the federal part of a plan for all-round community development at La Scie that will cover salt and frozen fish and fish meal operations.
It is not expected to do that in one year. It is going to be installed over several years.
2.	Construction and operation of a federal experimental salt fish plant in the Valleyfield-Badger's Quay area to handle northeast coast light salted fish.
3.	Small-scale centralization and partial mechanization of individual fishermen's curing operations at Quirpon, to serve the fishermen of that area; a similar small-scale development is being planned for Seldom-Come-By.
That place is in my constituency, but is not my motto.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: You might consider it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I continue:
The extension of small community development to other places will depend upon the success of these experiments.
4.	Construction of a fishermen's wharf in St. John's to serve a fresh fish market, which will be provided by provincial or local authorities.
The market itself will be provided locally. Certain indications were given of the normal federal services which would be provided to speed up development.
In order to make this not seem as though it were entirely Newfoundland, perhaps I should complete my answer by giving a break-down of the other allotments. They are as follows: Technical services to fishermen and the fishing industry, $196,000; demonstration and exploration in Newfoundland-that is in connection with long-lining, a certain type of fishing that is still in the experimental stage-$130,000; fish drying experiments, Bonavista, Newfoundland, $200,000; economic survey, Newfoundland- that has been going on for a number of years and this is just this year's commitment- $12,000; herring exploration, maritimes, $40,000; scallop exploration, maritimes, $50,000-1 might note there that a new bed was found in the St. Pierre bank last year; shrimp exploration, British Columbia, $12,000; the Valleyfield fish drying experiment I have already mentioned, $300,000; savings gear experiment, Newfoundland, $10,000; midwater trawl development, British Columbia, $10,000; fish liver hydrolysate (maritimes), $20,000; motorized boats for schooners, maritimes, $20,000; tunnel-stern boats, maritimes,


$5,000. In Newfoundland, I may say, the term "maritimes" is used to mean the other three Atlantic provinces.


Daniel Roland Michener: I should like to say that my objection was not to the program which the acting minister has now outlined and which I am very glad to have on Hansard. It does give some reasonable explanation for the very large sum. My objection was the blank cheque. The acting minister will agree with me that it is the duty of the opposition not to assume this blank cheque is going to be filled in with the appropriate items.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I quite agree with the hon. gentleman.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I am interested in this Valleyfield project. I understand that the minister has inferred it is going to cost considerably more than the money provided this year, which is $200,000, if my memory serves me well. What does the minister expect the total cost of this project will be when it is completed?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is expected to complete the plant within this fiscal year, and $300,000 is the estimated cost of the complete plant.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Has part of it already been built?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, none of it has been built. The site has been chosen and some of the marine works have been surveyed. The last report I had on it was that it was hoped construction could start probably in October. It is not desirable to start construction except for the outside shell until the end of the fishing season because one of the incidental advantages of this kind of program is to do the work, so far as possible, during the winter season when the fishermen cannot fish. I am sure all hon. members will approve of that.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: There is still an item in public works estimates referring to this project.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There are some marine works required.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Does the minister know how much the over-all project will cost?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have not got it at my fingertips, although I should have because it is in my riding.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Field services-
134. Field services administration, $701,900.
George Clyde Nowlan: On this item of field services administration, protection branch, I should
Supply-Fisheries
like to say a word about a matter which was raised on the first item and discussed at some length. Hon. members may recall that the matter of the operation of trawlers and draggers off our coastline waters was raised at that time, and without repeating what was set forth in Hansard then I may say that we know there were two different conditions under which our trawlers operate. The small ones operated within three miles of our coastline or up to three miles from our coastline, and United States vessels can operate within three miles of our coastline. Canadian-built draggers and trawlers over 65 feet are compelled to remain out over twelve miles from our coastline. This matter was discussed at some length in the house and naturally different views were expressed with respect to it. Some hon. members took the position that this was an injustice to Canadian trawlers in the sense that United States vessels were allowed to operate within three miles of our coastline.
The suggestion was made, therefore, that our department should abrogate this decision and allow Canadian trawlers also to operate within three miles of our coastline. As you are aware, those trawlers which are built with Canadian funds have a condition endorsed on their certificate saying that they must operate outside the twelve-mile limit. I would say, superficially, that that appears to be a proper condition and should continue, whereas some others say that since United States vessels operate within the three-mile limit these Canadian trawlers should also be permitted to operate within the three-mile limit. My answer to that is this. This regulation was not promulgated for the benefit of the trawler operators. It was done to protect the inshore fishermen. Although we could not control the United States trawlers under international law, we could control our own. Our government said, and I say quite properly, that these trawlers should be kept beyond the twelve-mile limit.
I want to express my own protest against any suggestion of abrogating our decision. At the moment the situation for the inshore fishermen is not happy. These United States trawlers are operating within the three-mile limit of our coastline. Sometimes on a foggy night or perhaps if it is not so foggy but the patrol boats are not very near, these United States trawlers quite often can be seen within three hundred yards of our coastline. Our lobster fishermen lose their traps and our inshore fishermen lose their gear because of the operation of these boats. My suggestion is that instead of abrogating this decision so the Canadian trawler can operate within the

Supply-Fisheries
three-mile limit, we should through negotiations through the Department of External Affairs enter into some arrangement whereby the United States trawlers can be kept farther out instead of permitting the Canadian trawler to come closer to shore.
I realize that that is not something that can be accomplished overnight. I am sure the acting minister knows of operations that have taken place in certain countries under which new principles have been laid down for the establishment of inland waters. I believe these new principles are now before the international courts or they have been referred there for settlement. It is quite possible that in the relatively near future we may find international law will permit us to extend our inland waters farther out than the three-mile limit, possibly by adopting the headlands method or the cape to cape method as one country has done. Various expedients have been adopted. If we could establish a different basis for outlining our inland waters than is presently the case, then I believe we would be able to protect our fisheries. I am sure the hon. member for Charlotte would agree with me in that.
I would point out to the Secretary of State, who has more than an academic interest in this because he knows the political history and background of this country, that the particular waters in which he is interested are around Newfoundland, but the ones in which I am interested are in the bay of Fundy.
The situation with respect to that particular water is different from that of any other water on our coastline. Years ago when the British government was in charge of our external relations it took the position that the bay of Fundy formed part of the inland waters of Canada. They maintained that position. And one can go back to the records of the old discussions and the exchange of correspondence between London and Washington and find that position reiterated time and again. The Americans, on the other hand, said it was part of the high seas, and refused to accept that policy.
In the end it was agreed to disagree. Great Britain refused to concede that it was part of the high seas, and the Americans refused to concede that it was part of the inland waterways of Canada. And there the matter stood for many years. One might suggest that there is a proscriptive right; at least the Americans have been allowed to come into those waters. And I am not suggesting for a moment that they should be excluded.
But I do say that our Department of Fisheries should take a very dim view of any suggestion to allow American trawlers to

operate within three miles of our coastline. This matter should be kept in abeyance for a few more years until the international situation is cleared up. Because the plight of our inland fishermen today is serious indeed. They cannot operate against the operations of these trawlers coming along the coastline. I know one must not stand in the way of progress. I am not suggesting that in the matter of our high seas fisheries, or deep water fisheries, we should go back to the schooner days, or any of the methods which were used 20 or 25 years ago. But there are along our shoreline little villages and large villages in which there are thousands upon thousands of people who have lived there for generations, and who are living there today, and whose sole existence is being threatened by the operations of these trawlers.
This is not only true in the bay of Fundy. I see the hon. member from Halifax in his seat. I am sure he will agree with me that, for instance, in the waters of St. Margaret's bay, the same situation exists. Last year I was approached by many fishermen in that district who wanted protests raised with respect to this. They said they were sitting on the shore with rifles in their hands taking pot shots at American trawlers coming within the waters of St. Margaret's bay.
I am sorry to have spent as much time as this at this late hour, but I was rather intrigued by the suggestions which were made. I say it is a matter of absolute injustice to thousands of people along that coast line, and I wish to express my protest again with respect to a suggestion which was made in my absence.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, I have a few questions to ask on the subject of conservation. I shall not speak about the general subject of conservation, because we all realize the importance of it. However we are worried about two or three of our fish products in the bay of Fundy.
First of all, I should like to refer to the clam industry. I am referring particularly to the soft-shelled little neck clams. In Charlotte, and to a lesser degree in Saint John county, there has been a serious depletion in clams. I understand various meetings were held last year asking for a closed season in this clam industry to which I have referred. It was the unanimous opinion of a meeting held in August of 1953 that a closed season should be demanded. I say that we are worried about the serious depletion of clams, and I am wondering what new action has been taken or what inquiries have been made.

I realize that these regulations changes are controversial. Can the minister tell me the position as to the possibility of closing the season for clams?


John Watson MacNaught: This question is now under study by the research board, and officials of our department. No firm decision has been made in the matter, but it is receiving very intensive consideration at the present time.


Thomas Miller Bell: I should like also to refer to the lobster industry, with which the hon. member for Charlotte dealt earlier. In this connection the worry is the same, and concerns undersized lobsters. Perhaps I might read a headline which would explain the situation. This is a headline appearing in the Telegraph-Journal of Saint John, stating "Maritime Lobster Fishermen Want 'Get-Tough' Policy Used Against Poaching, Taking Undersized Fish". Then the article goes on to explain what happened at the meeting. It says that representatives from the three maritime provinces asked federal authorities for stricter enforcement measures that would deter an increasing black-market operation, which has created a dual price structure on lobsters.
Again I would ask what new action is being taken in connection with the lobster industry. I realize these are continuing problems, but unless new action is taken each year the thing goes on and on, and nothing is done-and then we will not have an industry.


John Watson MacNaught: As the hon. member for Charlotte has said, this is a continuing problem and one that has been bothering the department for many years. This year a greater effort was made to train the protection officers in the better enforcement of their duties. I think, if we may judge from letters we are receiving at the present time in the department, a better job is being done this year than has been done for many years. At least we hope that is so. But, as the hon. member has mentioned, it is a tremendously difficult job. There are so many ways of circumventing the protection officers, and it is such a lucrative business, that the incentive for illegal practices is very great.


Thomas Miller Bell: Then, I should like also to refer to the small herring industry. I have here a report which indicates that small herring taken in New Brunswick waters, or waters of the bay of Fundy, are used in the United States for fertilizer and oil. This may be surplus; it may be a wasted part of the industry that would not be sold. But it seems
Supply-Fisheries
outrageous to me that our good fish, particularly the small ones, are being commercialized in this way in the state of Maine, and indeed throughout the New England states .
I should like to hear whether any investigation has been conducted into the matter, and whether there is any truth in this report. If so, what measures are being taken to correct this serious outrage?


John Watson MacNaught: I should suggest that it would be difficult to prevent fishermen from selling where they can get the best price. I think the problem is one of economics. If the fishermen find it more profitable to dispose of their fish to American processors, then I do not think we would be justified in interfering.


Thomas Miller Bell: That was not my point. It is not so much a matter of economics. I am simply saying that this procedure does not seem right. Perhaps if better marketing prices could be obtained for these fish they would not have to sell them as surplus in that way. I take it that the price offered for the herring is not a competitive price under present market conditions. It is simply a left-over price that is given.
In other words, when they see that the herring catch cannot be sold, they dump it on the market in the United States. I am simply suggesting that the whole problem should be investigated, and then it would not be necessary to waste the catch in this way.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I should like to say a word on that point. There is no doubt that last year thousands of tons of small sardines were sold for fertilizer. They were sold in that way because they were too small for canning purposes. When the fish struck on the coastline they were mixed with silver hake, squid and other fish of no value at all. Our fishermen who had waited four or five months to make a few dollars could see a chance to make a few dollars by the sale of fertilizer. There are two sides of the question. Some will argue that small fish should not be taken out of the water. The man who needs a dollar argues, they are mine; I have caught them and I feel I should be given the opportunity of disposing of them if I can get something for them. Thousands of tons of what we would call brit, small herrings, went through as fertilizer. If the department should come out and say to the fishermen, you have got the fish but you cannot sell them, it would be a tough one to put over with them.

Supply-Fisheries
Again, these small fish would have been big fish some day and would be worth a lot more money so that the value would have been very much greater. These are the two sides to the question. It is one that would be most delicate for the Department of Fisheries to deal with, I would say.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I feel in somewhat the same situation as the hon. member for St. Paul's in that it is perhaps unusual for a dry bob-I think that is the word one might use-to get mixed up with the fisheries estimates. But I want to transfer the discussion to the Pacific coast for a moment, but not quite to the coast. Any complaint I have relates to the protective regulations which at present prevent sport fishing for certain types of salmon in our inland waters. It has been a sport for many years in certain reaches of the Fraser river, as well as the Thompson river, to fish for the salmon as they come up the river and while they are still in good condition. That is some considerable time before they reach the spawning beds, at which time they would not of course be fit for consumption; indeed, they would not be any sport to catch.
I might say that I have taken this matter up with the department but regret to have to report that no conclusion has been arrived at. Last year a notice was posted at Lillooet, British Columbia, which is in my riding and where there is quite a favourable stretch of water for fishermen. This was over the printed signature of the deputy minister. The regulation is dated March 2, 1953 and prohibited everyone except an Indian from fishing for, catching or killing a sockeye, pink or chum salmon by any means in the non-tidal waters of the province. In my correspondence with the department I pointed out that in the first place when you are fishing for these types of fish which are legitimate to catch you are fishing with a lure, and unfortunately the sockeye, chum and pink salmon are apparently unable to read the deputy minister's notice, and therefore some of them are ill-advised enough to take those hooks. The notice goes on to say that anyone taking such fish shall return them to the water immediately and if possible uninjured. When you tag a twelve-pound or a fifteen-pound salmon and get him in your boat where you can unhook him and possibly have to gaff him in the process, it is rather difficult to return him to the water uninjured.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You are not even uninjured yourself.


Edmund Davie Fulton: As I pointed out in the correspondence, firstly it is impossible to avoid

hooking these fish if you are fishing for this species which you are allowed to fish.
Secondly, the result of such regulations, if enforced, would be to deprive anglers in the interior of a perfectly legitimate sport. They are fishing for fish in good condition. Thirdly, the type of fishing which was described was fishing with lures, and not jigging or gaffing. It was genuine sport fishing which was the only type sought to be exempted from this regulation.
Fourthly, the enforcement of the regulation could only have the effect of ensuring that there would be returned to the water a number of fish which were bound to die.
In their reply the department made the point that the fish were on their way up to the spawning grounds and that owing to the increase in population and the opening up of certain areas of the province it was found that increasing numbers of those fish were being caught. They go on to say:
Reports of increasing evidence of mutilation and destruction of salmon on or approaching the spawning grounds made clear the need for additional special protection for these spawning stocks.
They also said that in their opinion these particular types of fish, that is, sockeye, pink and chum salmon, are not sport fish. I referred the matter back to the angling association which had taken it up with me and asked them for their opinion, and they report as follows:
In our opinion here, the sockeye is a sport fish. It takes a lure. It treats the fisherman the same as other fish do in that if he has not got the proper lure on his line, then no fish. It is quite true that some are snagged. This of course can and has happened when fishing in lakes and in the salt water. We can produce concrete evidence that at least 60 per cent of the fish are caught by the mouth.
This indicates of course that it is genuine sport fishing. The letter goes on:
You can rest assured that at least 99 per cent of all the fish we have caught by angling are in a prime condition. It has been found that those that are not in a prime condition will not take the lure.
I personally have had present persons who are in the fish canning business when a fish has been landed. The expression used by them was: "These fish are in prime condition, as good as we get on the coast.	,
The department promised to look into it and bring it to the attention of the minister on his return to Ottawa. I regret that I have not had any further answer. I hope that they still have the matter under consideration, but I would add in conclusion that it seems to me to be a matter that justifies review because I hardly think that the number of fish taken by genuine anglers could do conservation any harm. I am not talking about netting or those who may be prepared to

indulge in improper forms of fishing and try to sell them commercially. That can easily be done. It does seem to me unfair that a perfectly legitimate and well-recognized form of sport fishing should be denied to those who live in the interior of our province and who, if this is denied to them, are going to be condemned to eat canned salmon for the rest of their lives.


John Watson MacNaught: This is purely a problem of conservation. I can assure the hon. member for Kamloops that it is under consideration at the present time.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I say this with due respect; the simple fact is that I took this up first last August, and I would venture to suggest that the consideration must be approaching some finality at the moment. I hope the parliamentary assistant will assure me that we can expect a decision shortly.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Protection branch
[Stage Direction]
136. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $490,000.
George Clyde Nowlan: This item deals with the construction of works in connection with the protective services. I should like to draw the attention of the parliamentary assistant to a matter which has achieved considerable prominence in the press in the maritimes within the last few weeks. I am very sorry indeed that the minister himself is not here, because when he was here and replied to the various speeches which had been made, as I recall it, he gave a lecture on what he termed the birds and the bees, and he directed it primarily to the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace. If the minister were here tonight, and if he had read the press on what has happened in Nova Scotia, it might be advisable for him to write a second volume on the birds and the bees and advise us more explicitly than he did that night.
At any rate the department has supervised the construction of a fish ladder at a hydro dam on the Gaspereau river. For some strange reason, after the fish ladder was put up it was found that there was not enough water going down the ladder to enable the fish to go up. I do not have to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that a fish trying to go up a dry fish ladder is busier than a one-armed paper hanger with the itch. He does not accomplish much more. The result was that there were thousands and tens of thousands of papa fish and mama fish swimming around at the mouth of the ladder.
There was a long line waiting to go up the ladder. The mama fish, being in that condition euphemistically known as a delicate state of health, were rather large and slow and they
Supply-Fisheries
stayed relatively still. The papa fish being more slim and active managed to swim away. In the end departmental officials got worried about it and tried to encourage the mama fish to go up the ladder. But they would not go because in fact there was not enough water. So they obtained trucks and tin cans and nets and tried to scoop up the fish. As I said, the mama fish being rather slow did not get away and they dumped them into the tin cans, put them in trucks and drove them up around the ladder and put them back in the water again. Many of the papa fish, being pretty active, got clear. The very interesting question being raised now down in Nova Scotia is what sort of volume the minister would write now on the affairs of the birds and the bees, and they are wondering whether he got enough papa fish in the tin cans and whether the mama fish in the tin cans were very much use after being put in the tin cans. It is questioned whether the mama fish were very useful after being put in the cans.
This raises a very interesting problem. I wonder how many hon. members saw the last issue of Weekend magazine, which was carried in most newspapers across the country, for it showed some coloured photographs of the Gaspereau fish caught in the Gaspereau river, which happens to be in my constituency. The farmers there with their scoop nets actually work for a few weeks in the spring and some years make as high as $10,000 in catching the Gaspereau fish going up the river. If two years from now there are not going to be any fish coming up the river, the farmers who have hitherto earned a fair competence from the fish in that river are going to take a very jaundiced view of the situation.
You can speak about it in a humorous way, Mr. Chairman, but after all this is a serious matter. I think quite frankly it reflects on the service in some way. The fish ladders should certainly be constructed in such a manner that water would be flowing down at all times. The fisheries officials should have seen to it that some remedial steps were taken because there might be almost irretrievable damage done to this most valuable industry which means tens of thousands of dollars to the people in my own constituency. I do hope the minister will see that something is done about this. I know this must have been brought to his attention because it got headlines in the press for some days and the news item was spread all over the country. Farmers came from other parts of the country hoping to scoop up the fish. This is a serious situation and I hope it will be rectified before another year has passed.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Business of the House
Some hon. Members:: Ten. o'clock.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Is it the wish of hon. members that we rise and report progress?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: May I just confirm that resolution 136 is carried and resolution 137 is the next one to come under discussion.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, earlier this evening there was a slight exchange between the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) and myself with respect to whether this was the longest session parliament had seen. In case anyone is really aiming at a record I might mention that he will have to stay here another four weeks.
On Monday we shall take the amendment to the Judges Act, as I indicated the other evening, then the supply motion, the departments of national defence, defence production, and national health and welfare. It is understood, Mr. Speaker, that there will be no debate on the supply motion and perhaps we could finish all these departments by Monday night. In order to give hon. members an understanding of the work which is before them I have prepared a very tentative schedule and I would like to place it before them so they may be made aware of what there is yet to do.
If we have disposed of all these items on Monday then on Tuesday we will deal with veterans affairs, legislation, privy council, finance, justice, and national revenue; on Wednesday there will be labour, mines and technical surveys, agriculture, fisheries, and legislation; on Thursday there will be post office, citizenship and immigration and any supplementary estimates which have not been dealt with, and appropriation bills. It will therefore be seen that if we adhere to the program we can complete our work by Thursday night.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Why this sudden modesty on the part of the minister? Yesterday the minister said we might take his department today if we disposed of the others. Now it is to be put off until the last day.


Walter Edward Harris: The minister has had his estimates here all evening waiting patiently to be called. I hesitate to say this as I have said it before but it was in order to meet the wishes of hon. members opposite that Monday was set aside for other departments.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What about Tuesday?


Walter Edward Harris: Other departments.
fMr. Nowlan.]


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

[Stage Direction]
507.	Departmental administration, $2,214,867.
508.	District services-administration. $2,729,993.
509.	Veterans' welfare services, $3,291,711.
Treatment services-
510.	Operation of hospitals and administration, $39,687,910.
511.	Medical research and education, $365,600.
512.	Hospital construction, improvements, new equipment and acquisition of land, $5,300,000.
513.	Prosthetic services-supply, manufacture and administration, $1,009,024.
514.	Veterans' bureau, $518,325.

[Stage Direction]
A-Department-
247.	Departmental administration, $1,150,272.
National health branch-
Health services-
248.	National health branch - administration, $162,430.
249.	Administration of the Quarantine and Leprosy acts, $385,837.
250.	Immigration medical services, $1,081,677.
251.	Sick mariners treatment services, $684,508.
252.	Grants to institutions assisting sailors, in the amounts detailed in the estimates, $2,400.
Laboratory of hygiene-
253.	Operation and maintenance, $500,716.
254.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $580,000.
255.	Public health engineering, $189,723.
256.	Occupational health, $279,433.
257.	Civil service health, $300,499.
258.	Epidemiology, $78,497.
259.	Administration of the Food and Drugs and the Proprietary or Patent Medicine acts, $1,170,416.
260.	Administration of the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act, $163,879.
Indians and Eskimos health services-
261.	Operation and maintenance, $15,440,038.
262.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $1,470,500.
263.	Special technical services, $483,202.
264.	Health insurance studies and administration of the general health grants, $99,337.
General health grants-
265.	To authorize and provide for general health grants to the provinces, the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory upon the terms and in the amounts detailed in the estimates and under terms and conditions approved by the governor in council including authority, notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act, to make commitments for the current year not to exceed a total amount of $48,433,939, $31,750,000.

Grants to health organizations-
266.	Canadian Mental Health Association, $10,000.
267.	Health League of Canada, $10,000.
268.	Canadian Public Health Association, $5,000.
269.	Canadian National Institute for the Blind, $45,000.
270.	L'Association Canadienne Frangaise des Aveugles, $6,000.
271.	L'Institut Nazareth de Montreal, $4,050.
272.	Montreal Association for the Blind, $4,050.
273.	Canadian Tuberculosis Association, $20,250.
274.	Victorian Order of Nurses, $13,100.
275.	St. John Ambulance Association, $10,000.
276.	Canadian Red Cross, $10,000.
277.	Canadian Paraplegic Association, $15,000.
278.	Canadian Opthalmological Society, $2,000.
279.	World federation for mental health, $10,000. Welfare branch-
280.	Welfare branch administration, family allowances and old age security, $33,120.
281.	Administration, $2,650,946.
Old age assistance and blind persons allowances-
282.	Administration of the Old Age Assistance and Blind Persons Allowances acts, $116,558.
National Physical Fitness Act-
283.	To provide for the administration of the act, the sum hereby provided, notwithstanding sections 8 and 9 of the said act, to be credited to a separate account in the consolidated revenue fund, to be subject to section 35 of the Financial Administration Act and to be paid out by the Minister of Finance upon the requisition of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, $78,141.
284.	Assistance to provinces, $157,670.
285.	Assistance to schools of social work, $32,370.
286.	Grant to Canadian welfare council, $28,000.
287.	Grant to Canadian conference on social work, $4,000.
Supply
National health branch-
Health services-
683.	Sick mariners treatment services-further amount required, $275,000.
684.	Public health engineering-further amount required, $12,680.
685.	Administration of the Food and Drugs and the Proprietary or Patent Medicine acts-further amount required, $22,900.
Indians and Eskimos health services-
686.	Grant to Tofino general hospital, Tofi.no, British Columbia, $10,000.
687.	Special technical services-further amount required, $72,000.
Grants to health organizations-
688.	Grant to Canadian psychological association as assistance to the fourteenth international congress of psychology, to be held in Montreal in 1954, $2,000.

[Stage Direction]
General services-
130.	Information and educational service, including grant of $3,000 to Nova Scotia fisheries exhibition, $185,500.
131.	Markets and economics service, $239,500.
132.	Administrative expenses of the Newfoundland fisheries board, $25,450.
133.	Industrial development service, $1,000,000. Field services-
134.	Field services administration, $701,900. Protection branch-
135.	Operation and maintenance, $3,136,000.
136.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $490,000.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, June 21, 1954