1956-07-26

Mr. Speaker:: May I be allowed to draw to your attention the presence in the diplomatic gallery of our dear old friend Right Hon. R. G. Menzies, Prime Minister of Australia. On the occasion of this trip he is accompanied by Mrs. Menzies, and to both him and Mrs. Menzies we wish a hearty welcome and a pleasant stay in our country.
(Translation) :
We rejoice in the fact that the right hon. Prime Minister of Australia is to be honoured by old Laval University, of Quebec. His name will be written into the roll of those statesmen who have been similarly honoured, either for their scholarship or in recognition of their services to humanity or to the cause of peace, and who deserve our confidence, our friendship and our admiration.
(Text):



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
Hon, Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The Ottawa Citizen and the Ottawa Journal in their evening editions of yesterday, July 25, 1956, have both attributed to me assertions which I did not make-indeed almost the exact opposite of what I made-in debate in this house on July 24, 1956. The Citizen said this:
Justice minister Garson has told the Commons that pollution of the Ottawa river could be controlled or eliminated through the Criminal Code.
The Journal said:
Pollution of the Ottawa river could be eliminated or controlled through prosecutions under the Criminal Code of Canada, Justice minister Garson has advised the Commons.
What I actually said, as reported at page 6388 of Hansard, was this:
As I have stated on previous occasions on which we have considered this matter, I do not think a satisfactory solution to this problem can be found by proceedings in the criminal courts. That, of course, has been the view of the government all along and it is still our view.
I concluded my remarks with a review of the progress that had been made in controlling the pollution of the North Saskatchewan river during the past year and then, as reported at page 6392 of Hansard, I said this:
I think, Mr. Speaker, that my hon. friend himself will agree-
I was referring to my friend the hon. member for Prince Albert.
-there is more in that one statement-
That is the statement I have quoted of the progress that had been made in the preceding year.
-in the way of progress in the control of the pollution of the North Saskatchewan river than my hon. friend can achieve in a dozen criminal prosecutions, whether under the existing law or under the amendment which he has moved and which I think is totally unnecessary.
The hon. member for Prince Albert had urged the house to amend the common nuisance section of the Criminal Code to make it possible to prosecute a corporation which puts into the North Saskatchewan river at Edmonton a polluting material which, flowing down that river into the province of Saskatchewan, creates a common nuisance in Prince Albert. He asked for support for this amendment upon his allegation that under the present law the corporations located in Edmonton within the jurisdiction of the courts of Alberta could not be prosecuted in those courts for the indictable offence of a common nuisance which they had created in Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, within the jurisdiction of the Saskatchewan courts. I opposed the hon. gentleman's amendment upon the ground that section 419 (b) of the new code provides as follows:
For the purposes of this act . . .
I am just reading the relevant words.
. . . where an offence is commenced . . . within one territorial division and completed within another, the offence shall be deemed to have been committed in any of the territorial divisions.
A territorial division includes a province.
This is not only the law now but in a somewhat different wording it has been the law for many years before the new code was passed. The corresponding section of the old code was section 584.
But because it is possible to prosecute a corporation or municipality which commits a common nuisance by putting a polluting effluent into a river, either an interprovincial
[Stage Direction]
Privilege
river or a river wholly within one province, it does not follow that a series of prosecutions under such a law is necessarily an effective method of controlling or eliminating pollution. Indeed, we have always taken the position that it is not and that the proper method is to prevent pollution by concerted action of the municipalities and governments concerned.

Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinton):: I rise on a question of privilege. Yesterday afternoon following a remark made by the Minister of Defence Production, I made certain comments based upon his statement. These are found at page 6439 of Hansard. I will not read them all, but only one or two. I said, as reported in the second column on that page:
The explanation given by the minister to this committee this afternoon was that this-
That was the sum of $2,880,000 that was paid as a profit to Sorel Industries Limited. -was paid to Sorel Industries Limited because that company was asked to keep its plant in idleness but available for military production if required.
The minister denied that that statement was true and also denied having made the statement that I attributed to him and on which I based my remarks. I added, Mr. Speaker, "that is what the minister said if the record stands as the minister made his statement this afternoon".
Now, the statement that Hansard attributes to the minister in this regard reads as follows at page 6433 of yesterday's proceedings:
it-
That is speaking of the plant of Sorel Industries Limited.
-was closed down in 1945. Very valuable machinery was available there and when it was quite obvious that we would require guns for the Korean crisis we of course were anxious to make an arrangement with Sorel that the machinery would be kept intact for that purpose.
That is what Hansard says the minister said, but Hansard is not correct. What the minister did, in fact, say is as follows:
It was closed down in 1945. Very valuable machinery was kept there and when it was quite obvious that we would require guns for this year we of course were anxious to make an arrangement with Sorel that this machinery would be kept intact for that purpose.
I draw to your attention the fact that there are important differences between the statement the minister made and the statement attributed to him in the Hansard record at page 6433. I draw your attention to the fact that my statement, based upon the minister's statement, was quite justified in relation

to the actual remark the minister made, for the year referred to was the year 1945.


Mr. McCann:: He was talking about 1950.


Donald Methuen Fleming: We were talking about-


James Joseph McCann: He was talking about 1950, and "this year" refers to 1950.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Apparently the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) is now going to jump in and change what was said. What was said was:
It was closed In 1945.
The minister then goes on to talk about "this year". There was nothing said by the minister in that sentence about the Korean crisis, which came in 1950. The whole of the discussion was as to when this company was asked to keep its plant available for the government. There is the whole point, and I draw your attention to the fact somebody has changed the record of what was actually said yesterday.


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Defence Production):: May I say that I did not see the blue sheets. I believe Hansard because Hansard does represent what I did say and intended to say. I am glad I had a witness to this discussion, otherwise the views of my hon. friend might carry more weight.
However, I call your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that the committee that has been examining the Sorel situation, the exact matter under discussion, met this morning and presented a report that puts no criticism whatever on the government in relation to that.


An hon. Member:: It gives it no credit, either.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I suggest perhaps the matter might be regarded as closed.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The matter is not closed.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I intervene at this moment to say it strikes me that the discussion which took place, took place in the committee of supply yesterday. I take it that as soon as we reach the orders of the day the committee of supply will resume consideration of these estimates. Now, if there is to be any discussion of the matter which has been referred to by the hon. member, I suggest it should be in the committee of supply when consideration of the estimates of the Department of Defence Production is resumed.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, with respect, the matter is not raised now as a matter for argument. We had some argument about it yesterday. The matter is raised on a question

of privilege as to the correctness of the Hansard report, and the statement I made as to what the minister said is not just my recollection; it is what appeared in the notes taken by the reporter and transcribed by him.


Mr. Speaker:: Following the argument we had a few months ago this session with respect to Hansard, I would like to inform the house again that neither the Clerks nor the Speaker have anything to do with Hansard whatsoever. The man in charge, the editor, has the full responsibility as to what goes into Hansard, and if any member makes a correction the Hansard editor accepts it because he thinks it is within his order of reference; otherwise he would have to reject it on his own responsibility as editor of debates.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I have no objection if the minister indicated that he wanted to correct the statement that he made yesterday. That could be done at any time, and no one would raise objection to it, if the minister wanted to correct in a proper way the statement that he made. But the fact is that what was taken down and transcribed has been changed, and the record as it appears in Hansard at page 6433 is not the correct record of what the minister said yesterday afternoon.


Mr. Speaker:: Presenting reports by standing and special committees.



PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

[Stage Direction]
Third report of standing committee on public accounts.-Mr. Cannon.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, press dispatches this morning carry a report that a tax treaty agreement has been reached between Canada and the United States. Can the Prime Minister make any comment on this report?


Right Hon. L. S. Si. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the agreement has not been completed. It is still before us for consideration, and as soon as it is completed the house will be advised.


Howard Charles Green: Is it expected that there will be any legislation at this session in respect of this treaty?


Mr. St. Laurent (Guebec East):: The matter will have to be considered. That was the bill the Minister of Finance had in mind yesterday, but the position is not such, that a bill
*>
Inquiries of the Ministry would be justified at this moment. If the agreement is reached and there is time to consider a bill, and it seems urgent that it should be considered, the matter will be discussed in the usual way with the representatives of the various groups.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he would comment this morning and give the house further details concerning the injury to the two Canadian truce observers on Tuesday in the demilitarized area between Israel and Jordan and, in particular, say whether truce observers are given adequate protection when they are on duty and what went wrong in this particular instance, if something did go wrong.	[DOT]
Hon. L. B, Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs): Mr. Speaker, as soon as we heard of this tragic accident to two Canadian observers, and since then I have heard of one to a Swedish observer of the United Nations truce observation organization in Palestine, we asked for a report on the matter from our representative there. I have just received a telegram which does give some information on the matter, and maybe I can read it to the hon. gentleman and to the house. It reads;
The foreign ministry-
That is the foreign ministry of the Israeli government.
-advised me-
That is our representative in Israel.
-of an incident on Mount Scopus-
This, as the hon. gentleman knows, is on the outskirts of Jerusalem.
-which has resulted in serious injury to two Canadian observers, Major George Flint and Major Marcel Breault.
According to the ministry report, a group of Arab legionnaires penetrated the Israeli-occupied section of Mount Scopus on the morning of July 24, seized a house there and refused to leave it. The United Nations truce observation organization then sent in an investigating team including the two above-mentioned Canadian observers. The ministry states that the United Nations Organization declined an offer of Israeli protection that apparently was made before they investigated and that in approaching the house the mine accidentally went off, seriously wounding the two Canadians. They w'ere transported to the hospital in Jerusalem, the new city, where Major Flint was immediately operated on and his situation is reported grave. Major Breault, although badly wounded, was in less serious condition.
(

Inquiries of the Ministry
The wives of the two officers have been notified of this tragic incident, Mr. Speaker.
So far as the question of protection is concerned, the officers, of course, are United Nations officers although they are of Canadian nationality and we have never had any reason to believe that the United Nations Organization was not being given the protection by the governments concerned which was available although by the very nature of their work which is so hazardous that protection could never be complete.


INQUIRY AS TO POSITION RESPECTING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has any finality been arrived at with respect to the granting of export permits for the shipment of Sabre jets to Israel? There has been a press report that finality has now been achieved, and that is the reason I ask the question.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The press report is quite wrong. There has been no final decision made.


John George Diefenbaker: What is the present position?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The present position is that the matter is under consideration and, as I have stated many times to many questions asked in the house, when a decision is reached it will be announced.


John George Diefenbaker: It is taking a very long time to reach a decision.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: If my hon.
friend had the responsibilities we have it would take him a long time too.


Mr. Dickey:: It would take him longer to get that responsibility though.


INQUIRY AS TO REDUCTION OF CANADIAN
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister or to the Minister of National Defence or to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Mr. Pickersgill:: Make up your mind.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I will add the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to the list if he would like to be included.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, thanks.


Mr. Hees:: He will get up and speak anyway.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What is the government's comment on this morning's Canadian Press dispatch that the government is considering, subject to action by Britain and the United States, a reduction in the number of our armed forces in Europe?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The question of our participation in NATO and what it requires or will require to carry out our part of the obligations of that organization is always under consideration with our associates in the organization.


FINANCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that the Canadian Press this morning reports government authorities as estimating that the surplus at the end of the fiscal year will exceed $300 million, does the minister not consider that this is the time to consider substantial cuts instead of waiting for his sunshine budget?


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the report concerned, but at any rate at $300 million the estimate is a good deal less than the figure used by my hon. friends during the recent debate.



WATER POLLUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. I may have misunderstood him the other day when he spoke on the subject of pollution, but I did understand him to say that the present Criminal Code and the provisions thereof would meet the situation in prosecutions against wrongdoers polluting streams, and I thought the report to which he objected was substantially correct. In order to clarify it, however, I would ask the minister whether in his opinion under the provisions of the Criminal Code as they now are prosecutions could be taken in regard to what is taking place on the Ottawa river in particular whereby the waters are being so terribly polluted. Does he believe that under the law as it now exists prosecutions could take place successfully?


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask my hon. friend to clarify his question? Prosecutions for what?


John George Diefenbaker: Prosecutions for pollution under the law as it now exists.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My hon. friend is surely aware that we have not been discussing pollution in these present debates. We have been discussing the creation of a common nuisance through pollution, which is a very different thing from the mere act of pollution.
If I may reply to his question in terms of the common nuisance we have been discussing, then I would say, confining it to the North Saskatchewan river-and the same thing would apply to the Ottawa river if the circumstances were the same-that where a corporation or a municipality puts a polluting effluent into an interprovincial river, which effluent flowing down the river creates a common nuisance in another province, if those who are interested in prosecuting can get sufficient evidence to bring home this common nuisance that has occurred, let us say, in Prince Albert, to the corporations which put the effluent in the river in Edmonton, then under the new Criminal Code as it now stands, and indeed as it stood before we recently revised it, it is quite possible procedurally to launch a prosecution in Edmonton for the common nuisance that was created in Prince Albert.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that is almost more involved than the minister's previous explanation. I asked a simple question-


John Horace Dickey: The hon. member is the only clear example of a common nuisance-


John George Diefenbaker: -concerning the pollution of the Ottawa river. Is there a section of the Criminal Code today that would permit the prosecution of wrongdoers?


An hon. Member:: Is this an extension of the private members' hour?


Mr. Mcllrailh:: Those are the rules of the Conservative party.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If the effluent was put into the river by a municipality or a corporation and it caused a common nuisance in the same province in which the effluent was put into the river, I am sure my hon. friend from Prince Albert would agree that no problem of jurisdiction would arise; for in such a case it would be possible to launch a prosecution in that same province.


John George Diefenbaker: Under the laws of the province.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: What I have said in relation to the North Saskatchewan river applies equally to the Ottawa river in so far as
Inquiries of the Ministry section 419 of the Criminal Code is concerned, which clears up the question of jurisdiction.


John George Diefenbaker: That section has nothing to do with pollution.



BRITISH COLUMBIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance, notice of which I have not given so perhaps this can be taken as notice. In view of the fact that a province can hold a centennial only once, will the minister explain why the government has declined to sponsor any pages in the British Columbia official centennial record for 1958, and will the minister reconsider the decision not to participate in any sponsorship of this centennial record of the province of British Columbia which I think is a very important province of the Dominion of Canada?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I quite agree that British Columbia is one of the important provinces of the ten. As my hon. friend says, there are many ways of celebrating that in the course of a centennial. I have been spoken to by several members from British Columbia representing all parties in the house with regard to the matter to which my hon. friend has referred, but up to this moment I have been unable to find what are the true facts and how they came about. I shall mention this in the house later.


Harold Edward Winch: May I say it was under the name of Mr. C. A. St. Arnaud that the request was turned down.


Walter Edward Harris: I understand that a letter was written to that effect, but the matter has not been drawn to my attention. I shall make inquiry. It should be borne in mind, of course, that centennials come and go but, as my hon. friend has said, they ought to be celebrated properly if possible.


Harold Edward Winch: They come only once.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erharf Regier (Burnaby-Coquillam):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare if a health grant would be available for a treatment centre and home for arthritic sufferers

Inquiries of the Ministry such as is planned by the New Vista society of Burnaby? Has such a grant been applied for and whose responsibility is it to make application?


Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I will have to see the details of the specific project. My hon. friend was kind enough to send me some newspaper clippings but I shall have to consider all the details of the project before making an answer. In the meantime I know my hon. friend will be happy to know that the federal government has given the child guidance clinic, the mental health centre, and the Burnaby general hospital considerable financial assistance quite recently.



ONTARIO PRODUCERS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. B. Huffman (Kenf, Ont.):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the right hon. Minister of Agriculture. Is the statement of the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) correct as carried in the Woodstock Sentinel-Review of July 20 where it is reported that the hon. member said that a deputation from the Ontario milk producers' association had appeared before the minister and were attempting to read their brief when the minister said that he was not interested in hearing about the milk industry?


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, one of the newspapers in Toronto telephoned me last week and asked if such an incident had taken place. I stated to them that I could not remember any such incident having taken place at any time and was quite certain that no delegation had been met by me at any time in the manner suggested. I have been away since that time, having got back just this morning, when I found the following letter awaiting my return:
July 25th. 1956
Honourable James G. Gardiner,
Minister of Agriculture,
Parliament Buildings,
Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Mr. Gardiner:
This letter goes to you at this time, to express our deep regret and concern, over an article which appeared in the Woodstock Sentinel-Review, and the Toronto Globe and Mail of last Friday, July 20th. This report would indicate that a very disagreeable relationship existed between our organization and yourself and accuses you, sir, of refusing to listen to a brief which we endeavoured to present to you the preceding day, and states you were not interested in the problems of the milk industry.
You will recall that no representative of our group has met you since early in May, nor have we attempted to do so. On that occasion, while
'Mr. Regier.]
you may not have seen fit to accede to all our requests, the fact remains that we were given a kindly and courteous hearing by yourself, and on no occasion can we recall when you have treated us otherwise. Parts of this report, therefore, we deem as absolutely untrue, and grossly unfair to yourself, and we can assure you, sir, that we are making a thorough investigation to find out where and how it originated and will demand a retraction of these untruths. Trusting that on no future occasion a similar condition may arise, we remain,
Yours very truly,
Ontario concentrated milk producers' marketing board, President, S. George Lowry, Secretary Treasurer, Chas. Milton.
All I wish to say, Mr. Speaker, is that I wish to thank the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) for having created circumstances under which it became necessary for me to receive this kind of commendation from this organization.


Mr. A. E. Robinson (Bruce):: Did the concentrated milk producers apply to the agriculture committee to put a brief before them and what reply did they receive?


James Garfield Gardiner: The file was handed to me this morning and I notice there is an article in the Globe and Mail reporting someone who has discussed that question too. These people have some ideas with regard to it but, as was said, when this question was up in the house before


Andrew Ernest Robinson: I should like an answer to my question.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am answering your question and shall continue if you will remain in your seat. Only one can have the floor at a time.


Mr. Lennard:: Get along with it.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not remember whether it was my hon. friend or some other member but within the last two weeks a question was asked in the house by some hon. member with respect to whether certain questions could be submitted to the agriculture committee. My reply at that time was to the effect that this house can submit any question to the agriculture committee. Those questions are not submitted by outside organizations. They may be submitted by them to the house itself, and the house can submit a question to the agriculture committee. The article to which I have referred states that the only things that come before the committee are matters having to do with the west, particularly wheat. If those are the only matters that get there it is because the western members are interested in seeing that those questions are brought before the house and submitted to that committee. Any other group from anywhere in Canada can go through the

same procedure, get a matter submitted to that committee and have it discussed there, but that has not been done in this case.
Mr- Fleming: On a question of privilege, in relation to the statement the minister has made, in the absence of the member for Oxford I think I ought to say that I saw the article in the Toronto Globe and Mail to which the minister has made reference and the member for Oxford told me that the news report was not an accurate report of what he had said.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Tell us another one.


John Horace Dickey: Any more hearsay evidence? Mr. Speaker: Order.


James Garfield Gardiner: Before we go on to any other matter I think I had better complete this one in view of the fact that my hon. friend has referred to the discussion that has just taken place. My hon. friend refers to something which was in the Globe and Mail and I think I should read a short statement appearing in another article in that paper. It reads as follows:
The charge that a delegation of milk producers was turned away by agriculture minister Gardiner was vigorously denied yesterday by the head of the delegation. George Lowry, president of the Ontario concentrated milk producers' marketing board, said that the accusation made by Wallace Nesbitt, P.C.. Oxford, was entirely false. Mr. Nesbitt made the charge last Friday at Woodstock in the course of an attack on the Gardiner administration.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


James Garfield Gardiner: He said-
I am repeating this "he said" to call attention to the fact that "he" means the hon member in order that there may be no misunderstanding as appeared a few moments ago as to what "this" meant. I continue:
He said the marketing board delegates were told by Mr. Gardiner that he had no time to listen to their problems. But Mr. Lowry said that when the delegation appeared before Mr. Gardiner in May "he treated us like a gentleman. Although he didn't accede to our request for a subsidy on exportable milk products he heard us out completely. I was there."


Andrew Ernest Robinson: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of Agriculture was: Did the concentrated milk producers ask to appear before the agriculture committee and, if so, what reply was given to them? I understand that I have not received an answer to that question yet.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not recall that any such request was made. It would not necessarily be made to me, although it could be, but I am not sure whether or not such a request was made.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Charlton:: I can tell the minister it is a fact that they did try to get a hearing before the agriculture committee. Is it not a fact that in order to get a hearing before that committee the request must have the approval of the Liberal majority in the House of Commons?


James Garfield Gardiner: I can assure my hon. friend that if either he or I make such a recommendation at the proper time it will probably get the support of the majority.


John Alpheus Charlton: It has been made before.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Donald Methuen Fleming: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Is the C.B.C. contemplating any change in regulations that would permit the establishment of private networks in any form or under any circumstances?


James Joseph McCann: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the regulations were either changed or were under discussion at the last meeting of the board of governors of the C.B.C. The matter had to do with an application on behalf of certain private stations to set up a network, and although I am not sure as to the details of the minute that was passed I think it is being done on an experimental basis for a year. However, in order to be accurate I shall review the minutes of the meeting of the board of governors and bring in their recommendation in detail at another time.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Could the minister either table the new regulation or draft regulation or send copies to members before we commence the consideration of his C.B.C. estimates in committee of supply?


James Joseph McCann: I will see that it is either tabled or put on Hansard.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. W. Hodgson (Vicioria, Onl.):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. On whose authorization was it that an R.C.A.F. plane flew the former minister of transport from Ottawa to Lindsay and back again and to other political meetings in July of 1953?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Hon. R. O. Campney (Minisler of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. mem-
6470	HOUSE OF
Supply-Defence Production ber has raised this question once or twice previously. I recall that on the last occasion I reminded him that I was not minister at that time and that I have no knowledge of what he is talking about.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: The minister acknowledged the question and said he would give an answer I have never received. While he is getting that information dug up, I should also like to know who paid for the plane and who received the money.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of National Defence whether he has yet received a report concerning the alleged low flying of R.C.A.F. planes over the cities of Winnipeg and St. James. I raised the question a week ago on the estimates.


Ralph Osborne Campney: No, Mr. Speaker. I myself have not received any report on that matter directly. There may be one in the department that has not come to my attention.

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



DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE PRODUCTION

[Stage Direction]
85. Departmental administration and payments to Canadian Commercial Corporation and other corporate agencies for services provided in connection with defence purchasing and production, $6,145,727.
Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman-


Clarence Decatur Howe: I was going to answer some questions and give some information that I was asked to give at the last sitting. I do so as follows:
Statement on capital assistance to Sorel Industries Limited: The figures listed in the public accounts and referred to by the hon. member for Prince Albert include not only capital assistance to Sorel but also capital assistance to the Longueuil plant of Canadian Arsenals, together with the value of the Longueuil plant and equipment previously carried on Canadian Arsenals books and transferred to the Department of Defence Production in 1951.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No assets have been sold to Sorel Industries Limited since 1951. The book value of capital assistance assets remains the same as it was at the time


of acquisition. Depreciation is only done at the time the assets are sold. The assets are
as follows:
Housing at Sorel:
(65 houses renting at $75 to $93 per
month)	 $1,112,512
Capital assistance from 1951 to date:
At Sorel, including tools and equipment	 2,931,707
At Longueuil, including tools and equipment and plant alteration ...	2,217,180


Mr. Blackmore:: Mr. Chairman, may I ask that the minister withhold his reply until it is quiet enough in the house for us to hear it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman,
I am obliged to take the house as I find it.
I thought things were fairly calm. My friend the hon. member for Eglinton is not saying anything. That is something which is unusual.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Don't speak too soon.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I continue:
Canadian Arsenals plant at Longueuil, occupied by Sorel Industries Limited:
(book value as per Canadian Arsenals records)
Land	 150,062
Buildings	 1,712,353
Equipment	 6,950,591
Raw materials	 724,791	9,537,797
15,799,196
That is the figure in the statement presented by my hon. friend as charged to Sorel Industries.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the minister allow one question there?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Certainly.


John George Diefenbaker: On page DD-19 I note that Canadian Arsenals Limited, Ottawa, is all together in one item and that the amount under investment is given as $107,711,637. Does the minister say that, in so far as the public accounts are concerned, that figure or total for Canadian Arsenals Limited of $107,711,637 does not include Canadian Arsenals at Longueuil?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is correct. I was tracing down the figure that my hon. friend referred to yesterday, namely the $15,799,196. That included Longueuil. The figure he has just given does not include Longueuil.
I also have a breakdown of the figures on rehabilitation costs at Sorel Industries Limited. It is as follows:
Boarding houses	 $215,000
Shop rehabilitation	 680,000
(includes repairs to furnaces, electric and plumbing systems, purchasing such items as wire mesh, lumber, steel ingots, plates or castings, machinery parts, etc., and labour costs.

The above figures are approximate only as it would entail going through a large number of audit accounts to obtain the exact figures.
I also have a breakdown of figures in public accounts for fiscal year 1954-55 at page DD-21. It is as follows:
Sorel Industries Limited:
New machinery, equipment and plant
alterations at Longueuil	 $584,578
New machinery and equipment at Sorel	 346,843

I think I have answered the questions I was asked.


Donald Methuen Fleming: When the committee rose at six o'clock yesterday, Mr. Chairman, I had been asking a series of questions about matters pertaining to the administration of this department. We had reached the point where the minister was answering a question I had asked about orders in council and the minister's orders issued under the Defence Production Act. From the table which the minister had before him it is quite clear that no orders have been issued under this act since June 1, 1954, and that the orders in council that had been made prior to that time have all been allowed to lapse. I do not intend to launch into a long discussion on that particular subject, except to point out that it is the clearest kind of answer to the case which the government put up in this house a year ago when asking for continuation without limitation of the absolute powers that were vested in the governor in council and in the minister by that act. They have given their own answer now. The government have not found it necessary to pass a single order in council since June 1, 1954; every order in council that had been made prior to that time has been allowed to lapse and is not in effect; and the minister's orders under that act, as we see from the table the minister has before him, have likewise expired. Clearly, a great deal that was said last year by the government on the subject of the necessity of the continuation of these powers, without any trammelling or limitation, has been proven now to be utterly without foundation.
I come now to the question of house construction carried on through this department and its agencies. I should like to ask the minister how many housing units were constructed during, let us say, either the calendar year or the fiscal year on whatever basis it may be made up, and what was the cost of the housing?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The Department of Defence Production does not build houses in cities. We build accommodation up around
67509-410J
Supply-Defence Production the mid-Canada line and some remote areas, but the agency responsible for building housing for the armed forces is Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Does the minister say that Defence Construction Limited is not taking any responsibility in connection with the construction of housing for the armed forces? My understanding has been that, while they farmed that work out to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, nevertheless the residual responsibility rested with Defence Construction Limited which is, of course, responsible to the Minister of Defence Production.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, Mr. Chairman, the responsibility was transferred from the Minister of Defence Production to the Minister of Public Works some years ago by an order in council prepared by myself. We always try to get the agency most capable of doing the work given the responsibility for it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May we take it that Defence Construction (1951) Limited now has no responsibility whatever in connection with any program for construction of housing quarters for the armed forces or for any government enterprise or agency that is responsible to the Department of Defence Production?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Except, as I said, there is some housing required in connection with stations on the mid-Canada line and also stations on the "Pinetree" line. What we are providing there is accommodation. We do not provide separate housing, but we do provide accommodation at isolated points on projects of that type for which we take full responsibility.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is not married quarters in any sense; that is just for individuals?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There are several other specific questions I should like to ask in regard to last year's expenditures. If the minister will turn to page 170 in the book of estimates, there are several items there about which I should like to ask.
The first total is the sum of the salaries for full-time positions. The next line reads, "less anticipated savings due to staff turnover, $200,000." This is an increase of $60,000 over the estimate for the year before, which was $140,000. Can the minister make some comment on the rapidity of turnover in this department. That seems to indicate that there are going to be more savings due to staff turnover, which I presume means more vacancies in the course of the turnover. We

Supply-Defence Production were given to understand last year that if the department were put on a permanent footing, it would dispose of the uncertainty of employment of the members of the staff and result in greater stability within the staff. Will the minister explain this increase?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, a great number of our officers are technical men, particularly engineers. The turn-over in engineers does not arise from any lack of security in their government jobs. It arises from the fact that employers outside of government pay them twice as much as we do. We are constantly losing key personnel. This is one of the great difficulties. We recently lost the director of our aircraft division. I believe he was offered about 2i times what we were paying him. [DOT] This $200,000 is an estimate of the vacant positions we will have on an average during the year.


Donald Methuen Fleming: My point was, does the increase in the estimate in this respect indicate that more staff turnover is expected in this fiscal year than occurred in the last fiscal year? Is this problem of the loss of technical personnel becoming greater?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, it becomes more serious every month. The demand for trained personnel is terrific and the salaries paid by private industry to get top, key men astonishes me. I thought I was hardened a bit to engineer's salaries, but I must say the modern generation's estimate of them is much higher than I ever thought.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The next item is two lines down, "Less salaries of Employees of Cloth Warehouse, $116,468." What is the explanation of that deduction?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is charged to the operation of the revolving fund. We have a markup on our cloth covering the cost of warehousing and the cost of the salaries of the people engaged in the warehouse are charged to that item.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The form of the estimate indicates that this is a new type of deduction. Has there been a change in the method of dealing with this matter?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It does not represent a change in the system. It has been suggested that previously it was done by a transfer at the end of the year. In other words, we obtained from the cloth account an amount equivalent to the payment of this commission, but we are not sure of that. We would need to explore that a little more fully. It is an accounting matter and I would want to get the accountant's view. In any case, we have always charged the
IMr. Fleming.]
cost of operating the cloth warehouse to the revolving fund and made a countercharge in the sale price of the cloth to cover it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The next question is about an item two lines farther down, "living allowances", indicating an increase from $85,000 last year to $90,000 this year. Could the minister explain that increase?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, that covers the allowances for offices abroad. There are new offices in the United States, somewhat larger offices in England and on the continent. It is a supplement to the salaries that are paid to people abroad.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I take it that this increase is attributable to either the enlargement of the staff or the opening of new offices abroad for purchasing personnel?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is really due to opening offices at Dayton, Ohio, and Philadelphia; more personnel in the United States.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is for purchasing personnel?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, purchasing or selling; one or the other. Most of our aircraft orders or orders for electronic equipment come from Dayton which is the headquarters of the United States air force and Philadelphia is the purchasing centre for the navy.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Then, three lines farther down we have an item, travelling expenses, $200,000. May I ask what was the actual expenditure in the last fiscal year ended March 31, 1956?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is $173,157.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What is the reason for the contemplated increase this year, then? Is there going to be more travelling done? I thought the indication was that probably now the work of the department in relation to defence had been well advanced and there would probably be less of this type of work to do than in recent years.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, Mr. Chairman, that is not the case. I think our work this year was at the peak of all the years, taking into account the mid-Canada line. It is not so much the volume of the work as where the work is located. This is an estimate by our staff of the probable amount required to cover travelling expenses. If we do not need it we return it to the treasury.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The last item on the list is "Sundries, $90,000". I ask what it covers and what was the actual expenditure last year on the item?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It was $64,992. The item provides for unforeseen and other items which do not come under the headings of special categories.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Can the minister be a little more specific as to the sort of thing that the sum of $64,992 was expended on in the last fiscal year?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, I can give that information. Provision for 16 impressed accounts last year amounted to $15,250; services of Dun and Bradstreet, $725; payments to Crown Assets Disposal Corporation re disposal of scrap, $10,000; payments to Canadian Commercial Corporation of one-quarter of one per cent of the value of NATO procurements, surcharged by procurement services, $35,000; social security payments in France, $1,800; miscellaneous, $27,225.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Does the minister contemplate an increase in the expenditures of that type during this fiscal year?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is what we expect. The figures I just read out are what we expect. That is the allocation for this year. The hon. member wanted the actual expenditures last year?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, I thought that was what the minister was reading.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, the proposed expenditures for 1956-57.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What do they aggregate? Is that the aggregate of $90,000?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is right.


Donald Methuen Fleming: But last year the actual expenditure was $64,992.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes. The items I have given are the break-down of what we expect: the impressed account; we always use Dun and Bradstreet a bit in connection with our work; disposal of scrap, the same as last year. I understand that is warehouse charges in connection with scrap. Then, we pay Canadian Commercial Corporation for their procurement services for NATO work, procurement outside the usual department responsibilities; social security for our people in France, and the miscellaneous item for further items that cannot be anticipated but they do crop up.


Mr. Monleilh:: I think this is where questions on the Canadian Commercial Corporation would be asked. I am just curious about the statement for the year 1956. I notice that interest earned is $96,635. I am just wondering what is the basis for charging interest in this corporation?
Supply-Defence Production


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is interest earned on bank balances. The money is often paid, for instance, on procurement for the United States, which is a very big item. Usually the payments are made before the- the Canadian Commercial Corporation pays the producer for the items. With respect to "Pinetree", for example, money was moved up in large amounts in anticipation of expenditures on the program.


Jay Waldo Monteith: In the expenditures I notice contributions to employees' superannuation, death benefits and unemployment insurance totalled $21,995 in 1955, which is the first year the item appears in the accounts; and in 1956, it is $14,251. Does that mean that it will probably level off about there from now on?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, that is what we expect. We do not anticipate enlarging the staff of the Canadian Commercial Corporation. It seems to be about right for the business it is doing.


Jay Waldo Monteith: With respect to the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation, I notice this item in the statement this year, "Provision for bad and doubtful accounts outstanding for five years or more, $45,157". Does that cover all accounts outstanding over five years?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am not sure. The Auditor General approves the manner in which the accounts are set up. I presume it is the equivalent of a businessman's provision for bad and doubtful debts. I daresay some of them will be collected. That often happens in business, I know. I cannot say other than that I can make inquiry about it later and find out for the hon. member.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Actually, I would like to know how that amount of $45,157 is arrived at and the exact accounts going to make up that amount. I notice that it was charged to the expenses only this year. In other words, there had not been a reserve of any kind previously to March 31, 1955, and I am just interested in getting some of the details.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I shall be glad to bring that down; I shall have to consult the accountants of the company.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, there is
another item in the expense account on page 30 of this statement that I am interested in, namely, "Amortization of costs of office partition, $13,205". In the previous year it was $3,877. I am just wondering why the word "amortization" is used there? I do not see any amount as deferred assets in the balance sheet.
6474	HOUSE OF
Supply-Defence Production


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am told it is the normal way of dealing with changes in leased premises; in other words, the changes which have to be paid for by the tenant are written off against the balance sheet in the year in which they occur.


Jay Waldo Monteith: In other words, the full cost is charged in the year in which it is spent?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I believe so, yes.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Amortization is hardly the right word.


Clarence Decatur Howe: These are all short-term leases. It is expected that when the new building on Wellington street is finished Crown Assets will then occupy government quarters, but for the past two or three years it has been occupying leased quarters, I think, in two different locations.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, on this section I should like to ask one or two questions with regard to the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation. The corporation handles almost everything, apparently, as seen from this report, from aircraft and so on to land and buildings. In particular, I would like to know how material for disposal comes into the hands of the corporation from the defence services? Do the defence services declare the material surplus to their establishment and notify the corporation to that effect and then hand it over to them? What is the method by which the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation gets control of material from defence services?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The only manner in which anything comes into the custody of the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation is through a declaration of surplus by an authorized officer of some branch of government.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I was interested in the arms and ammunition which apparently has been declared surplus to establishment by the services, and has gone into the hands of the crown corporation. Looking back over the last five years I find that some of the surplus equipment has been disposed of by the Canadian Commercial Corporation. For example, in 1950 they disposed of a substantial number of Browning machine guns and parts but in the year 1954-55-I am going by the fiscal year ending 1954-55-surplus pistols, automatic guns, Colt shell guns, rifles and cartridges ball have all been disposed of by International Firearms Limited or Sumac Industries or Ansco Products Company.
I presume these companies perhaps bid for the material that is available from Crown Assets. I do not know, but I would like to follow that up with this question. On page 16


of the report of the department there is a paragraph concerning ammunition which indicates that production of complete rounds of ammunition increased in both volume and variety in 1955. If that is the case and if ammunition is still being produced for the services, how would it become surplus in 1955 and disposed of to the International Firearms Company in the amount of just under 400,000 rounds or cartridges ball as shown in the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation annual report for March 31, 1955, on pages 20 and 21? If the services require ammunition what type of ammunition are they declaring surplus?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The Department of Defence Production would not know why the ammunition becomes surplus. All we know is that we have a declaration showing a certain amount of ammunition and its location and it is declared surplus to requirements. We do not go back of that declaration; there is no reason why we should, really. The hon. member said the disposal is carried on also by the Canadian Commercial Corporation. That is not a fact. The Canadian Commercial Corporation acts as procurement agent for foreign governments and NATO. Any ammunition they take on is to fill an order from NATO or from another government. Any declaration of surplus comes to the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation and is acted on by them.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I understand that. I mentioned the Canadian Commercial Corporation as having, I judge, purchased from Crown Assets certain Browning machine guns in 1950 perhaps on behalf of a foreign government.
I also appreciate the fact that Crown Assets does not know why material is declared surplus to establishment but there is an overlapping here with defence production and crown assets and the defence services themselves. I am simply asking this question in an exploratory sense and now the minister has given the answer I would consequently have to go back to the Minister of National Defence to discover why he found it advisable to dispose of approximately 15,000 revolvers within the last two or three years and 400,000 rounds of cartridges.
There is just one other question along that line. The prices to the purchasers seem to be very reasonable. I take it that in the report of the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation on page 20, where about ten lines from the top cartridge ball is mentioned and in brackets the figure 311,900 appears it would represent the quantity, and the price is shown as being $4,751.51, which means that these cartridges are selling for one and a half cents

apiece. I have no idea whether that is just the bid the corporation gets for this material or whether it is the price they set on it but certainly the ammunition is selling very cheaply.
It would be very interesting to know what that ammunition cost when the Department of Defence Production was producing it and it would also be interesting to know what the pistols cost which were selling in 1955 for $3.75 or $7.40. These prices must be just a fraction of the original cost of the ammunition and the revolvers.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman,
in selling revolvers my hon. friend will appreciate we do not sell them from door to door. We must be very sure of the disposition of the revolvers we sell, and very often they are sold with an undertaking that they will be mutilated and converted into scrap. Where we have an article that can be sold freely we must call for tenders and advertise the sale and the company accepts the highest tender. I have no way, and I am sure my hon. friend has no way, of knowing the condition of the ammunition. It may have deteriorated. I think a good deal of ammunition does come for disposal due to the fact that it is over age and therefore not serviceable for the armed services. Whether this is a part of that, I cannot say, but the rule of the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation is that every sale is advertised in the newspapers and the highest bid is accepted.


Howard Charles Green: There is one point on which
I would like some information and that is the operation of the mid-Canada line. What are the plan's for actually operating the line once it has been completed?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman,
the line is now being constructed and the management agency for the construction is the Trans-Canada Telephone Company. They have designated the Bell Telephone Company as the agent for the company in charge of this particular project.
The line is due to be put into operation on January 1 next. That date still seems to be valid and is the original date planned. So far as I know it will be carried out. Nevertheless the construction of the line will not be fully completed for another several months. There will be testing of equipment required arid tuning up and that sort of thing. It is the proposal of defence production with the concurrence of the services to arrange an operating contract with the Trans-Canada Telephone Company for the first three years and that contract is now being negotiated.
I think my hon. friend would agree it would be a tragedy to have one organization
Supply-Defence Production building the line and another organization operating it. You would have a gap there which I think would be dangerous for the owner and that is what we are trying to arrange for by this negotiating contract.


Howard Charles Green: Does that mean in effect that the Bell Telephone Company will be operating the line?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: What companies make up
the Trans-Canada Telephone Company?


Clarence Decatur Howe: B.C. Telephone Company, Alberta Government Telephones, Saskatchewan Government Telephones, Manitoba Telephone System, the Bell Telephone Company of Canada, New Brunswick Telephone Company Limited and Maritime Telegraph and Telephone Company Limited. While Bell is the agency for having the work done under the contract, all these companies make a contribution to the work. For instance, if we are building a station in northern Alberta, Alberta Telephone supply the equipment and men needed in constructing and operating the line. It is expected that Bell will draw on all the companies making up the Trans-Canada telephone system. The manning is quite a problem as provision must be made for rotation. I doubt if technical men can be kept in the north for more than one year at a time and it is quite important that the company which undertakes the operation be able to rotate employees so that an employee leaving the line will not be out of a job. That is the advantage of having Trans-Canada Telephone.


Howard Charles Green: Will there be any civilian use permitted of the mid-Canada line?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, it is restricted now and I think it always will be restricted to military use. The communications system must be instantly available in /case warning is given anywhere on the line and it must not be cluttered up with civilian messages or the staff supposed to be watching for military messages must not be worrying about civilian messages.


Howard Charles Green: Is there more equipment being installed than is required for defence purposes?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Just the minimum for defence purposes.


Howard Charles Green: Can the minister give the approximate number of men required to man the line?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Approximately 800.


Howard Charles Green: That would be entirely civilian staff?
6476	HOUSE OF
Supply-Defence Production


Clarence Decatur Howe: That would be entirely civilian staff. In addition the R.C.A.F. will have men' on the line to the extent required for the military use of the line. In other words, at probably each main station an R.C.A.F. technician will be in charge, but that is simply to make sure that the operation ties into the requirements of the R.C.A.F. and the U.S.A.F. The headquarters for air defence are in Montreal and at defence command at Colorado Springs.


Howard Charles Green: At all events the manning group would be mainly civilian personnel?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There would just be air force personnel in charge to maintain military control. I do not know how many there would be, but I think the number would be quite small.


Mr. Dinsdale:: Is there any question as to the civilian use of the mid-Canada line? Could not some navigational aids be given through the facilities of the line, particularly in connection with search and rescue operation?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Perhaps it could be used in emergency for search and rescue or something of that sort. It is not designed to have any commercial use whatsoever. In other words, while the communications are there, if a man drops into a station and wants to send a radio message home, that would be barred.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Are not search and rescue operations tied into the communication facilities of the mid-Canada and other lines?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am not aware of it. That is something I would not know about as it is a military matter.


Mr. Hamilton (Noire Dame de Grace):: moment ago the minister said that a contract was being negotiated with the Trans-Canada Telephone system and I should like to know if that company has been given definite assurance that it will have the operation of the line?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I dare say they suspect that we want to bring that about, but it will depend entirely upon whether we can negotiate a satisfactory contract. If we cannot we will try someone else.


John Borden Hamilton: Within the framework of that answer, that the company has not been given any assurance that they will have the operation of the line and that there is a possibility the contract might be awarded to someone else, I should like to draw the minister's attention to an article which appeared in the Montreal Monitor, a very fine weekly newspaper which


carries a number of interesting features and news about Montreal generally. On page 3 of the issue of July 9 will be found a series of photographs of men training for the operation of this line under the aegis of the Bell Telephone Company of Montreal, as agents for the Trans-Canada Telephone system. While the article gives prominence to the fact that the line is now being constructed by this organization, it contains this paragraph which I think is interesting:
The mid-Canada line, which will be over 3,000 miles long, is being built, and eventually will be maintained, by the Trans-Canada Telephone system.
Further on they give a description of the work and training of these people and then the article states:
He will co-ordinate equipment installation, operate the electronic apparatus and keep it in working condition.
I must say it is most interesting to find that a company which has been given no assurance whatsoever that it is going to get the contract and therefore can have no positive expectation that it will get the contract is already training men to carry out the provisions of that contract. I am just wondering whether in the light of the minister's observations and the effect of what we see here there may be something else the minister could inform the committee about as to perhaps some other indication the company has had that they are going to have the operation of this line.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The explanation is quite simple. The management contract presently in force between the government and the Trans-Canada Telephone system provides that Trans-Canada will train men for operating the line, for installing the equipment and maintaining the line. That is under their present contract. That must be carried out well in advance of the take-over of the line by the management contractor. Bell, I think, have no assurance at the moment which would allow them to undertake work for any new contract. Perhaps they are sure enough that we can arrive at an agreement to venture out, but it does not sound to me like the Bell Telephone Company. I cannot be responsible for the article which my hon. friend read from the very fine weekly paper, but those are the facts.


John Borden Hamilton: The
minister made his statement and then he hesitated for a moment, stating that the present contract carries the provision that the Bell Telephone Company will train men to operate the line.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is an error; I said "operate" but it is to maintain the equipment, instal and maintain the equipment.


Mr. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):: evidence can be introduced that the company is training men to operate the apparatus on the line it would indicate that the Bell Telephone Company for whatever reason has gone somewhat further than would be expected by the terms of the present contract.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is a lining up and testing before we can take over the line; no matter who operates the line the Bell Telephone would have to line up the equipment and test it and get complete approval of it before we would pay them for it. They are also training air force personnel in the same school and for the same duty. I have no reason to believe that the Bell Telephone Company is operating outside the requirements of their present contract with the government. If they are, the government, of course, has no responsibility for the costs involved.


Howard Charles Green: What is the latest estimate of the total cost of the mid-Canada line?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It has not changed. It is $170 million.


William McLean Hamilton: have a couple of fairly short and simple questions. On page DD-14 of the public accounts for 1955 we find an item of $4,176 for removal expenses involving one employee of this department. That is a rather fantastic sum.


Clarence Decatur Howe: What is the name of the employee?


William McLean Hamilton: Mr. D. B. Mundy, the second column, approximately 15 names down.


Clarence Decatur Howe: He was our representative in Paris and that is the cost of moving himself and his family from Paris to Ottawa.


William McLean Hamilton: Farther down in	the same column	we find
an amount of $6,348 for the living allowance of a Mr. Solly-Flood, and I am wondering whether that is a typical living allowance.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The explanation is given there. That is Solly-Flood who took over the office in Paris when Mr. Mundy left. The amount of $1,666 is indicated as removal expenses and the $6,348 is the living allowance at the annual rate.


William McLean Hamilton: What is the annual rate?
Supply-Defence Production


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is set by treasury board. It is the same for all officers abroad whether they are in an embassy, a trade office or in this office.


William McLean Hamilton: Earlier there was some discussion about the sale of surplus material. In that connection I am wondering whether when such material is sold there is any provision made that it should not be sold back again to the government at inflated prices or represented as new material when it is sold back.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think it is sold on the basis of caveat emptor.


William McLean Hamilton: Which translated, and probably for the benefit of the minister himself, means, let the buyer beware. I think that is an unfortunate principle for the government of Canada to use in selling material. I should like to think we had a government that stood behind its actions rather than expecting the person who buys from it or does business with it___


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I ask my
hon. friend a question? Would he like to guarantee second-hand materials that are sold on a bid basis?


William McLean Hamilton: No,
I quite agree with the minister that I would' not like to guarantee them but I would not come out flatfooted and say that I did my business in the disposal of surplus materials on the basis of buyer beware. I think there is a middle ground between no guarantee_____


Clarence Decatur Howe: I can assure my hon. friend that surplus materials are sold as is, where is, no guarantees of any kind, and I think the buyer is well aware of that and bids accordingly.


William McLean Hamilton: That, however, was not the point. The point I was asking about was whether there is any restriction on the sale of this material which would prohibit the buyer selling it back to the government at any kind of inflated price that he is able to obtain. Let us imagine, for example, that a few months from now we are in a period of hot war in which the government suddenly requires again a great deal of this material that it has released. Can the present buyers hold up the government for any amount that they feel they can obtain or is there a clause in the contract which refers to a selling price when the material is sold back to the government?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No. Materials purchased from Crown Assets Disposal Corporation are sold without restriction. There are no strings on them at all. Of course,

Supply-Defence Production it could not be otherwise. How long would my friend suggest that these materials be held to make sure that they did not come back to the government? What would be the time limit on it, a five year period or a ten year period? We could not sell goods on that basis.


William McLean Hamilton: should like to make what I think is a constructive suggestion. Why is it not possible for the government in selling surplus material to include a clause in the contract that if and when that material is sold back to the government it must be identified by the seller as surplus material? I pointed out a situation to the Minister of National Defence naming specific contracts which had called for material of new and current manufacture and where, according to my information, the material sold was actually surplus material which was paid for at new and current manufacture prices.
Under the present terms that is quite legal.
I do not think it would handicap the government in any way in its sales efforts nor would it be an unfair imposition on the people who buy the material to have to agree that if they sell it back to the government they must identify it as surplus material at the time of the sale. Otherwise it is quite possible for a person to sell material back to the government and the government, quite unwittingly and unknowingly, to buy it as brand new material. Is that not possible?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not know whether or not it is possible. The government does not buy surplus material. It buys new material. Remember that Crown Assets Disposal Corporation does not handle anything that can be useful to the agency that declared it surplus. If a vendor introduces as new material articles that he got from that corporation and can palm off some of that material I should think he runs a very great risk of being cut off from future transactions with the government or the risk of prosecution if the offence is serious. My hon. friend says that we should put a tag on this material. How do we know where it goes? It is usually bought by dealers and the dealer sells it the next day. Just how would you arrange to follow that material around to enforce a provision that if it is sold by anybody to the government it should be tagged as surplus material?


William McLean Hamilton: The
minister says that if the purchaser of surplus material sells it back to the government he is in danger of being cut off from future government contracts, and by inference the minister indicates that the man has engaged

in very unusual and unfair business practices. May I suggest that perhaps the gentleman or the company in question is operating in a business on the basis of caveat emptor which the minister has just recommended as being the government's own method of operation in handling surplus material.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister this morning answered one question I had asked but he failed to answer the other question with reference to this plant at Longueuil which he says belonged to Canadian Arsenals Limited, the equipment and plant of which was used by Sorel Industries Limited and apparently included in the public accounts as though it represented a capital advance to Sorel Industries. As reported at page 6448 of Hansard I asked whether any rental had been paid by Sorel Industries Limited in this case to Canadian Arsenals Limited for the equipment or the premises used by Sorel Industries Limited. Can the minister give us that information?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No. The plant at Longueuil was used for reconditioning artillery sent there for that purpose by the armed services. When we found that more floor space was needed at Sorel, we moved that operation to another arsenal and turned that space over to Sorel. There was no purpose in charging rent because, had we charged rent, it would simply have come back to us in the form of cost plus profit from Sorel. We do not charge rental for government-furnished property which is used exclusively for producing government articles. There would be no purpose in doing so.


John George Diefenbaker: That is a very good deal for Sorel Industries.


Mr. Holowach:: There is just one question I should like to ask in respect to this item. It deals with Canadian Commercial Corporation. I was wondering whether the minister could tell us something with respect to the defence procurements of this corporation. As I understand it, when the government or a foreign government has defence procurements that it desires to make in the country it acts through the Canadian Commercial Corporation and a surcharge is made on all purchases on behalf of the government or of a foreign government. Has the minister any information with respect to the total purchases made by the corporation and as to what percentages of them were for foreign governments?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes. It is in the
annual report every year. Has my hon. friend a copy of the annual report?


Mr. Hansell:: He has not it at hand.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It was delivered to him, I believe, when it was tabled. If he will look at page 7, he will find that whole page is devoted to that information. For instance, for the year under review-that is 1955-56-we find the following:
The total value of supplies, services and projects contracted for by the corporation during the fiscal year amounted to $77,860,000, as compared with $92,981,700 in the previous year.
Then it breaks down that amount among United States military departments, Colombo plan, North Atlantic Treaty Organization, United Nations agencies, United Kingdom, importing of Rhesus monkeys-


Stanley Howard Knowles: More Liberals.


John Horace Dickey: No; they were C.C.F.


Clarence Decatur Howe: -and other transactions.


Ambrose A. Holowach: I have one more question. Are the surcharges made by the Canadian Commercial Corporation insufficient to pay for the administrative costs of the department?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No. They are quite sufficient for the corporation, not the department. The corporation is a buying agency for handling purchases for foreign governments or purchases by the department in countries abroad. Instead of working out government to government transactions, which is a very cumbersome method for most governments, it is much more convenient to be able to have a crown corporation handle the transactions. This method is preferred particularly by the United States. It greatly simplifies purchases when they are made from one government agency to another. Therefore we use the Canadian Commercial Corporation for that purpose; and the surcharge that it applies is sufficient to cover its costs.


William McLean Hamilton: Can
the minister explain to us the item "Rental of office accommodation" at $5,000? It was my understanding that all matters of this kind were handled through the Department of Public Works and were not under the jurisdiction of any other department.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is for new offices in Paris until the Department of Public Works can organize to get us offices in Paris.


Ambrose A. Holowach: Mr. Chairman, the point I was making with respect to the question I asked was this. Since the surcharges are sufficient to meet the administrative costs of Canadian Commercial Corporation, why is it necessary to vote money for the administrative costs of this particular department? I understand that the assets of Canadian Commercial
Supply-Defence Production Corporation are quite substantial. I just cannot quite understand why we should be adding to their assets.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, we have never voted money for operating costs. We have voted money for capital account. It takes a certain amount of capital to handle these transactions. For instance, some are paid for by the recipient government sometime after the purchases are made. Originally we had capital of $10 million. For a time during the Korean crisis we were obliged to ask for an additional appropriation. That has been returned. I think about $4 million of the $10 million has been returned to the treasury. But certainly capital is required to carry on the business. The interest on that money which is borrowed from the government is a charge against the corporation, and the fee covers the interest on borrowed money as well as the operating costs.


Solon Earl Low: Is the capital fund not operated as a revolving fund?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No; it is not. Item agreed to.
86. Care, maintenance and custody of standby defence plants, buildings, machine tools and production tooling, $500,000.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I presume the trend of expenditure under this item and the next is downward and will continue in that way?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We have not really had enough experience on this item. I would say it is likely to grow larger. For instance, we have a private firm that has a line of machinery set up to manufacture, we will say, 25-pounder shells. A decision has to be made as to whether that line can be dismantled and the machinery returned to whoever owns it-it is usually returned to Canadian Arsenals-and whether we can do away with the facilities. In many cases we think we can do so but occasionally we think it would be dangerous to do so. In that case we make a deal with the private company to maintain the line in operating condition so that it can be reactivated on short notice if required. The United States goes very extensively into that plan of operations. We are just feeling our way in it. We have not gone so deeply into it as yet. Just what the future will bring for us we do not know. We would not care to predict what may happen more than a year ahead.


Donald Methuen Fleming: This item was estimated last year at $750,000. I refer to the estimate for care, maintenance and custody of standby defence plants, buildings, machine tools and production tooling. This estimate last year was $750,000. Yesterday the minister reported

Supply-Defence Production to the committee that the sum expended- which is the sum actually required by the department in the light of its experience during the fiscal year-was just $160,499. We can, of course, appreciate the fact that the estimate for the present fiscal year of $500,000 was prepared some months ago when the book of estimates was under preparation. But now in the light of experience for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1956, I think it is evident that the department does not need nearly as much as it has asked for. That was the experience last year. If in this year's estimate allowance is made for a reasonable increase over last year's actual expenditure in order to cover any contingency, that ought to be enough. I again draw attention to the fact that the amount actually expended for the last fiscal year was $160,499. If the sum of $200,000 were allowed for this item, that would represent an allowable increase of 20 per cent over last year's expenditure. It seems to me that ought to be a reasonable allowance for this purpose. I therefore move:
That item 86 be reduced by the sum of $300,000 to $200,000.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend seems to think that the officers of the department can look ahead 18 months and decide what production lines are running out of work and also decide, in the light of conditions as they may be then as to whether the government should go to the expense of maintaining the production line. There are two variables in there which no one can predict with accuracy. We do not know when other orders will come in to keep the lines going. I think that happened to the estimate last year. Circumstances may change in the military requirements so we could be certain that a production line will not be needed.
We have here the considered opinion of our production officers who are in immediate touch with matters. I certainly would not take the responsibility of cutting the estimate that they have prepared in the light of their intimate knowledge of the problem, and I am in touch with these matters every day. I would think my hon. friend is in a much less favourable position to form an opinion than I am. I believe I must ask that this amount be voted.


Mr. Johnston (Bow River):: Does this item 86 take care of government plants or is that in any way connected with contributions to be made to other concerns, such as Sorel that we were discussing the other day where there were payments for care and maintenance.
[Mr. Fleming.)


Clarence Decatur Howe: It could be both, but it was really intended to take care of the expenses of maintaining Canadian government equipment in operating condition in plants the government does not own. For instance, we have a line that is being maintained at Oshawa in the plant of General Motors to make military vehicles. It is not in use now but we feel sure there will be a call for more military vehicles. We think the line should be maintained. We have made an arrangement with General Motors for that purpose.
There are other lines which we feel we will need in the future and therefore we pay the firm for the space that is occupied so the line will be ready when we start up. This is specialized production and it is far easier to maintain an existing line than it is to tool up again when the requirement comes along.


Charles Edward Johnston: The total
amount spent last year was about $160,000?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I had better read the explanation here. The item is to provide for the cost of care, maintenance and custody of defence plants in standby condition and for the care and maintenance of buildings, machine tools, equipment and production tooling, including the costs of dismantling, packaging, crating, transportation, inhibiting, storage and other expenses incidental to the preservation of such facilities which may be required again. It is essential to ensure that buildings, machinery and equipment, assets which make up key defence production lines, do not deteriorate upon completion of various production contracts.
In order to do this it may be necessary, where arrangements cannot be made to continue production for defence purposes or to meet the problem by using crown owned facilities for commercial purposes on an adequate rental basis, to preserve production lines in such a manner that they can readily be put back into service with little or no delay. In most cases, capital assets which make up these key production lines are crown owned. However, there are a limited number of cases where, in order to preserve a vital production line comprised of intermingled crown owned and privately owned capital assets, it may be necessary to reimburse the private owners for keeping their assets in an inactive status.
Therefore, it is proposed to take the following action where necessary to ensure preservation of key production facilities:
(a)	Preserve fully integrated crown owned defence plants and buildings, in part or in full, in standby condition;

(b)	Move capital assistance assets and production tooling from a contractor's plant to government warehouse for storage or preservation in situ, or move to other contractor's plants when advisable. In the latter event, repairs, adaptations and moving costs would be paid from this item.
(c)	Preserve contractor owned equipment in a standby condition.


Charles Edward Johnston: I mentioned a moment ago that I thought it was about $160,000 that was spent last year; is that right?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, about that.


Charles Edward Johnston: The hon. member for Eglinton had moved a motion to reduce this amount. I can hardly agree with that personally because, although I do think that $500,000 is a lot of money to have in this item, I also believe that you must be in a position to have production of this necessary equipment or arms when the need arises. I believe we would be in a bad position if, suddenly, an occasion arose and we demanded immediate production of our war materials and we found the estimate had been reduced to an amount that could not properly keep our equipment and tools in condition.
Now, I am not one of those who advocate that the government should spend money unnecessarily or by under-the-table methods. I think it should be all above board. But I would not like to see our defence put in a position where we did not have the proper tools, the proper factory space, to carry on the necessary work that may be required at a moment's notice. I do not think, therefore, I can support the motion that has just been moved.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have a brief observation to make.


Some hon. Members:: One o'clock.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
The Chairman:: Order. Resolution 86,
and the amendment of Mr. Fleming. Is the committee ready for the question on the amendment?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, there are a
few observations I should like to make on this amendment before the question is put.
In his comments on my amendment the minister drew attention to the fact that this estimate of $500,000 was prepared by the officials of his department. We are aware
26. 1956
Supply-Defence Production of that; we are aware that the estimate was prepared last autumn before the full experience of the fiscal year ended March 31, 1956 was known. These estimates are already, I suppose, about eight months old. A good eight months-and perhaps more than that; it may be a year-have passed since these estimates were prepared by the officials of the department. They followed the usual course of going to treasury board and then being printed. The book carries the estimates, so far as the actual expenditure is concerned, only down to December 1, 1955, so that when we are at the end of July, 1956, it seems to me that we have an advantage, a very great advantage in respect of time and the experience of the last fiscal year over those who were called upon to prepare these estimates perhaps as long as a year ago.
I think we are bound, Mr. Chairman, to look at the record of the estimating a year before. Now, with all due respect to the same officials who prepared their estimate under the same admitted handicap as to time, the estimate they prepared on this item for the previous year, that is the fiscal year ended March 31, 1956, was $750,000; but in actual experience it was found that the money required, in other words, the money actually spent, was just $160,499. Therefore, we know that, expressing it in' terms of percentage, the amount that was found to be necessary in actual experience was just 22 per cent of the amount that was estimated by the department the previous year. I ask hon. members to weigh the fact that there was a 78 per cent excess in the last fiscal year, that is, the year ended March 31, 1956, in the amount asked for over the amount that was actually required. That, I think, cannot be overlooked.
In the amount I have suggested should be substituted I have not cut below last year's actual requirements. Indeed, the figure that I have proposed to be left in is $200,000, which is a sum substantially in excess of the amount actually required and expended last year. There is a 20 per cent increase permitted there, and I think there has not been any case made out for any increase and certainly there has not been anything said yet in this discussion to warrant the belief that that amount would not be sufficient, yes, and more than sufficient.
We like to see accurate estimating. I think it is the duty of parliament to check these estimates closely, always recognizing, as I have tried to do this afternoon, that the officials who prepare them did not have the advantage that we have iri point of time.
The minister says, Mr. Chairman, that if the money is not actually required it will
6482	HOUSE OF
Supply-Defence Production not be spent. That is not the proper approach for representatives of the people sitting in parliament and dealing with the expenditure of public funds. We should examine to see what is properly necessary to meet the cost of government services that are approved in' this house, and we should not be putting in these estimates larger sums which are just a temptation to spend. I suggest that we remove where we can any excess and thus remove any temptation to spend.
Having regard to the fact that the amount that this amendment will leave available in this item is ample to meet all the needs indicated and provide for a 20 per cent increase over last year, if that were necessary, I submit, Mr. Chairman, that this item is much too large and that it should be reduced by the sum of $300,000, leaving $200,000.


Mr, Howe (Port Arthur):: Mr. Chairman, may I say just a word in connection with estimating? On June 29, 1956, the hon. member for Eglinton questioned the accuracy of departmental estimating by comparing the moneys voted by parliament with actual expenditures made by the department. I would like to point out that most of the difference was in the capital assistance votes and that this type of vote has a number of variable factors which must be taken into account because they involve relatively large contingencies of a kind not required in most departmental votes.
A review of the figures relating to the capital assistance votes shows that a little over $300 million was voted in the last five fiscal years, and that actual expenditures accounted for slightly less than half that amount. The difference, of course, is comprised of the amounts which lapsed at the end of each fiscal year. It should not be assumed, however, that because the balances were allowed to lapse, the moneys should not have been voted in the first place.
Some 20 per cent of the total voted, or $82 million, represented moneys revoted because the projects were not completed in time to pay all the accounts from the original vote. The net amounts voted for new projects were, therefore, in the order of $220 million. It might also be observed that the largest portion of the revotes occurred during the early days of the present defence program when shortages and bottlenecks made it difficult to judge the rate at which projects would be completed. As the program continued, work on capital projects proceeded at a more uniform rate, and in the last fiscal year only 9 per cent of the total vote was for funds committed but not paid in that fiscal year.
Another explanation accounting for more than one-third of the total lapses, or 20 per


cent of the total amount voted, relates to projects not proceeded with but which were under consideration at the time the estimates were prepared, which was six months in advance of the fiscal year. You will appreciate that, in a defence production program, plans have to be made well in advance, often on the basis of projected requirements of the Department of National Defence. In some cases we were able to persuade private industry to build or acquire the necessary facilities and equipment, or we found that other arrangements could be made. In other instances, it was found after careful study of all the facts that the requirement had changed and the project was no longer needed.
Lapses occasioned by overestimating the cost of approved projects amounted to $15 million, or 5 per cent of the total voted, and this margin does not seem unreasonable.
My hon. friend says that at this stage we should have changed our views and decided that a lot less money is required. We are unable to do that. We are the servants of the Department of National Defence. If, tomorrow, the Department of National Defence tells us to close down one of our principal plants we close it down immediately. But what do we do with the equipment? We can sell the plant, perhaps. We had a case a while ago of a hexachlorethane plant that had been very active for a great many years. It ran out of orders. We had to close it down. We had to inhibit the equipment. We know the plant will be needed again whether there is war or peace, and we spent a good deal of money on that project. There may be similar cases tomorrow or the next day or another day. If we have not the money we just have to let the machinery deteriorate until we get the money.
I can assure my hon. friend that I have discussed the matter with my officers in the luncheon period and I am assured that they believe this estimate is just as valid today as it was when the estimates were first prepared. In the circumstances I cannot for a moment consider reducing the amount of the estimate.


William Alfred Robinson: Is the committee ready for the question?


Mr. Goode:: I want to refer to the remarks of the hon. member for Eglinton because I am usually very interested in what he says. In this case I think he has a good point. He based his remarks just now on the fact that the government had a temptation to spend because this vote this year is $500,000. If one follows this same line of argument the temptation to spend last year was 50 per cent more than it is this year because last year the vote was $750,000. The department spent

$169,000. Therefore, I think the officers of the department and the minister have shown their responsibility in this matter. This is just a difference of opinion on the government side of the house and on the opposition side. The minister in this case has shown his officials that the responsibility was well placed. I think he has done very well in cutting this vote by 50 per cent, and that the temptation to spend is thus 50 per cent less than it was last year.


William Alfred Robinson: Is the committee ready for the question?
Amendment negatived: Yeas, 29; nays, 92.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
87. To provide capital assistance for the construction, acquisition, extension or improvement of capital equipment or works by private contractors engaged in defence contracts, or by crown plants operated on a management-fee basis, or by crown companies under direction of the Minister of Defence Production, subject to approval of treasury board, $7,500,000.
William Alfred Robinson: Shall this resolution carry?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, no.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: On item 87, Mr. Chairman, I note that the vote is mainly concerned with capital assistance for the construction, acquisition, extension or improvement of capital equipment or works by private contractors engaged in defence contracts, et cetera. There is a reduction of almost $1 million in this item for the current year and I presume this trend will be continued as we recede from the Korean war emergency.
I recall that when the Department of Defence Production was re-established to meet the Korean crisis this sum for capital assistance reached quite substantial proportions.
We in western Canada were extremely interested in this particular aspect of the Department of Defence Production and our chambers of commerce and business and industrial leaders made very strong efforts to ensure that western Canada and particularly the prairie provinces would receive an equitable share of the new upsurge in defence production.
We remembered the experience of world war II when the prairie provinces became depopulated almost overnight as our young people moved to fill the labour demands in the defence factories that were mushrooming in eastern and central Canada to meet the industrial demands of world war II.
There seem to be several hon. members who want to make speeches at this time, Mr. Chairman.


Some hon. Members:: Finish your speech.
Go ahead.
Supply-Defence Production


William Alfred Robinson: Order.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I am suffering from a cold, Mr. Chairman; otherwise I could make my voice heard above the noise in the chamber.
Examining the public accounts of Canada for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1955 it would seem we have not had too much success in overcoming the mistakes that were made in the build-up of world war II so far as a more equitable distribution of defence industry across the country is concerned.
As I look at page DD-3, a list of capital assistance items totalling over $25 million, I observe that with only three exceptions out of a long list covering pages DD-3 and DD-4 each one of those capital assistance grants was made in some part of Ontario or some part of Quebec.
The same pattern is observed in the contract awards of over $25,000 outlined on page DD-4 of the public accounts. In like manner the grants in lieu of taxes for defence industries are all concentrated in the two central regions. This is a complaint that has been raised in the house from time to time particularly by members from the western and maritime provinces and I would like to frame it in a specific question at this time.
I note, for example, that the Minister of Defence Production has considerable influence in this regard because on page 26 of the report of his department, in the first paragraph under the heading "Industry and Defence", we read the following:
In addition to purchasing responsibilities, the Minister of Defence Production is charged with responsibility for organizing and mobilizing the resources of Canada, including the co-ordination of economic and industrial facilities, in order to meet the current and prospective needs of defence.
That is a big item. The minister has almost complete power and responsibility over a large segment of our economy. Continuing with the quotation:
The general economic background against which the program will have to be carried out must be taken into account in discharging these responsibilities, which fall into two main categories. The first is the development and maintenance of production capabilities (i.e. adequate facilities, skilled labour, engineering experience and technical knowledge) which are required to meet the equipment needs of the armed forces. The second is the availability of the strategic and basic materials needed to carry out the defence production program.
As I have already indicated, that gives the minister tremendous responsibility in seeing that the defence industry as it moves forward fits into the general economic scheme of things in a most effective and efficient way. I would point out that the fact we have failed to overcome the mistakes of world war II when defence industry was largely

Supply-Defence Production concentrated in the two central provinces would suggest there is a genuine cause for complaint from those of us who represent western constituencies. The economic trends have been analysed in a summary fashion by the Financial Post. In the issue of July 7 there is an analysis carried out by Mr. J. K. Edmunds who projects the economic patterns in Canada for the year 1980. That projection incidentally is based largely on the very copious evidence submitted in various briefs to the Gordon commission. On the basis of that evidence Mr. Edmunds concludes that by 1980 Canada will have a population of 28 million, 75 per cent of which will be living in towns and cities and 65 per cent in central Canada. That reinforces the assumption that as far ahead as 1980, more than two decades, the present unfortunate trends will still be continuing, producing a state of industrial and economic imbalance even at that far distant date.
I should like the minister to indicate what steps are being taken to reverse these trends as far as possible. According to the information contained in his report, obviously he has the power to do this and obviously it is in the best interests of Canada that we try to establish a more equitable pattern of national development across the country. The huge expenditures involved in the Department of Defence Production provide a most fruitful source of brighter prospects in this regard. The main estimates today seem to be along the lines of electronic and aircraft development, two items of manufacture which could easily be carried out in the relatively sparsely settled parts of the three western provinces.
One final word on this score, and I think this is my strongest argument in this regard. Last week Canada engaged in a comprehensive civil defence exercise. For three or four days headlines screamed from the papers. Of course they were mock headlines, but the whole scheme was carried out as realistically as possible. Those headlines stated that large metropolitan areas had been completely wiped out as a result of attack by guided missiles with nuclear warheads. One report I read said that the city of Montreal had been completely wiped out.
The various departments of government responsible for the defence of Canada seem to be working at cross purposes. The civil defence people are warning the public of the dire prospects in the event of attack of that kind, which we hope will never happen. We are told that large metropolitan areas like Montreal can be wiped out by one nuclear weapon strategically exploded in the right


spot. Yet it would seem from the information which I have placed before the committee and which I gleaned from various reports that we are still continuing to concentrate our strategic industries in these vulnerable urban centres.
I wonder if the minister could give us any idea as to what steps if any are being taken to disperse this concentration of industry so that we may have the necessary defence in the case of possible nuclear attack and also, more positively, that we may have in Canada a more equitable distribution of industry across the country.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of capital assistance is to create facilities for the production of a given war store. The governing factors in the allocation geographically are the availability of skilled labour, the availability of management capable of handling the task, the availability of power, the availability of raw materials and the availability of subcontractors if subcontractors are required. Generally speaking it does not allow too much latitude to the department as to where a plant might be located. The situation usually indicates pretty clearly where the plant should be located.
When we do have a choice we always give preference to a location outside the industrial areas of Ontario and Quebec. For instance, we have given a good deal of capital assistance in the maritime provinces when perhaps we could have done equally well or better in the central provinces. We have put a fair amount of capital assistance into the west, particularly on the west coast, with a fair amount in Winnipeg. But in those cases we were dealing with the type of product which was suitable to the labour n the area. The production was such as could be obtained without too large a shift in population. Obviously if you must build a new plant and housing to house employees, if you must bring in your skilled management and skilled labour, you have a very expensive type of production.
We are simply the agents for the armed forces and are using their funds. We must be able to assure them that we are doing that economically. Within these narrow limits we do attempt to diversify the location of our capital assisted projects but, as I said previously, we have very little latitude in that regard. I am inclined to think that within the discretion available to us we have done a pretty fair job.
The item we have before us deals almost wholly with aircraft and is almost wholly

devoted to the CF-105 program. The details of the program are as follows:
Aircraft	 $6,906,570
Ammunition	 740,000
Electronics	 750,000
Guns	 5,500
Sundries	 40,817
From that we deduct $1,443,683 which represents cash not required during the fiscal year 1956-57. Obviously the only place you can spend money being used to advance the CF-105 program is in the vicinity of the Avro plant at Toronto. I do not know how we can exercise much latitude for the benefit of the city of Brandon or any other point in the west.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I want to thank the minister for his comments on this important subject. I noticed he raised the matter of the availability of technical skill and labour. I want to assure him that in any part of western Canada we have all sorts of potential labour, labour that is obviously quite mobile judging from the fact that a good many of the workers in the defence plants of Ontario and Quebec originally came from the prairies. A couple of weeks ago it was my privilege to attend the 75th anniversary celebration of the community of Boissevain, Manitoba, in the heart of perhaps the richest agricultural area in the west.


Mr. Bryce:: Go easy now.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Well, even taking into
account the constituency of the hon. member for Selkirk I think I can say that it is the richest agricultural area-


Stanley Howard Knowles: In southwestern Manitoba.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Yes. They published a very interesting book, "The Beckoning Hills", which reviews the history of that community from its origin in 1881 down to the present time. It is full of all sorts of anecdotes concerning the pioneering spirit of the people who settled that part of Canada so recently, because after all 75 years is a fairly recent period of time in the whole span of man's history. It is hardly more than the biblical span of a man's lifetime. The book gives the population statistics and they indicate the problem that the prairie provinces as a whole are up against.
In 1901, 20 years after the first settlement, the population of this part of the country was 6,430. By 1926 it had increased to 7,011. In 1931 it was 7,340 and in 1941 it was 6,478. There had been an exodus of almost a thousand people from this rich agricultural area under the first impact of the war. The downward trend increased up to 1946, and the census of 1951 gave the total population of that area as 5,615, or almost a thousand less
Supply-Defence Production than there were in 1901. That is what you call making progress going backwards. The difficulty arises, of course, because of the changing conditions of agriculture, mechanization and so forth, which are causing widespread depopulation of the prairies.
I realize that the item we are dealing with at the moment does not cover comprehensively the problem I am concerned with, and I must admit there have been some excellent and worth-while developments to meet this problem in the city of Winnipeg. I believe, for example, that a component of the CF-100 is being produced by the Bristol Corporation in Winnipeg, which is a step in the right direction, and I presume that the same trend will follow as we move into the production of the CF-105.
I re-emphasize this problem repeatedly because I think such assistance is one of the most fruitful ways of dealing with the basic economic problem confronting Canada at the present time, namely, more and more concentration in a relatively small area of Canada. I was particularly shocked to see that a projection of our economy to 1980 in that very reliable source, the Financial Post, indicates that this concentration will go on as a continuous trend.
By way of further detailed information, has the minister information available indicating what capital assistance programs have been established? Can he give some specific examples of capital programs that have gone forward in the prairie region as part of the activities of the Department of Defence Production since the beginning of the Korean crisis?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I might point out to my hon. friend that he overlooks one factor. A plant to produce war material must be a big plant. In other words, you do not make war material by the piece; you make it by volume.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You do with aeroplanes.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Where do you have small plants? Just name me a small plant that makes aeroplanes.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Component parts.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Component parts, certainly. We do not usually have to give capital assistance to get component parts made. We use existing plants. But may I point this out to my hon. friend? Suppose we went to Boissevain and put up a plant there that required 5,000 people or 500 people, if you like. You would dislocate that area for years. I remember well when General Motors went to Regina in the late twenties and established a plant there. I think they went

Supply-Defence Production there about 1926 and in 1932 they closed the plant down after having moved 1,000 or 1,200 people out there. That gave Regina a set-back from which it did not recover for ten years. That would be exactly the position in Boissevain if you put a war plant there.
One thing we must watch is to see that you do not create that kind of dislocation. If you put up a war plant it should be in an area where it can be converted to civilian production and have a chance of surviving as a privately owned plant. The hon. member asks what western plants we have helped. We have helped Bristol Engines with considerable capital assistance, also Standard Aero Engine of Winnipeg, Northwest Industries of Edmonton and I think one or two plants in Calgary. But to obtain the size of production that we require for war we must go into areas that can furnish the manpower and the skilled supervision without a great dislocation of population.
In the maritimes we have put a good deal of capital assistance into New Glasgow, a fair amount into Amherst, a fair amount into Saint John in the shipbuilding industry there, and a very considerable amount in Halifax. Where we have had populations and locations suitable for the kind of work we have wanted to do we have spread the work around as much as we could.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I agree that the establishment of the parts assembly plant at Regina came at a very unfortunate time in the predepression era, and I think the dislocation that occurred in Regina and throughout all the prairie provinces for that matter during that unfortunate period was brought about by more than the necessity of closing the parts assembly plant at Regina. I further agree that you would not expect to establish a plant employing 5,000 people in a community the size of Boissevain. It would have a tremendous impact on the community in all respects which perhaps could not be absorbed by the social amenities that exist there already. That is not exactly what I am thinking about.
Having mentioned Boissevain, may I say there is one industry there, a private endeavour, making laminated structures. It was established in the past few years and it employs some 40 or 50 men. It is making quite a contribution to the vitality of that particular community. It is handicapped by the freight rate problem. The Canadian Railways do not allow in transit rate privileges as the railways of the United States do in an attempt to assist the establishment of industry in their prairie region.
I should like to say further, Mr. Chairman, that private industry generally is ahead of


the government in recognizing the changed circumstances on the prairies. We now have a sufficiently large population-following the population recession of the war we are now beginning to move forward-to provide a fairly strong local demand. Particularly in the field of the manufacture of electrical parts we have a shift from the east to western Canada and also in the packaging and manufacturing of food products. For example, the Campbell Soup Company is contemplating establishing a further branch plant in Manitoba. The emphasis that I should like to see maintained is the emphasis that the department itself was trying to maintain. When the defence production activity got under way, within the department there was established a small defence industries branch which functioned for three years and then disappeared. When I queried the minister on that point, he said that it had carried out its role adequately and that it had done the necessary job. I did not agree with that statement at the time and I still do not agree with it. I thought that was an excellent innovation in these complex affairs, namely making certain that every possible provision was being made to decentralize this huge accumulation of defence industries which have become established largely around the two urban centres, namely Toronto and Montreal and which overnight would be destroyed-the whole defence industrial potential would be destroyed-if we ever faced an atomic attack. I suggest that we might well keep in mind the objective that was indicated in connection with the small defence production branch in trying to establish the manufacture of component parts of various electronic equipment for aircraft on as widely-scattered or as widely-dispersed a basis as possible.


Mr. Bell:: Before this item carries I should like to follow along on the thoughts that have been expressed by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris and the review that has been given by the Minister of Defence Production. I appreciate the fact that this item is a centralizing one but it is an item that needs generally a great deal of consideration and future planning. The minister referred to the fact that Saint John and Halifax are getting some assistance in connection with their shipyards. That is true, but I would say that it is a very small amount of assistance compared with what the shipyards on the St. Lawrence are getting. Two or three years ago in the town of Marysville in New Brunswick we had an example of a textile industry closing down. At that time something was said-and I think some approaches were made-with respect to the possibility of

locating there some sort of government-assisted industry to replace this textile factory that it was necessary to close. I do not know whether or not it would have been possible to do something there, but certainly the facilities were available, namely a factory in fairly good shape, some labour and some market.
If we take the attitude that has been suggested, namely that we can locate only where there are available population, labour and materials, I suppose we shall never be able to disperse industry in any way. In New Brunswick also a short time ago we had an example in connection with the army camp work there. I do not want to go into the details of the contracts, because the matter has been mentioned here before. I just want to say that there was a problem in connection with the letting of those large contracts by the Department of Defence Production in connection with the camp. The department naturally wanted to get the work done as cheaply as possible and in as modern a way as possible. In most cases they call for tenders in connection with large contracts. I suppose that is the businesslike way to do the thing. But our smaller contractors were not able to get together and were not able to extend themselves for these larger jobs.
I put this reservation in these remarks, Mr. Chairman. We have had some contracts and since the initial planning others have been given. I mention the matter only in order to say that the problem is there, and it is the same one that is there with respect to this other work. The United States have had this difficulty to contend with for many years and they have taken many measures to overcome it. They have set up entire new communities for their large plants. I remember reading that in the New England states a method was found whereby the federal government could give some type of depreciation assistance to an industry in a certain locality. In that way the burden and the initial difficulty with respect to an industry surviving or even locating in a tough area would fall on the federal authorities rather than on the local municipal people who were already burdened, as has already been mentioned in recent debates. I appreciate the difficulties and I have mentioned these examples merely to show that it is a problem that is becoming of increasing importance. In the United States, in England and in Scotland they have had to do something about it. I suggest to the minister that we must have some careful planning for the future. In his department he has experts. Probably they could look into the matter. If this amount needs to be extended or to have its scope broadened, I am sure that the areas in the
Supply-Defence Production prairies and in the maritimes would greatly benefit. Such a procedure would get over some of the criticism that we have heard in recent days with respect to the difficulties there.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Mr. Chairman, the debate so far has brought to my mind a few remarks that I should like to make at this time. We have been talking about decentralization of war plants, labour and so on. I should like to refer the minister to the Canadian Arsenals plant at Lindsay, Ontario, which has had three quite definite lay-offs since last year. Employment there is getting fairly small. I should like the minister and his officials to give consideration to that plant. With their large budget I do not see why they cannot create some employment in the town of Lindsay.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, I may say to my hon. friend that we have been looking at that situation very hard. We hope to get some work for it. The Lindsay plant is more or less a specialty shop. It does small runs of ammunition because of the nature of its equipment. We try to bring them along regularly, but I know it has hit a little low spot recently. We hope we can improve the situation.


Mr. Van Horne:: I wish to draw attention to the fact that in Campbellton we have the McLennan Engineering Works. Some years ago this firm spent a considerable amount of money becoming equipped to repair aircraft engines. The contracts that they obtained from the government lasted a very short time, and afterwards they were denied any further work. In the last two years McLennan Engineering Works have not had any federal work and this tremendous investment which they were encouraged by the federal government to make is now going to waste. I would recommend that the minister check into the amount of repair work we have received in the maritimes. We have several plants fully equipped to do federal work, such as the McLennan Engineering Works, but for the past three or four years they have not been favoured with any work. This places a terrific burden, not only on the owners of the plants but on the public and on the employees who are dependent on these plants to make a livelihood. I am sure the minister will be kind enough to look into this matter and do something about it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I will be glad to look into it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I should like to point out that last year the department asked for and obtained a vote of $8,250,000 for this item. The minister reported yesterday that the

Supply-Defence Production department actually expended during the last fiscal year $2,084,615 on this item. It is quite clear, therefore, that the amount that was voted that was proven not to be necessary was over $6,150,000. In other words, the amount actually required, as shown by experience as reflected in the actual expenditures, was only a small fraction of the total estimate. It was just about 25 per cent of the amount the department asked parliament to vote.
The minister was frank enough to say that this item of capital assistance is one with which the department has had most difficulty in estimating over the years. I drew attention on June 29 to the fact that for this item in the fiscal year 1951-52, parliament was asked to vote and did vote $100 million for this purpose, whereas the sum expended was $22,190,419. Perhaps I could just give the amounts in round figures, Mr. Chairman. The following year, 1952-53, parliament voted $110 million and the sum expended was $78 million. In the fiscal year 1953-54, the sum asked for by the department and voted was $60 million. The sum expended by the department was $36 million. In the fiscal year 1954-55, the sum asked for by the department, and voted by parliament, was $25 million, and the sum expended was $7 million. Now, we have before us the experience of the fiscal year 1955-56 and we see that although the department asked for $8,250,000, and parliament voted that sum, the actual need was only one-quarter of that sum.
So, Mr. Chairman, for the same reasons that I put before the committee in connection with the last item, I think it is our responsibility here to make sure that the estimates that we approve and pass are closely in line with the proven requirements of the department, and I move:
That item 87 be reduced by the sum of $5 million to $2,500,000.
I point out, Mr. Chairman, that that amendment would leave the department with a substantial sum of money more than it actually found necessary last year. Last year it found it necessary to expend $2,084,615, and this amendment would provide them with $2,500,000, a figure almost 20 per cent larger than their actual expenditures for the fiscal year which ended March 31, 1956.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I may say that if this motion passes it will set the CF-105 program back at least 12 months. We are already committed for considerably more money than would be left in this vote if this amendment passed.


Donald Methuen Fleming: For how much are you committed?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We have to build certain test facilities for a supersonic engine which is being developed there, and we must provide certain new equipment for the aircraft plant. We have already approved expenditures and commitments, but we would have to withdraw the commitment. I know all these commitments depend on parliament voting the money, but that is the particular situation in this case.
I am surprised, really, at being criticized for not spending all the capital assistance for which we asked parliament. We know what we have to have, roughly, in the next year, but we do not know the extent to which we may be able to persuade private industry to put up the capital themselves. We do our best. We part with capital assistance money very reluctantly and I may say it has been practically cut off at the present time except for the aircraft industry where we are bringing out a new plane and where new techniques, new testing equipment and new facilities are required. As I say, we are committed, not for the full amount, but we are committed for over half of it. If this vote passes, I will just write A. V. Roe that they will have to do without for another 12 months. They will have to do the best they can after that.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What is the precise amount of your commitment to A. V. Roe?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is around $5 million. We cannot say exactly because we do not know exactly what these things will cost. We have authorized certain work to be done under capital assistance. It is somewhere between $4-5 million and $5 million. We know other work must be carried out. What we do not know is whether we can persuade private industry to furnish additional facilities that we must have. If we cannot do that, we must put up the money as capital assistance. It is as simple as that. Go ahead and vote on your amendment, if you want to. I am tempted not to vote on this amendment and let it go through and let the opposition take the responsibility for it. I think that is about what the hon. member for Eglinton is asking for, and should get it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That was a silly, stupid, concluding remark, Mr. Chairman. This is the first time the minister has spoken about the CF-105 production program being attached to this item.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I made a statement in which I said that $6,906,570 was allocated to the aircraft branch. I said then it. was for the CF-105 program.


Donald Methuen Fleming: We were not told it was on this particular item.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I read it on this particular item.


John Horace Dickey: It was just 10 minutes ago.


Donald Methuen Fleming: In view of what the minister has said, Mr. Chairman, about the commitment, and if this is related to the CF-105 program which is an important program, we are quite prepared-this is an addition to last year's program-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Very generous of you.


Donald Methuen Fleming: We are here to do our duty to the taxpayers and to see that money that is not required is not voted here; that is the situation, and that duty we intend to discharge. The minister has said that there is about $5 million required-


Clarence Decatur Howe: I said nothing of the kind. I said $5 million was committed.


Donald Methuen Fleming: We are prepared to change the amendment to the extent of $5 million.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We will vote on this amendment first.


Donald Methuen Fleming: In the light of what the minister has said we are prepared to withdraw this amendment and substitute another one. If the minister will not agree to the withdrawal, then he will just have to take the responsibility. In view of the minister's further explanation, we are prepared to make the usual request to the committee for permission to withdraw the amendment.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. Has the hon. member-


Clarence Decatur Howe: If the hon. member wishes to withdraw the amendment and finish there I, of course, will agree. If he wants to change the amount in the amendment, I do not agree.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am quite prepared to withdraw the amendment and have another look at the minister's figures, if he will give us the figures in regard to his commitments and in regard to the amounts that he thinks are going to be required on this program this year.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Donald Methuen Fleming: But we are not just going to let this go without information. The minister says nothing more. We want information.
Supply-Defence Production The Chairman: Order. As I understand the situation, Mr. Fleming moved:
That item 87 he reduced by the sum of $5,000,000 to $2,500,000.
I also understand that the hon. gentleman is requesting leave, which he must do, of the committee, with unanimous consent, to withdraw the motion.


Some hon. Members:: No.


William Alfred Robinson: Has the hon. member consent to withdraw the amendment?


Some hon. Members:: No.


William Alfred Robinson: Is the committee ready for the question?
Amendment (Mr. Fleming) negatived: Yeas, nil; nays, 48.


William Alfred Robinson: I declare the amendment lost.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister now whether he will state in detail the commitments actually made to date, that is, the actual commitments, and then in addition the projected demands on this item for the remainder of the fiscal year?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We do not give actual capital assistance estimates in advance.
I gave this figure before; I will give it again: aircraft, $6,906,170.


Donald Methuen Fleming: These are actual commitments already made?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No. We are committed to certain projects, but I am not going to put amounts of money on them because I do not know what they will cost. Ammunition, $740,796; electronics, $750,000; guns, $505,500; that is for the new rifle; sundries, $40,000. From that we deduct cash not required in 1956-57, $1,443,683, leaving a balance of $7,500,000.


Donald Methuen Fleming: We have supported the project as far as the development of the CF-105 is concerned. The minister spoke about having made actual commitments. That was the burden of his remarks before, but he is not prepared to tell us now what the actual commitments are. We are simply given now the breakdown of the figure of $7,500,000 in the estimates. As to that, we had similar breakdowns of similar estimates in preceding years. They were built up of subitems in the same way, and we found that in every case in every one of those years the figures in the estimates were much higher than the amounts actually required.
Take last year, for instance. Notwithstanding the fact that the estimate was built up of subitems like this, it was found that when the department came actually to make the
6490	HOUSE OF
Supply-Defence Production expenditures the amount actually required was only one-quarter of the amount the house had been told and had voted-


John Horace Dickey: Because we saved money.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -when the estimates were before the house. Are you not going to attempt to save money this year?


John Horace Dickey: We certainly are.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, where there is a will there is a way, and if we can judge the accuracy of this item by the experience of other years it is quite evident there is a good deal of money here that will not be required this year. What the minister has said about commitments is not touched by this because he will not give us the figure of actual commitments. I think, on the experience of other years, it will be found that there is a good deal more money here than is required. I am moving, therefore, that the item be reduced by $1 million, to $6,500,000.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Are you going to vote for it this time?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Oh, sure; I hope you are, too.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The reason we did not give commitments for capital expenditure before is that if we give the commitment, if we tell someone we have an item in the estimates to cover certain projects, there is no possibility of getting private industry to make the investment. Because we are committed there is no possibility of saving. What my hon. friend is saying is, "All right; tell the world that you have provided money for these projects, and then you will not have any savings on your estimates and everything will be fine". I have never seen quite such a row raised about saving money out of funds voted by parliament. However, my hon. friend thinks that is statesmanship, so I presume we shall vote on this item.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, we have been challenged-


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order. I just want to put the amendment. It has been moved by Mr. Fleming:
That item 87 be reduced by the sum of $1 million to $6,500,000.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Is the committee ready for the question?
Amendment (Mr. Fleming) negatived: Yeas, 11; nays, 48.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I declare the amendment lost. Shall the item carry?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
TMr. Fleming.]
[Stage Direction]
To provide for payment of grants to municipalities in lieu of taxes on crown-owned defence plants operated by private contractors, $227,900.
Donald Methuen Fleming: Will the minister put on record now the figures of the payments to municipalities in the fiscal year ended March 31, 1956, under this item?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The actual
amount spent was $203,000, but we cannot put our hands on the breakdown though we thought we had one here. It is a bit less this year because we sold two or three plants. We will have to get that information and we will table it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: How long will it take to get it? Could it be put on the record today?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, I think so.


Mr, Fleming:: Has the minister with that his estimate covering the anticipated payments to municipalities this year?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We never give that. We have an argument with every assessment commissioner about the amount we pay.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May we take it that there are no new municipalities involved, and that the list is going to be a little smaller by reason of dropping some municipalities from it?


Clarence Decatur Howe: By reason of the sale of certain assets, yes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: But there are no new municipalities to be added to this year's list as compared with last year's list?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is right.


Donald Methuen Fleming: And it is understood that will be put on the record?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes. I am sure my staff can secure it.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: In order that it will be understood, the minister is undertaking to produce a list of payments made to municipalities which will be handed to Hansard and printed by unanimous consent.* Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
'Grants to municipalities in lieu of taxes on
crown-owned defence plants operated by
private contractors (1955-56)
Town of Renfrew, Ont	$ 8,000
Township of North York, Ont		16,000
City of Lachine, P.Q	 24,000
Town of LaSalle, P.Q	 6,000
Township of Ross, Ont	 20,000
City of Longueuil, P.Q	 16,000
Catholic school commission
(Longueuil) P.Q	 13,000
Town of Trenton, N.S	 22,000
Ville St-Laurent, P.Q	 78,000
[Stage Direction]
Canadian Arsenals Limited-
90. Administration and operation, $1.
Mr. Dufresne:: Mr. Chairman, I will just start to say a few words in English in order to tell the minister where I am leading. About two weeks ago I asked a question regarding the sale of the Riviere du Loup arsenal, and in reply to my question I received an answer on July 23. The first question was as follows:
1.	Have the Riviere du Loup arsenal buildings been sold? If so, on what date?
The answer was:
1.	Yes. Agreement of sale executed following order in council of May 24, 1956. Possession of property given purchaser on June 29, 1956.
The second question was:
2.	What was the amount of the sale and what were the conditions of payment?
The answer was:
2.	Sale was made after public advertisement of the property for $17,500 cash.
The third question was as follows:
3.	What was the conversion cost of the former Canadian National shops, which subsequently became the Riviere du Loup arsenal?
Listen to the answer:
3.	The Canadian National Railways shops at Riviere du Loup were transferred to Canadian Arsenals Limited and converted for the production of components for -50'' and 20 mm ammunition at a cost of $285,453.80 to meet orders valued at $3,835,000.
(Translation) ;
Mr. Chairman, it is now definitely established that the Riviere du Loup arsenal, which operated for three years only, was sold by tender for $17,500, whereas an amount of $285,453.80 had been spent in order to convert the former Canadian National plants into an arsenal. Even if it served to produce about $4 million worth of small arms ammunition, this arsenal operated for only three years, during which employment was available to a very limited number of people. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that instead of going to this fabulous expense, it would have been possible in view of the few people employed there, to have the same done at Quebec or Valcartier arsenal, thus avoiding considerable lay-offs.
I return now to the price paid for this building and the property on which it is built. It is an excellent building, with magnificent grounds, and yet they were sold for the ridiculous sum of $17,500, whereas the department had formerly spent on the rehabilitation of the same premises the considerable amount of nearly $300,000. Therefore
Supply-Defence Production the transaction involved only about six per cent of the original amount. In other words, the loss involved was exactly 94 cents out of every dollar. This, I am told, was done to satisfy a company which will eventually start producing underwear in this plant.
From all this it appears that the company which has bought this arsenal is called the C. Turnbull Company Limited. If my memory serves me well, its head office is in Galt, Ontario. The surprising thing about all this though, is that until January 11, this company had held a federal charter granted on December 17, 1930, a charter which it renounced on the date I have just indicated, that is five months before purchasing the arsenal. I can say however that this company-against which I have nothing, since I do not know it, though I do know that its product is, by all accounts, excellent-has a provincial charter granted by the Ontario government. According to arrangements entered into between the provinces, it is allowed to operate in the province of Quebec, provided it abides by the laws of that province and pays corporation income tax.
The fact is, however, Mr. Chairman, that we have here a difference that is rather hard to explain. I was informed this morning that only one tender had been submitted to the department, and that was the one from the Turnbull company.


Mr. Dupuis:: Well, you can hardly make them up.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: I did not attempt to make anyone up, and I would not advise the hon. member for St. Mary (Mr. Dupuis) to make anything up, for it would be a substantial waste of my time. I am now dealing with a serious matter, and I hope that the hon. member will stop his trifling, so that I may proceed.


Hector Dupuis: It is still better than in Quebec, because, over there, no tenders are called at all.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: If my hon. friend is interested in a seat in the Quebec legislature, all he has to do is to resign; but then he might have the same fate as his son.


Hector Dupuis: I prefer the atmosphere of honesty in this house than that of Quebec.


Mr. Bonnier:: Abolish Bill 34, and we will go to Quebec.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: If the hon. member wants to talk of honesty, he would be well advised to wait for a judgment to be rendered shortly.
6492	HOUSE OF
Supply-Defence Production Mr. Dupuis: If it is rendered by a man like you, I won't answer for anything.


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: People who live in glass houses-


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: He asked for it.
As I was saying, the least that this transaction suggests is objectionable favouritism. If the intention was to sell the property, conversion costs of which had amounted to close to $300,000, it seems to me that a basic price might have been set and, in this way, a more appropriate price might have been obtained.


Hector Dupuis: What a businessman.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: I repeat, Mr. Chairman, that such a policy is bad enough to give rise to the indignation and vigorous protests of all those who, through the taxes they pay, contribute to maintain in power a government so wasteful of the Canadian taxpayers' dollar.
Surely, the small industry which is being set up in place of the arsenal will hardly be enough to improve economic conditions in Riviere du Loup, because I am convinced that few people will find jobs in that plant. So, Mr. Chairman, it has been a waste of public moneys. We have, in the past, seen a mass exodus of Canadian National Railways' employees, especially in Riviere du Loup, who had to move to Montreal, Moncton, Campbellton and Halifax in 1952.


An hon. Member:: To Quebec.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: And now, we have to stand by and see public moneys being thrown down the river, always in connection with the same building. The only conclusion is, I think, that Riviere du Loup, despite what we heard last fall, especially in September, will never be the Garden of Eden of the province of Quebec.
Mr. Chairman, I wish to mention another matter regarding the Quebec arsenal. We have in Quebec city an arsenal located below Palais hill on quite a large piece of land. I am glad that we have that plant in Quebec city for it provides work for quite a number of conscientious employees who can thus earn a decent living.
Next to that plant of Canadian Arsenals Limited, there is a nice and vast piece of land commonly called Artillery park on which stands the residence ot the superintendent of that company, a very distinguished gentleman and a great soldier, Brigadier Theriault. I say these nice things about Brigadier 

Theriault so that my hon. friends opposite will not be able to claim what they claimed the other day when speaking about the 22nd Regiment. I say that all French Canadians, and especially those in the province of Quebec, hold in high esteem and respect this distinguished soldier, Brigadier Theriault.
However, I believe that piece of land could be put to much better use than to provide luxurious accommodation for an official who certainly does not need all of it. Part of that land is wasted.
Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that the minister sell part of that land to the city of Quebec which, I think, would be happy to buy it for several reasons, one of which would be the broadening of McMahon street, which is very narrow. It would ease traffic in that part of Quebec city and would permit the occasional parking of some 500 cars. It would also bring much more business to that business section of the city, especially for those who operate a business on Saint Jean street.
I don't ask that Brigadier Theriault be deprived of all the ground he now occupies. However, I would suggest that officials of the Department of Defence Production enter into negotiations with the city of Quebec, which is badly pressed for parking space, or try to interest certain individuals in buying that part of the property. This would help develop that important district of the city of Quebec.


An hon. Member:: It's goat's pasture.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Chairman, such was the suggestion I wanted to make in connection with that site, and I think that in so doing I have conveyed the feelings of the majority of my fellow citizens of the city of Quebec, and I trust that the department will take into serious consideration the suggestions I just made.
(Text):


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, I am sure my hon. friend will grant me the indulgence of replying in English. I could try to do otherwise, but perhaps I had better not. The explanation with regard to the plant at Riviere du Loup is simple. The Canadian National Railways had a problem on their hands through the dieselization of the region, and the president informed us that the locomotive and car repair shops at Riviere du Loup were surplus to his requirements. There were about 125 families dependent

upon the work provided by those shops. He asked if we could help him out, and told us that if we could he would be pleased to deed over the property to the dominion government. Subsequently we found that we had an order for small arms ammunition amounting to about $3,800,000 which could not be handled at the Palace Hill arsenal but which could be handled at Riviere du Loup if there were some adaptation of the facilities there.
Arrangements were made accordingly. Early in 1953 the property was transferred without cost to the Department of Defence Production. Alterations were made amounting, if I remember right, to around $250,000 to provide for new facilities and installation of machinery that was moved down there from the arsenal at Quebec. For about three years we operated the plant at Riviere du Loup. In that time we turned out ammunition to the value of a little over $3 million.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: 


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, $3,800,000. The production was increased over what would have been possible had we operated the facilities at Quebec to full capacity. The need was there and the property at Riviere du Loup filled it very nicely.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Would the minister excuse me? I think I just heard him say that the arsenal at Quebec was working at full capacity at that time.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: I think the minister is wrong, because it was last year and two years ago that we had so many lay-offs at Quebec and Valcartier.


Clarence Decatur Howe: But they were mostly in the shell filling division and not in this particular division. However, we expected when we took over the property that there would be follow-up orders for small arms ammunition and these did not come. Therefore when the work was completed we were in exactly the same position as Canadian National Railways had been three years earlier. We had been employing a peak of 140 employees on the property with an average of about 105, and we faced the same serious problem of laying off these employees in an area that was not able to absorb them easily.
After discussing the matter with the mayor of Riviere du Loup we decided to call for tenders for the property with the reservation that we would not sell the property to anyone
Supply-Defence Production who could not give a reasonable guarantee of employment on about the scale we had provided in operationg it as an arsenal. Tenders were invited. We advertised in several papers. We only received one tender, and it was from a textile firm that was able to undertake to provide employment for in excess of 100 people.
The mayor favoured acceptance of the tender. True, it was a low tender; nevertheless it relieved us of the problem of maintaining a plant in idleness, which is costly; and in view of the employment situation it seemed that the right thing to do was to accept the tender, which we did. I feel that we acted as a useful link between the railway who built the plant and owned it for many years and the textile company, which is moving in at the present time. We did provide employment without any loss to the government. You can say that we spent $250,000, or whatever the figure was, in setting up the plant to make small arms ammunition. That is true, but we produced $3,800,000 worth of products; and as I remember it the margin on the product, which was for the United States government, was about 10 per cent. Therefore the story probably is that we worked there and got out without any loss of public funds. As far as Palace Hill is concerned, my hon. friend wants us to tear down a building there-


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: No.


Clarence Decatur Howe: -that is older than I am. Palace Hill, from the earliest days of Quebec, has had on this site the residence of the superintendent of the arsenals.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: If the minister will allow me, I never mentioned anything about destroying the Palace Hill arsenal. I am not even speaking about taking away the residence occupied now by the superintendent, Brigadier Theriault. I was just asking if the minister would not mind taking under consideration the fact that adjacent to this private residence there is a very big piece of land, a part of which the city of Quebec would be interested in buying, first of all to widen McMahon street and, second, to make a good parking area for the commercial district of Saint-Jean street.


Clarence Decatur Howe: As far as I know there has been no request to the department for that land. It is maintained by Brigadier Theriault as a public park, and it is a very beautiful park in the heart of Quebec. While we certainly would entertain a request from the city of Quebec for land sufficient to widen a street I would be very reluctant, and I think the city of Quebec would be, too,

Supply-Defence Production to do anything that would transform a beautiful park in the centre of the city into a parking space for automobiles.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: First of all I wish to thank the minister for the detailed information he has given me regarding the Riviere du Loup arsenal. Can the minister tell me what the department paid for the land and buildings formerly owned by the C.N.R. which afterwards became the Riviere du Loup arsenal?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I thought I told the hon. member that the land and buildings were deeded to us without cost. They cost nothing.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: May I add one word. Could it have been possible to establish a floor price before asking for the tenders to which the minister referred? I know the minister will admit, as will every hon. member of the house, that even if the plant is to employ 100 or more employees in the new operation, which I am very glad to hear, the price for which the Riviere du Loup arsenal was sold was a little bit ridiculous when we think that we had to spend $285,453.80 to convert one building and could not get a better price three years later than $17,500. I think a lot of people are worrying about the matter and are asking how this kind of transaction could take place.


Clarence Decatur Howe: According to the report I received from Canadian Arsenals, if we had held the property it would have cost about $50,000 a year to keep the plant closed, maintain a watchman service and pay the taxes. To do so would also put 105 people out of work in an area where no alternative work was provided. The property was developed to repair locomotives and freight cars. Private individuals do not repair locomotives and freight cars. We took over the plant to make munitions of war. Private individuals do not make munitions of war.
The next question is, who can make use of that property? It is not everyone's meat. The fact that it is a fine plant which cost a lot of money many years ago, and cost some money for alterations and installing equipment to make munitions more recently, is interesting but it is not interesting to a man who can use the plant in Riviere du Loup and use it profitably.
We advertised for tenders. We let it be known through all our contacts that the plant was available for sale. We advertised in the papers and we got one tender. It did not take us long to decide that if we could solve the government's problem, relieve ourselves of caretaker responsibilities which might go on indefinitely, and remove ourselves from

Riviere du Loup in a way acceptable to the local people it was a very advantageous transaction as far as the Department of Defence Production was concerned.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: The minister says that
advertisements were published in the papers. Can the minister say in what papers advertisements were published? Was it in the local papers or in papers throughout Canada?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It was advertised in three newspapers.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Three newspapers?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Three different newspapers, yes. L''Action Catholique was one. I do not remember the other two.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: That must be Le Soleil.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Possibly it was Le Soleil. I do not remember.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Were they Quebec papers?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Two were Quebec papers. One was a paper in Three Rivers or in Riviere du Loup.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Le St-Laurent?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No. I find that one was in Riviere du Loup, one was in
Quebec city and the third was in Montreal.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Are the three of them
French papers?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: It is a very amusing thing, Mr. Chairman; here is an English company which has its head office in Ontario. I think it is in Galt. There is an advertisement in three French papers. One is in a Riviere du Loup paper which is a weekly paper that is distributed in the Riviere du Loup area and in the whole county of Temiscouata. The other one, L'Action Catholique, a Quebec city paper, is also French.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I now find that the third one was an English language paper. I believe it was the Montreal Star.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: There might be a chance that the company saw it there. But even so I find it very strange that this company in Ontario would have a chance to read this article or this advertisement in the Montreal paper. I think someone must have given this company some information of some kind.


Mr. Lesage:: What are you complaining
about?


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: I am just complaining about the price that was paid by the company for a building which cost the government $285,000, just for conversion, when this company

paid only $17,500 for it. After all, that is a loss of 94 cents on the dollar in three years. That is my complaint, if the minister wants to know it. I find that it was a ridiculous transaction. That is my opinion.


Pierre Gauthier: The company
might be bilingual, might it not?


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Not according to the list of directors which I have. I have the names of the directors. Three or four are from Galt, Ontario; two are from Brantford, Ontario, and one is from Pittsburgh in the United States.


Pierre Gauthier: I have people who do not speak a word of English who have English names. You can have English people speaking French as well as French people speaking English. We are, after all, a bilingual country.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Yes; I think I am one of
the members in this house who have given evidence of that fact. Any time I have occasion to do so, I speak both languages in this house.


Pierre Gauthier: Yes, you can. Once you addressed the Minister of National Health and Welfare in English, and he answered you in French.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Yes, because I had an extremely important question that I wanted to be heard and understood by everybody in the house.


Pierre Gauthier: You are bilingual.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Yes; I am bilingual.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: The hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, in either language.


Mr. Thatcher:: Mr. Chairman, I approve the sale of this particular crown corporation. I approve it in the first place because I think it is good for the community. There are going to be a good many more people employed there than are employed at the present time. But I approve it mainly because of the principle involved. Today we have approximately 30 crown corporations in this country. Some of them have cost us a great deal of money. Many are being subsidized fairly extensively. I think it is a good thing for the government to get out of many of these businesses which were set up in the war period or in the emergency shortly after the war. I hope sales of this nature will happen time and time again in the near future. I should like to see other crown corporations sold also, because I think the business of government is to govern, not to be in business. From what I have seen of crown corporations in business they simply
Supply-Health and Welfare do not operate as efficiently as private enterprise. I am therefore heartily in accord with this particular sale.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Edward Turney Applewhaite: That completes the Department of Defence Production.



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE

[Stage Direction]
244. Departmental administration, $1,222,800.
Edward Turney Applewhaite: Hon. members will find this resolution at page 48 of the book of estimates, the details starting at page 346.


Mr. Blair:: Does the minister wish to make a statement?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No.


William Gourlay Blair: The estimates of this department were before the estimates committee of the House of Commons for several weeks. At that time there was a fairly complete discussion on all the items, especially on the other item under the Department of National Health and Welfare, namely civil defence, which I think was considered by the committee in sittings which extended to 10 or 12 hours. The same remark might apply to another matter that was brought up and talked about in that committee, namely the question of health insurance or hospital insurance and the proposals and discussions between the federal government and the provinces.
But in the general consideration of the estimates before the house there is no doubt that there are matters of interest which other members who were not on the estimates committee might like to discuss at this time when the estimates are before the committee of the whole. Furthermore, they may desire to obtain information that was not available to them at the time the estimates committee was sitting or because they were unable to attend. They might desire of their own accord to discuss some of these matters with the minister.
It has always been my belief that the estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare, dealing as they do with matters which are so important to the well-being and happiness of the people of the country, should receive fuller consideration by the house than they do receive, and that more time than is usually spent on them should be devoted to their consideration. I think the fact that the estimates of this department were sent to a committee this year was an excellent thing. As a result of questioning the minister and his officials I believe more information was obtained in that committee than would have been obtained as the result of a few hours' discussion in this chamber. Of course every person did not agree in that
64S6

Supply-Health and Welfare committee, but there was that opportunity-available and there was the fullest discussion of these matters.
In so far as the estimates of this department are concerned, there should be unanimous agreement throughout the committee today that the matter of keeping well is of the utmost importance to the people of this country. But if you go back a few hundred years in European history you will find that the point of view among those who were interested in the healing arts was concerned with the curing of disease. There is a great deal of difference between using preventive measures and curing. The idea of preventive measures probably never crossed their minds at that time. The most they could hope for was to have physicians who were sufficiently versed in an understanding of disease that sick people under their care would rapidly get well.
Under these conditions it is clear that only a small proportion of the population could share in the benefits of the increasing skill of these physicians. But today hospitals, laboratories and physicians are in close contact with new scientific equipment. They are armed with new drugs and they are providing a medical service today that would have been unbelievable in the eighteenth century. Even today improving our methods of curing disease is not sufficient, and I emphasize the word "curing", the problem today is to get people well and to keep them well. This is the prime objective of the people who are working in the fields of public health and preventive medicine.
Throughout the last decade especially great progress has been made in the curing and treatment of disease. There are, however, still many problems, and there is a demand for still more rapid progress. But if we look back over the last 20 years on the discoveries that have been made in that time, we can see that there is every reason to believe that it will come. Equally new and exciting results will follow the new and exciting discoveries which have been made. But if we still pursued the old idea of keeping people well by curing disease, it would involve a tremendous expenditure on the part of the nation. From the standpoint of the taxpayer it would be a very expensive proposition. It would require the training of a large number of professional people to keep all the people cured of disease.
Today we have developed a public health program to such an extent, and this is coupled with our increasing knowledge of preventive medicine, that we are making remarkable progress in the campaign to keep people well. As the program advances the costs of keeping people well will decrease.


At the present time one could visualize that the future may bring a period when the need for hospitals will diminish, so that the health program in continuing to keep people well will become the great objective rather than the older concept of curing disease.
I came across a quotation from a very eminent man, Dr. C. E. Winslow, a very distinguished man in the field of public health. This was written in 1949 but I think it still applies today. The quotation is as follows:
As I see it today, public health is the science and art of preventing disease, prolonging life, and promoting physical and mental health and efficiency through organized community efforts for the sanitation of the environment, the control of community infections, the education of the individual in the principles of personal hygiene, the organization of medical and nursing service for the early diagnosis and treatment of disease, and the development of the social machinery which will ensure to every individual in the community a standard of living adequate for the maintenance of health.
This statement, made by such an eminent man, applies today with greater force than it did seven years ago. I think he has covered the whole field in that one short statement.
Now, in so far as present conditions in Canada are concerned, I am not going to attempt to cover all the diseases and all the troubles with which medical men in Canada are faced today. There are two or three that I intend to discuss for a short time before this committee. I shall first consider the question of cancer. Statistics show that this is still the great scourge. It is true that there have been marked advances in the treatment of this disease in the primary type. The difficulty there lies in getting these patients at the time the disease first makes its appearance, in the primary lesion stage. Then a great deal more could be done in a curative way in protecting these people. Possibly more advanced diagnostic methods have shown a larger number of the population to be suffering from the disease; nevertheless a high percentage still appears in our mortality rates.
In that regard, X-ray facilities along with other means of diagnosis have shown that many of those people who possibly were undiagnosed at previous times are now getting a more complete diagnosis, and this accounts for some of the rise in the death rate attributed to cancer. But it is also true of this disease, as it is true of heart disease and the group of people who suffer from cardiovascular disease-that is disease of the heart and blood vessels-that as the span of life has been lengthened we seem to have more people suffering from this disease than we

formerly did. Not only that, sir, but in so far as the mortality rates are concerned we are going to have older people ultimately succumbing to this disease.
So I have one plea and one suggestion to the minister today in regard to cancer, and it is this. While research is costly, no apparently worth-while project in research looking toward the discovery of the cause of cancer, or even of the treatment, should be neglected through lack of funds. While other nations are spending funds in the common objective of the solution of this scourge, I believe our Canadian scientists are capable of contributing a great deal toward scientific research. They are capable of contributing a share, as they have shown in the past, that will compare favourably with that of any nation in the world.
This is a disease that has baffled all the greatest workers in the world in the scientific field. But the big problem today under present conditions, knowing as we do very little though advances have been made regarding the cause of cancer, is to intensify the measures that have already been taken to hold the disease in check. The other big problem is getting the people to go to the physician or to report to a treatment centre when the very earliest symptoms come upon them. Then more can be done toward cutting down the mortality resulting from cancer.
The other subject I shall discuss today, sir, is mental disease. Unfortunately in Canada there has been a very definite rise in the percentage of cases of this disease. Tuberculosis is now under control. There was a time when we spent a great deal of time in this house discussing tuberculosis. I may say that due to the advent of new methods of treatment and scientific measures, especially in the field of public health, this disease has been brought well under control. Our campaign now is to try to find these isolated cases, keep checking up on them, and eliminate the disease for all time.
In that regard, a great deal of work is being done in my own province-I am not conversant with the work in the other provinces'-in mass surveys. If 4,000 people in a town appear for X-ray and possibly three, four or five cases of incipient tuberculosis are found, even if that small proportion of the population is found suffering from this disease it makes the survey worthwhile because every one of those people is a carrier of the disease in so far as the rest of the population is concerned.
However, I was speaking of mental disease, and it continues to account for a high percentage of bed occupancy in hospitals. The provinces are spending large sums of money
Supply-Health and Welfare to provide accommodation for those who are afflicted. It is unfortunate that mental diseases for so long have produced so much suffering in the world. They have not, in general, received the same attention in the field of preventive medicine. In looking back over the history of mental disease one finds there was a time when this disease, through ignorance of the cause, was attributed to demons. Later there was a form of what might be called custodial care. The patients were shut up and their treatment was not what perhaps, in the light of present day standards, we would consider as anything less than cruel.
There may be varying causes for this increase in mental disease in Canada. Some place, somewhere, we must look for that cause and if there is a possibility of correcting it we should turn our attention to those corrective measures. We hear all sorts of reasons advanced as to why this is occurring. It may be the stress and strain of present day life. It may be that something is wrong with family relationships, or it might even be attributed to an increase in alcoholism. There is a cause for it some place. Statistics show there is a high percentage of bed occupancy in the hospitals of the country due to this disease. In fact there are as many people with mental disease occupying beds as there are with all the other bed-occupancy causes put together; that is, those who are suffering from acute diseases. The building of more hospitals will not entirely solve this problem. We also have to give up one other concept and that is the old concept of custodial care.
As far as mental disease cases are concerned, while the admission rate into hospitals does not compare with the rate for those who are admitted for medicine and surgery, it is the slowness of the recovery of those people that is a major cause of the hospitalization. But there is one bright spot, Mr. Chairman, and that is the number of cases that are being discharged as cured from those institutions. In view of that fact, I think we have made a great deal of progress along the line of dealing with the disease. The only thing now is to do something further. If we can correct the cause of this disease, if we can by treatment or prevention do something toward eliminating a great deal of this trouble that is afflicting people, then we shall be making quite a bit of progress.
If we take mental disease as an example, history has shown that interest in the treatment of the disease has always preceded interest in its prevention. Success has now been shown in the treatment and the outlook is brighter. As I said before, that brighter outlook can be seen from the large number

Supply-Health and Welfare of discharges of people after short-term treatment, and of people who were afflicted for longer periods.
What we require in dealing with this disease that seems to be uppermost in the concern of those who are working in the field of public health is hospitalization, of course, where it is required, and mental hygiene clinics and more trained personnel. If we are to carry on a successful campaign against the incidence of this disease we require more people who are trained both in the treatment and the nursing of this disease.
There is one other point I should like to make. I made an appeal to the minister concerning the question of coronary disease. When the estimates of the Department of Veterans Affairs were up I suggested to the minister that a study could be made of that older group among the returned veterans, especially of world war I and of world war II. I suggested that they could go through their hospital records and thereby derive certain information regarding the cause of coronary disease. If there is one group of people who were subjected to the strains and stresses it is the veterans of the first and second world wars.
The Minister of Veterans Affairs agreed to consider it. I suggest to the Minister of National Health and Welfare that this is one group with respect to which he could lend assistance in a study of the causes of this disease. This disease is becoming pretty common. You can hardly pick up a newspaper nowadays without noticing that some well-known man, possibly a man who had a great deal to contribute toward the building up of this country, has suddenly passed out from this disease. It is not just a disease of old age that is afflicting people who have a great deal to contribute. It is afflicting people at the age of 40, 45 or 50. You see very promising careers cut off suddenly by this disease. It is true that a fair number of them recover, but on the other hand they have to live within their limitations and possibly are not as active as they would have been if they had not suffered from the disease.
Unfortunately the whole picture in regard to the percentage of mortality cases is changing; coronary disease, listed of course with diseases of the heart, is coming up to the top of the list. If anything should be done it is research, research into the diet and into the way in which people live. There is a cause for this increase in the number of these cases. It is gratifying to know that last year an organization made its first appearance in Ottawa. It was a group of specialists


formed to consider this disease. There is a great field for them in this work. I was certainly glad to see that a beginning had been made among a body of men who are so well acquainted with the disease. I think it will do a great deal to stimulate research into the question, and it certainly should be to the advantage of the citizens of this country.
Another thing that seems to be bothering the health authorities is the incidence of cardio-vascular disease among our people. We commonly call it high blood pressure. Further study should be made of this disease and information should be derived from that research which would produce new procedures for the early detection of heart disease, and facilitate treatment and improve further the prognosis.
There are many subjects, sir, that should receive consideration by this committee. I have spoken of these two, mental disease and coronary disease, because of their increasing incidence. However, I wish to refer briefly to the importance of the benefits of research grants and fellowship programs. I know that a great deal has been done in this country, but I feel that the more research we can afford, the more money that is devoted to research by the department, the more will be done in that regard and it will pay for itself in time in relieving suffering and in cutting down the incidence of disease.
There are many fields in medicine which are left to be explored, so that any country such as ours needs an adequate force of skilled scientists and more information if we are to solve such health problems as cancer, mental disease, heart disease and even the common cold.
There is another matter that I should like to bring before the committee, namely the question of old people. It is true that we have lengthened the span of life. New discoveries, new methods of treatment have gone a long way toward lengthening the span of life, but there will come a time when something happens, and it seems to be cardiovascular disease or cancer, that will ultimately carry them off. If we can make life better for these people of advanced age by new methods of treatment we should do everything possible to devise those methods.
I am concerned about the care of those elderly people. It is difficult to find some place where they can go when they become ill, when they become chronic invalids. We talked the other night on a bill about nursing homes. It is true that nursing homes are helping in a great way to take care of many of those people, but on the other hand you will find them in the hospitals possibly suffering from some chronic disease without

hope of recovery. There is no place else to put them, and they are occupying beds which possibly could be put to use for acute cases, if there were some places in which those chronic cases could be properly attended. Hospitals seem to lack care for those suffering from chronic diseases, and especially those in the older groups.
There is another matter at which we should take a second look, and that is the legislation concerning old age pensions. Under present conditions I find people writing to me very often stating that they find it very difficult to get along on $40 a month. Sometimes I feel that some of those who are trying to get along on $40 a month are suffering from malnutrition.
So far as hospitals are concerned, there still remains a demand for beds. It is expensive to build hospitals even with the grants given by the federal and provincial governments. The question of the cost of hospital care still remains before us. To the individual who seeks a private room, a semi-private room or even ward care, hospitalization is a very expensive procedure; and not only that, but hospital boards throughout the country are continually trying to balance their ledgers and they find it extremely difficult to finance their institutions.
One other matter I will discuss at brief length is the question of the shortage of nurses. I do not believe the shortage is as extreme as it has been at previous times. The minister has always told us this is a provincial matter. It is perfectly true that the training of nurses comes within the jurisdiction of the provinces, but I think something further could be done by the federal government in view of the large number of nurses employed by that government. The federal government requires nurses for its veterans hospitals and for the institutions which come under the care of the minister. T.C.A. also require a large number of them. Because the federal government requires so many nurses for its various branches I feel that something could be done by this government by way of grants to assist some of the institutions which find it difficult to train nurses.
I have one other matter for the attention of the Minister of Finance. From time to time we have an application from someone who is importing some of the new drugs from the United States. There have been concessions made, and I was very glad when the matter of oxygen received consideration by the department. There are still drugs, however, which are available in the United States at a much lower price than that for which we can obtain them here in Canada. These drugs are continually used by physicians. If they
Supply-Health and Welfare accomplish something in the way of relief or cure I think we could very well do something to reduce the price of those drugs by bringing them into the country free of any duty or anything else which contributes toward making them more expensive for the patients who require them.
I have one other matter to discuss, and I realize it is not the concern of this committee in so far as legislation is concerned; that is the question of accident prevention. This matter has been before the house before. Last winter we were all alarmed at the tremendous number of children who were burned in fires throughout the whole of Canada and particularly in and near the city of Ottawa, where the matter was constantly brought to our attention. I do not know if there is any legislation regarding the electrical wiring of houses or fire prevention that would do something to cut down this high rate of mortality from burning, but if there is something that can be done we should do it. If nothing can be done in the way of legislation, would the minister put out pamphlets and advertisements and carry on a definite campaign concerning this matter?
Another aspect of the same subject is the question of highway accidents. I realize that to some extent this matter comes under the Criminal Code, but our rate of accidents in Canada is becoming simply ghastly, and in some way all governments must work together to stop this tremendous mortality rate on the highways of our country. I remember producing statistics in this house two years ago, I think, that revealed our bad record in this country compared with other countries in the world in the matter of highway fatalities. If anything can be done by consultation among the provincial governments or through legislation originating in this parliament, I suggest we should co-bperate with the other legislative bodies in doing everything we can to decrease the rate of mortality among children and adults who are burned in fires and the number of people killed as a result of highway accidents.
I may have other statements to make on particular items, and I shall defer any criticism or contributions I wish to make until that time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, we are now dealing with the estimates of one of the oldest departments of government in this country, and I am sure the minister will agree with me when I say we are dealing with the estimates of one of the most important departments of government. Indeed, he is favoured in having the responsibility of presiding over the affairs of the Department of National Health and Welfare.

Supply-Health and Welfare
As one who is sometimes known as a severe critic of the minister and the government for the snail's pace with which it deals with matters that come under the general heading of health and welfare, I want to say that we in this group are proud of the extent to which we have made some progress in this field in Canada.
It is now recognized-and this is a departure from the days when the British North America Act was framed and the word "health" was not even mentioned in it-that the health of the Canadian people is a social responsibility and therefore a responsibility of government. It has also been recognized by this parliament that economic security, particularly with respect to contingencies over which people have no control, such as old age, is also a responsibility of the legislative bodies of Canada. We have recognized that responsibility in a way of which we in this group are particularly proud; namely that we have established in Canada the principle of universality with respect to old age pensions, at least for those 70 years of age and over, and with respect to family allowances.
Nevertheless, Mr. Chairman, although we welcome the progress that has been made in Canada, we are extremely critical of the government and of the minister who presides over this department for what we feel to be an attitude that the job is done. It seems to me that what the minister and this government need to learn is a very simple truth that was brought home to Alice in Wonderland; namely, that there are times when you have to run as fast as you can just to keep up with where you are.
The minister and the government, particularly since old age pensions were put on the new basis represented in the Old Age Security Act and the Old Age Assistance Act, seem to feel that all of us on this side of the house and all the people in the country should from this point on just praise the government for what has been done. The government seems unable to realize that time is moving on and problems such as those facing our senior citizens, and problems in the field of health such as those which have been outlined so capably by my friend the hon. member for Lanark, require serious attention and action at a much faster pace than they are getting from this government.
In fact, Mr. Chairman, I want to suggest to the government in the words of a pamphlet which I have on my desk and to which I made reference in the committee on estimates, that the time has come for a new look in welfare. That phrase, "the new look in welfare", was the title of an address given


recently in Toronto by Professor John Morgan of the school of social work at the University of Toronto.
I indicated in the committee on estimates when we were dealing with these matters that Professor Morgan's thesis, if I do him justice by trying to boil down a lecture into two or three sentences, is that the time has come to realize that welfare is not just a matter of rescuing the underprivileged but rather it should be seen as a case of the mutual dependency of all individuals in our highly organized society. At one point in his lecture Professor Morgan referred to a phrase which is quite common, namely the welfare state, and suggested that it might be an improvement on that phraseology to speak of the "socially responsible state". I think hon. members will recognize what Professor Morgan has in mind in suggesting that change.
There is perhaps a tendency, at any rate on the part of some of those who talk of the welfare state, to think of programs of public welfare as programs for rescuing the underprivileged. Let it be said categorically that so' long as there is one underprivileged person in the country it is the job of society to try to rescue that person. But Professor Morgan makes the point that in our highly organized society there should be a recognition that there is a mutuality of responsibility and a situation of interdependence which can be more accurately apprehended under the title of a "socially responsible state".
It is that new look which I should like to urge upon the Minister of National Health and Welfare, upon the government, upon this parliament, and indeed upon the people of Canada who are interested in these problems. As I have already suggested, let us never fail in our responsibility toward the underprivileged, toward those in need, but at the same time let us recognize that we have a tremendous opportunity with the tremendous wealth that we are capable of producing in this modern age to organize our society on the basis of mutual interdependence in such a way that all members of the community, all members of society, may enjoy health and economic security.
Some of those who attack expenditures on health and social security seem still to have the notion that programs under these headings are simply programs to give something to certain individuals. We suggest that the proper approach to health and welfare programs in this day and age is to see in them a general or co-operative sharing of the wealth we are able to produce in such a way that all our people will have decent mini-mums of health care, decent minimums of

social security and be able to enjoy life to the full as we believe it is possible in this modern age.
Toward that end I urge upon the government, using again the words "new look", that it reconsider the whole question of our old age security. As I say, the Minister of National Health and Welfare seems to feel that because we are paying at the federal level pensions of $40 per month to all Canadians 70 years of age and over, that because we are paying at the federal level half the cost of pensions on a means test basis to those between the ages of 65 and 69 years, that is enough for the time being. I suggest that anyone who takes that approach is looking at welfare on the old basis, as a case of handing out money solely on the basis that there are underprivileged who are in need.
We contend that it should be the aim of our old age security program to share with the senior citizens in any generation the wealth which is being created at that time, the volume of which is due in part to what the senior citizens did in their working days to build up the country. You do not recognize that principle by the payment of only $40 per month at 70 years of age and only $40 a month between the ages of 65 and 69 years on a means test basis.
I shall perhaps have more to say on this when we reach the particular item in the estimates, but I want to lay it before the minister and before the government at this point, as one of the most important items to which attention should be given, that the time has come for a substantial increase in the amount of the old age pension and for the removal of the means test at age 65.
As everyone knows, we have witnessed in recent years a tremendous increase in our gross national product. It was something of the order of $16-4 billion in 1949, and I take that year because that is the year in which $40 was first set as the amount of the federal old age pension. The predictions are that this year it will be of the order of $28 billion. That is an increase of more than 70 per cent. Although from 1949 until the present we have witnessed an increase to the extent of 70 per cent in the gross national product of this country, we are still paying to our senior citizens the same amount of pension we paid in 1949. It is true that certain changes have been made in the meantime, in that the pension has been put on a universal basis and the age of eligibility has been changed, albeit with the means test; nevertheless the amount our older people get out of the federal treasury or as a result of federal legislation 67509-412
Supply-Health and Welfare is still the same as when our gross national product was considerably less than it is at the present time.
That is not in keeping with what I have referred to as the new look in welfare. That is not in keeping with Professor Morgan's phrase, "a socially responsible state". The greater wealth we are producing today is due in part to those who are working today, but it is due also in part to what our older people did in the decades gone by in helping to build up this country. It is our contention that these older people who have helped to make possible what we are enjoying today should be given, not just enough to maintain a bare existence but a proper share in that greater wealth.
Toward that end we suggest that the increase in the amount of the old age pension should bear some relation to the increase in our gross national product. Since the amount of the old age pension was set at $40 there has been a 70 per cent increase on the one hand and we suggest that that should be matched by an increase of similar proportions on the other hand. If you take that figure the pension should be increased to $68 per month. We suggest that certainly it should not be less today than $60 or $65 a month, and we urge that on the government as strongly as we can.
Some of us were disappointed a week or so ago when we seemed to have difficulty getting out of the government a clear-cut statement as to what was going on in the government's mind regarding an increase in the old age pension. When the question was asked as to whether the government was planning to increase the old age pension at this or the next session the answer was, "No." When the question was asked whether the government was considering the plight and needs of our senior citizens, the answer was, "Yes." So the newspapers are confused; so the people of Canada are confused.
The difference between consideration and planning may be a case of splitting hairs which makes it possible for the government to give one answer to one question and another answer to the other, but we suggest that no society, no economy, is capable of making any boast unless it provides a decent medium of security for its older citizens. We say to those on the treasury benches that if they think they have any right to claim another vote of confidence from the people of this country, before they go to the people they must present to them a decent, adequate increase in the old age pension. We say it should be raised without delay to not less than $60 or $65 a month.
I share with the hon. member for Lanark the satisfaction that the estimates of this

Supply-Health and Welfare department were referred to the committee on estimates where we did have a very good discussion. Nevertheless when we discussed this matter in the committee the minister suggested that the provinces had some responsibility in this field as well as whatever responsibility the federal government might take. It is our contention that if you try to pass to the provinces responsibility for anything beyond $40 a month to our old age pensioners you are getting away from the principle of universality which the Minister of National Health and Welfare is so pleased about so far as old age pensions are concerned.
The provinces simply do not have the resources to pay pensions to everyone without a means test. If you pass the buck to the provinces so far as any increase in the pension is concerned you are asking for a reinstatement of the means test, at least with respect to that part of the pension, and I am sure the minister agrees with me that after the long struggle it took to get rid of the means test we do not want to go back to it. Yet to suggest that any additional amount of pension should be paid by the provinces is to ask for a reinstatement of the means test. Incidentally, Mr. Chairman, that is one of the reasons I sought to speak about this the other day in the context of another matter. However, that debate is over.
But I say to the minister that he is not measuring up to his own responsibility in this field. He is not being consistent with his pleasure that the federal government has accepted the principle of universality. When that principle is endorsed in other countries the minister is always glad to note it. He is always pleased when in the United States or in some European countries bouquets are given to Canada for the fact that we pay a pension without a means test, but I say the minister is not being consistent with his satisfaction over that fact when he replies to us that the provinces should take over from the $40 figure in so far as any additional amount is concerned.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I lay that before the government on behalf of this group just as strongly as I can. I am conscious of the fact that I am laying this before the government not many months in advance of an occasion when the government will probably go to the people of the country. I say that if they are going to the people of Canada, to whom they owe their responsibility, before they do so they should indicate clearly what they are going to do in the important field of old age pensions.
As I indicated earlier in borrowing a few thoughts from Professor John Morgan, I feel that the idea of a new look in welfare also

calls for a new approach to the whole question of health care. We all listened with interest to the speech made a few minutes ago by the hon. member for Lanark, and I am sure he too would agree with this quotation, which is in line with some of the things he said. I quote from Professor Morgan:
It seems clear to me that the socially responsible state must necessarily recognize an overriding responsibility for insuring that as many people in the community get as much health care-notice I say health care and not disease cure-as can effectively be arranged.
If we are going to take a new look at the health of the nation, if we are going to recognize that this is a responsibility just as great as if not greater than some of the things we do under the heading of defence production, which we were talking about earlier, or under the heading of trade and commerce or under the heading of finance-and I suggest, and I think the Minister of National Health and Welfare will agree with me, that when we are talking about the health of the people of the country we are talking about something that is far more important than these other matters-we have to strike out much more boldly than the government has done up to the present time.
I am aware of the proposals made to the provinces by the federal government as a result of the meetings held in Ottawa in January of this year. As I said in the committee on estimates, we of this group welcome those proposals as a step in the right direction. To have them put into effect would certainly bring about a better situation than that existing at the present time. There are certain things that are good about those proposals. In any province in which they would come into effect the principle of universality of such hospital care as is provided would be established. A portion, though in our view not a sufficiently large portion, of the cost of hospital care is to be paid for, according to the proposals, out of the federal treasury, and to the extent that that amount is paid out of the federal treasury there is some recognition of the principle of paying according to ability to pay.
But, Mr. Chairman, in our view the proposals do not go far enough. In the first place they cover only hospital care and one or two other matters. They do not cover some of the major items of health care. The government's proposals are not set up on a basis that gives us the hope that within a reasonable time they will be extended to all the people of Canada from coast to coast, in whatever province they live. The sharing of the cost is not on a basis that puts enough of the cost on the federal treasury where costs are met according to ability to pay,

rather than according to the illness that people happen to suffer. There are also other shortcomings, such as the failure to provide coverage for people in mental institutions and others in similar categories.
Nevertheless we would like to see a start made. We regret that so far only three provinces have agreed to the plan whereas the government requires six representing a sufficient number of people to constitute a majority of the population of Canada. But we suggest that one of the reasons for the slowness on the part of the provinces is that the federal government has not measured up to its own responsibilities in this field, has not played a role consistent with the talking it has been doing in the field of health insurance for many years.
I am not going to go back again to that ancient year when the Liberal party first started talking about health insurance. Everyone knows what year it was. There are a number of members in the house now who were not even born when the Liberal party first advocated health insurance. But I would remind the minister, who is proud of the proposals that he has been in a position to make to the provinces this year, that some pretty striking publicity was given to moves made by this government some time ago. I hold in my hand a copy of the Ottawa Journal which is getting a bit yellow. The date is Tuesday, March 16, 1943; in other words it is over 13 years old. The main heading reads, "Billion Dollar Yearly Outlay Required for Post-War Social Security Plans". Look at the next heading: "Health Insurance Bills Provide Medical and Dental Care." Over in the right-hand column in the main story I find that it says:
A gigantic pooling of Canada's doctors' bills was proposed today by pensions minister Mackenzie in draft health insurance bills submitted at the first meeting of the special House of Commons committee on social security. Health insurance was presented as a concrete measure for study by the committee but the minister also submitted a report on a general plan for social security which would involve retirement pensions, revisions of the present old age pensions and unemployment insurance systems, children's allowances and funeral allowances, as well as health insurance.
Then spelling out what had been laid before parliament, here is another article on the front page under the heading "Still Have Choice of Doctor Under Health Insurance Plan". Then over here in another column I find the highlights of the proposals of that day, and this is a reference to the Marsh report which was laid before parliament at that time. There are eight or ten proposals set out and one of them is this:
Institute free medical care for all citizens.
67509-412J
Supply-Health and Welfare
I well remember when this paper came out. In fact I was so greatly interested in it that obviously I saved it so I would have it in future years to look back and remember that on that day the Ottawa Journal came out and told us the news, that health insurance was before us as a concrete measure just around the corner.
Mr. Chairman, the Ottawa Journal was not off the beam in what its columns said about draft bills, because at least one draft bill was prepared. I have a copy of it in my hand. The date at the top is April 26, 1944. It is marked "Draft Bill". It was actually tabled in the House of Commons in August of that year, but that is as far as the government went with it. The long title of the bill is as follows:
An act respecting health insurance, public health, the conservation of health and the prevention of disease.
Clause 1 reads as follows:
This act may be cited as the national health act.
It is a bill of some 43 pages, spelling out in detail the mechanics for setting up national health insurance. That was back in 1944. Incidentally, this particular bill was available to certain candidates in the 1945 election, as indeed there have been other items and documents through the years to show that the Liberals stand for health insurance. There is no doubt about that. The Liberals stand for health insurance and they have been standing for it for a long time. But they seem to have the opinion that by assuring the people that they stand for it, by promising them that something is going to be done, by making proposals to the provinces, the people will keep on putting them back here, counting on the government doing something about it.
We welcome the proposals the minister made to the provinces this year, despite their shortcomings about which I shall have something to say later. But my fear is this, and it is a fear that has been developing in the last two or three months as time has gone by with no more than three provinces agreeing. My fear is that the government has made these proposals requiring the concurrence of at least six provinces, including either Ontario or Quebec, hoping that the making of these proposals will do as a health insurance plank for another federal election.
I submit, Mr. Chairman-and I think the minister knows it-that he cannot face the people of Canada in another election unless something is done. I am sure the minister knows that in order to convince the people of Canada that something is going to be done, these proposals must be revised and improved to the point where they will be

Supply

Health and Welfare more acceptable to the provinces, so that the required six or more will come into the arrangement.
I plead with the minister and the government, as I did with respect to old age pensions, to face up to the seriousness of this problem. I care not whether our gross national product is $28 billion, $48 billion or $108 billion; I care not about the buildings, the highways or the other things that we may produce as marks of our great civilization. If we are not able to take care of the health of our people, on both a curative and preventive basis; if we are not able to make sure that our people get health care because they need it, whether or not they have the money with which to pay for it, just as we insist that every child gets an education regardless of the income of his parents, I say that our economy has nothing to boast about.
I urge that the minister and the government take a new look at these proposals, at this health insurance scheme which seems to have bogged down. I urge that following that new look some modifications and improvements be made so we might very soon have the enactment of this health insurance plank that has been promised across the years. I am indebted to Professor Morgan, as I have already said, for the phrase that I have used more or less as the theme of my remarks today, namely the need for a new look in welfare.
I call upon the government to take a new look at these two important problems of old age security and the health of our people, and to put into the solution of these problems enough will and determination and enough money to see to it that our people have decent security in their older years, and that all the people in this country have the health care they deserve.


Mr. McLeod:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to follow the two previous speakers in the request for greater and improved health services. I believe everyone in this house is quite sincere in asking that that situation be brought about. However, in so far as the last speaker is concerned, that is just about as far as he and I are in agreement. I certainly cannot agree with the method by which he wants that situation brought into effect.
I listened with a good deal of interest to the hon. member for Lanark, as I always do when he speaks on health matters. He speaks with sincerity, and of course he also speaks from professional knowledge that we as laymen do not possess. But in looking at this department we must realize that an extremely large amount of money is involved, namely over $70 million. Yet it is

not a matter of dollars and cents alone. In the committee on estimates this department received careful consideration, and I believe we worked co-operatively. I know the minister and the officials of his department co-operated to the fullest degree with us. Some 370 printed pages were devoted to the proceedings of this committee, and many of the matters were discussed at length. I therefore feel that it is unnecessary to go into them in any great detail today.
Health is a national problem, Mr. Chairman. I do not think anyone disputes that statement. So long as federal taxes constitute the lion's share of taxation in this country-
I believe about 72 per cent-a large measure of responsibility must rest on the shoulders of the national government. In saying that I am not saying I am in agreement with the method of taxation and with the need of having that procedure of health and welfare care followed. We must realize that it is policies such as that under which we are working, and we must govern ourselves accordingly. But as I say, national assistance is becoming more and more necessary. At the same time, however, we must have co-operation between the central or national government and the provinces.
I am glad to note that throughout the entire proceedings of our committee the minister of this department and every one of his officials expressed a keen desire to work with the provinces in a wide-open spirit of co-operation. So long as that spirit prevails there is not too much fear from central domination or central control.
I should like to refer in a general way to the national hospital assistance plan. However, I do not think I need to say any more than the few words which I said in committee. I realize that this, speaking of the national hospital plan, is an interim step and I do not believe we should look for perfection at this time. We are bound to find that there are some difficulties and we shall meet some problems that will have to be ironed out.
Now, there are possibly some problems within the framework of this proposed scheme, but I am confident that with the spirit of co-operation which the minister evidenced in his appearances before the committee there should not be too much difficulty along those lines. Some of us were disappointed that assistance was not provided for the care of mental cases. Of course I think that resulted more from the fact that we were not correctly informed. I understand that mental cases being cared for in hospitals will be treated as ordinary hospital patients, and a share of the cost

of looking after those patients will be provided. Of course those in institutions will not be a responsibility of the federal department.
Then we must realize, as was so well pointed out by the hon. member for Lanark, that the thinking of the medical profession today is directed more toward preventive medicine than to the cure or treatment of disease. Of course we cannot neglect treatment; we cannot let these people die without attention. But I believe that over a long period of years we will derive more benefit from every dollar that we can possibly channel into research work and into every known means of preventing disease. I was glad to see that there is a lot of money-I am not going to say it is enough- being contributed by this government along those lines. For instance, commencing in 1948-49 there have been grants from the national treasury for the care of crippled children totalling $129,676. There has been $2,208,016 given toward mental health.
The hon. member for Lanark mentioned the system of control and checking in connection with tuberculosis. We have practically eliminated that disease. There has been a contribution of $611,573 toward that. Then there is the very important field of public health research. " It is something that I should like to see expanded very widely. There has been a contribution of $2,415,016 toward that. Then for general public health the contribution amounted to $1,566,944. Child and maternal health is another very important field that has been given a lot of consideration. We have prenatal care and infant care today such as was not dreamed of, and I think the smaller death loss in infancy can be attributed in no small measure to advances in these two fields. So we have a total of $6,999,364, and that does not include a grant of $682,966 to the cancer control institute.
We are asking for larger grants, and of course that is human nature. We are never satisfied with what we are getting. However, there is no point in making grants, Mr. Chairman, unless the facilities are available to make use of these grants. We find in another table that of the total that has been allocated, $6,999,364, the total expenditure during that period was $5,775,271. I feel that every person in this house will agree that if the various departments of health in the provinces and the various research centres throughout Canada had the facilities to use the total amount of money which was allocated, they would certainly have used it and been crying for more. Here we see that there is over $1 million, almost a million and a quarter, of the amount that was
Supply-Health and Welfare made available which these various institutions were not able to use. Therefore I would certainly recommend that every effort be made to enlarge the facilities in this important field of research and preventive medicine. Then when we have got to the stage where we are able to use all the money which is made available, it is time for us to start hollering for more money.
Of course we realize that there are some steps being taken to increase the number of pupils who are taking advantage of professional training. The hon. member for Lanark mentioned mental illness, and perhaps the greatest shortage of trained technical and professional men and women is in that field. However, I am glad to see that steps are being taken to provide scholarships and financial assistance, as well as training centres, where these people can get the necessary instruction if they so desire.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I just want to say a few words about welfare. We have had quite a demand for the new look in welfare. I do not think any of us feel that our senior citizens and our disabled, no matter for what reason, are being properly cared for. Again I am going to put on the record a few words which I said in committee in dealing with this subject. "I know we will all agree it is a disgrace, in a country with the gross national product and the gross national income which we have, to expect people to live on $480 a year. It is just proof of the fact that the time has come when we have to take a new look at it and give further consideration to those who are dependent entirely on it."
I think those last words, Mr. Chairman will give you an idea of our thinking along those lines. We do not like the sound of that word "universality", and we do not like this system of transfer payments to everyone when they reach a certain age. On the other hand, we are firmly convinced that those who are unable to earn their own living whether it be through age, sickness or disability, must be provided for by society. And, of course, the only way in which that is done, or can be done, is through some sort of national scheme in co-operation-and again I stress the word "co-operation"-with the provinces.
Since I come from the province of British Columbia I am proud to say that our people in the categories I have just mentioned are cared for a little better than the national average, but we realize that even that is not good enough. I would make a special plea to the minister that the pensions across Canada for those unable to earn their own living, regardless of the cause, should be brought up to a standard which would allow

Supply-Health and Welfare them something that is in keeping with the productive capacity of this great country of Canada.
I would like to make a special plea for the blind in a word or two, in closing. This class of afflicted persons has special problems. Seeing-eye services are required. There are personal appliances that are available for them; there are appliances for use in their homes that are available to blind persons and I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that some provision should be made under which those blind people would be given a fund to purchase the many things which would make their way of life much easier and much brighter.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: 
George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, one thing I think we will all agree has become very clear during the last few years is that the $40 old age pension is inadequate to provide a livelihood for our older citizens. I think every hon. member is familiar with cases of older people who are experiencing real hardship today, and the increasing cost of living is making the situation grow worse as time goes on.
Since the pension was first introduced in 1950, its value in terms of the things it will buy has been steadily decreasing, with the result that today you must spend $45.70 to buy the same amount of food, clothing, heat, rent and the other necessities of life that you could buy for $40 when the pension was first introduced. That means, Mr. Chairman, that in terms of things it would buy in 1950 a $40 pension today is worth only $34.30. In another 10 years, at the present rate of inflation, the value of the pension will have been reduced still further until it is worth only $25.
In addition to the inadequacy of the pension as a means of support for people over 70 years of age, another very serious problem is that faced by workers who reach the age of 65 and are retired, and for whom no pension plan has been available to which they could contribute during their working years, and by which they could support themselves and their families when they are retired.
Some firms have pension plans but unfortunately the great majority do not, and when most workers are retired at 65, they have only the savings which they have been able to lay aside during their working years, after meeting the many obligations which families encounter from time to time. Often a lingering illness or serious accident has reduced those savings to a point where there is little left to live on after the breadwinner of the family has retired. I think we all agree it is obvious that some better method must be found for bridging the gap between 65 and 70 years of age, and for bringing our old age pension more into line with the needs of the great majority of the people who receive it.
The question is, of course, how can this desirable end best be accomplished? I believe, sir, that the social security system in operation in the United States offers a practical means of providing such a plan, and supplementing our basic $40 old age pension so that our people may look forward to their later years without fear of hunger, cold, or lack of the primary necessities of life.
Supply-Health and Welfare
For the past 20 years the United States has had in operation a contributory social security program which is paid for by contributions from employers, employees, and the self-employed. The way this plan operates has been very well outlined in an excellent pamphlet entitled "20 years of social security" issued by the United States department of health, education and welfare, social security administration, under code No. OASI-26-C, August, 1955.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Is my hon. friend aware that the United States is giving consideration to adopting our old age security plan?


George Harris Hees: Well, Mr. Chairman, after reading this pamphlet, I would be very surprised if they are. They might be using some features of our social security plan, but it seems to me the social security program outlined in this pamphlet is a very excellent one, and bears consideration. I know from talking to quite a number of workers in the United States that the plan is very popular with the people in that country.
Under this program, when a worker's earnings cease due to retirement at 65 years of age or later, monthly cash benefits are paid to the worker. If he dies, monthly cash benefits are paid to his survivors. Today nine out of ten people living in the United States who work for a living can look forward to receiving retirement benefits from the federal social security program, and nine out of ten mothers and children are assured of receiving monthly cash benefits upon the death of the breadwinner of the family.
When this program started 20 years ago, only those employed in commerce and industry were eligible to participate in it. However, in 1950 and 1954, amendments were passed by the United States congress which extended the coverage of this program to most self-employed people in business, on farms, and in certain professions, and also to hired farm workers and domestic workers as well.
By the end of 1954, the monthly average payment to a retired worker with no dependents was $56.50. To a retired aged couple it was $98.50. To aged widows it was $46; and to widowed mothers with two children it was $126. These figures are averages for all beneficiaries. Payments are higher for those who have more recently come on the rolls, and whose benefits are based on earnings from 1950 on. Among these, the average monthly benefit paid to a retired worker with no dependents is $76; an aged couple, $128; an aged widow, $65; and a young widow with two minor children, $180. There is also a lump sum paid to a worker's survivors, varying from $90 to $225, and obviously designed

Supply-Health and Welfare to pay funeral and other expenses that occur at the time a person dies.
I	think it is interesting to note that the year 1950, the time from which one can qualify for this latest series of payments I have mentioned, was the same year when our present old age pension plan came into operation, which pays $40 at 70 years of age, and provides no survivors' benefits.
Under the provisions of the 1954 amendment, a United States worker who meets certain work requirements may preserve his benefit rights during a prolonged period of total disability, by having his earning record frozen. When that record is frozen, the period during which he is disabled and receiving little or no earnings does not count in determining the amount of work required for payments, or in figuring the average monthly earnings from which the amount of the benefit is figured.
Money to pay for old age and survivors' insurance comes from social security contributions, paid by employees, employers, and the self-employed. These contributions are paid into a special trust fund which can only pay out benefits and the cost of administering the program. These contributions amount to
2	per cent for employers and employees, and
3	per cent for the self-employed, on earnings up to $4,200 a year. The cost of administering the program amounts to 2 per cent of total contributions.
I believe these figures give us an idea of the social security coverage which a United States workman receives in return for the payment of 2 per cent of his wages.
Let us now see what his Canadian counterpart pays and receives. First of all, the Canadian workman pays 2 per cent additional income tax, and an extra 2 per cent sales tax on practically everything he buys. In return he receives a pension limited to $40, for which he has to wait five years longer than his United States counterpart. If he should die, there are no survivor benefits whatsoever.
Thus we can see that the Canadian workman pays considerably more than his United States counterpart, and receives considerably less social security coverage in return. For these reasons, I submit that the United States social security program should be given very serious study by this government as a means of making available to Canadians, first of all, a contributory retirement pension at 65 years of age; second, survivors' benefits for dependents; and, third, adding sufficient to our old age pension so that our people can look forward to their later years with confidence and peace of mind.


Paul Joseph James Martin: There is a question I want to ask so that my hon. friend's statement may be complete, because I followed him with great interest. Is the hon. member suggesting that we should adopt the old age security program of the United States which, as my hon. friend knows, is based largely upon a means test except for certain items.


George Harris Hees: No, I did not say that; I said that I believed there were many features which were attractive, and which would prove useful in our Canadian social security system. I urged the government to give that program serious study to see what features could be incorporated into our social security system to provide our people with the same benefits enjoyed by United States citizens.
(Translation):


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Chairman-


Mr. Marlin:: Mr. Chairman, since the
spokesmen of the various parties have been heard on this item, I was going to suggest, if the hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Dufresne) will allow me, that it might be preferable to discuss the various items as they are called. I am merely making a suggestion to the hon. member and I do not insist.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Chairman, I wonder why the hon. minister is so eager in trying, by indirect means, to prevent hon. members from making suggestions.


Murdo William Martin: Such was certainly not my intention, Mr. Chairman. However, since the spokesmen of the various parties have been heard, I had thought that the questions which my hon. friend has in mind could perhaps be asked when we come to the various items such as old age pensions, health insurance, and so on. I have made that suggestion so as to save time, and without any ulterior motive, I can assure you.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Chairman, I accept the minister's statement and I merely wish to say this, since in three minutes it will be six o'clock and the house will have to rise.


An hon. Member:: There are four minutes left.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: The department whose
estimates are now before the house is, in my humble opinion, the most important of the federal administration-


Murdo William Martin: Hear, hear! I agree.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: It is the most important, perhaps not because it is headed by the hon. minister, but in my humble opinion, because it deals with our most precious asset

in Canada, our human resources. I believe it is of great importance that we take proper care of those human resources which form the basis of our society, of our progress and of everything from which stems every noble and great achievement in this Canada of ours.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to associate myself with the previous speakers who have taken the liberty of making suggestions to the hon. minister in connection with the social legislation administered by his department. I wish to mention not only old age pensions but I would also like to say a word about the disability pension and the pension for the blind. I will even say a few words about family allowances.
As far as the old age pension is concerned, I strongly believe that the department should without delay take the necessary and appropriate steps to grant all pensioners, that is people of 70 years of age and over, a pension a little more generous than the one they are now receiving, that is $40 per month. In my opinion, those pensioners can barely live on the amount they are now receiving, especially if we take into account the shameless squandering in certain departments, which has been denounced more than once in this house, and which I denounced myself during the preceding debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is six o'clock.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Chairman, may I call it six o'clock?
(Text) :
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
(Translation) ;
J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Chairman, I had just started to speak on the question of old age pensions when the committee took recess. So I will go on now with the few remarks I want to make regarding the men or women who get these $40 a month pensions.
How can any reasonable person believe that anyone, even if over 70, who has no other source of income can live a somewhat decent life on $40 a month.
This amount is surely inadequate if we consider that, on so little money, these people have to pay for all their housing, clothing and food expenses, and, as it happens quite frequently at their age, pay for medical care or for certain drugs that are absolutely necessary to maintain their health.
Supply-Health and Welfare
Everybody in this house knows what it costs for food and for the necessities of life. This is particularly true in the case of old people who refuse to enter religious institutions, preferring to live on their own income, in spite of the sacrifices they have to make.
Many old couples, after living long years together, cannot bring themselves to part, even if they realize that they are reaching the end of their days.
As to those who have already lost a life-mate, or who have never married and thus have nobody to offer them a home, they have to face reality and enter an institution or home for the aged where they spend the remainder of their lives.
While in the various religious institutions like those I have in my county, and the others that are found in my province, they receive what I would call a mother's care and attention from the devoted nuns who are responsible for them, the amount those old people receive is far from adequate.
More than anyone else, the hon. minister, who certainly is quite experienced in the field of hospitalization, knows very well that those institutions are faced monthly and annually with huge deficits which would lead them to bankruptcy, at least as far as my province is concerned-because I can only talk about things I know-if our provincial government did not help them out with generous yearly grants.
I wish to take this opportunity to pay a heartfelt and deserved tribute to all those dedicated souls, particularly in my county, who spend their lives trying to bring more happiness and serenity to those old men and women whose pilgrimage is about to end. May I particularly mention the nuns of the General hospital, those of the Hotel Dieu, of Sacred Heart hospital, and especially those of the Saint-Sauveur orphanage, in which I have always been deeply interested. Needless to say that 1 also pay that tribute to all similar institutions, without distinction, administered by religious orders, and they are quite numerous in my province and everywhere in Canada.
I therefore beg the hon. minister to spare no effort to convince his colleagues in the cabinet of the necessity of giving our older citizens, who, during their lives, have contributed so much through their work to the development and prosperity of our country, the consideration and reward we owe them.

Supply-Health and Welfare
Mr. Chairman, as far as the pension for the blind is concerned, I would like to restate, in somewhat different terms perhaps, what I said last year.
During the session of 1955, the hon. minister was kind enough to grant the numerous requests he had received and bring about some amendments as a result of which the pension for the blind is now paid at 18 instead of 21 years of age. I thanked him then and I do so again today.
However, Mr. Chairman, I am still wondering why those under 18 are excluded and why the pension is not paid to those unfortunate people as soon as they have been declared blind by a doctor. I cannot see any difference between a person who is blind from birth and one who becomes blind at 18 or some older age.
I point out to the hon. minister that on reaching age 16 a child no longer qualifies for family allowances. Yet, at that age, particularly if the child is blind, his education is most important, as the burden of ignorance should not be added to the misfortune of blindness. In my opinion, we must therefore give more serious thought to these sad cases which truly deserve our sympathy.
Let me suggest that, for those who are blind from birth or who become blind before age 16, the pension for the blind be substituted for the family allowances to which they are entitled.
Mr. Chairman, I leave those few remarks and suggestions to the consideration of the minister and the government.
Now, as regards pensions for disabled persons, I repeat the request I made at the last session that this social security legislation be made less rigid than it is now.
Last winter, on the occasion of a conference held here in Ottawa, the minister, officials of his department and medical authorities met and discussed all the aspects of that problem. I understand that all those present at that important conference realized the severity of the act and that, indeed, many of them suggested that it be amended so as to allow pensions to be paid to more people prevented by severe disability or sickness from earning a living. Even if an applicant can walk and eat unassisted it is by no means a proof that he is in a position to earn his living. Those people to whom a pension is refused in spite of their need become charges on the provincial governments and the municipalities. These not having adequate revenue
[Mr. Dufresne.l
are not always in a position to satisfy the enormous number of calls made upon them. Thence misery and desolation.
I therefore ask the government to bring to this piece of social legislation those amendments necessary in order, first of all to bring relief to the needy, and then to provincial and municipal governments.
After all, Mr. Chairman, the Liberal government in Ottawa should never forget that if it has been able to institute these various social security measures to which I have referred, it is because it has always had control of the main sources of revenue which belong to the provinces, of which they were deprived during the war and with which a large amount of political capital has been constituted since that time.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, there are family allowances.
We, on this side of the house, have been forever harping upon this matter and pointing out that family allowances are no longer adequate to serve the purpose for which they were instituted, and that an adjustment is long overdue. Let them be raised at least in proportion to the rise in the cost of living. In this way every large family, especially those of my constituency, will be entirely satisfied.
Mr. Chairman, we are informed by the press that, at the end of the fiscal year the government will reap a surplus exceeding $300 million.
If such a surplus is declared, it is because they have exacted from the people in taxes $300 million more than was needed for administrative purposes.
What comes from the people must, in my humble opinion, revert to the people. I have provided the Minister of National Health and Welfare with a splendid opportunity of building up for himself and his own party an excellent election platform. I say to him, take advantage of it right now. If the government with which he is associated waits until the very eve of a general election to make use of it, I fear that the Canadian people, who have already lost confidence in the present administration, will get rid of it at the first opportunity.


Mr. Habel:: And that's what you fear, is it not?


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Very much so.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: There is no danger.

(Text):


Mr. Enfield:: I want to take a tew minutes of the time of the committee to discuss what I feel is a very important expansion or proposed expansion of the functions of the Department of National Health and Welfare. I refer, of course, to the proposed national hospital insurance scheme.
I think I should take the opportunity to make it clear, at least to those in my constituency for whom I am concerned, that a rather difficult constitutional problem exists with regard to the implementation of a national hospital insurance scheme. I do not know whether the public generally realize that we have no constitutional authority to enter into the field, and that this is a matter that requires the co-operation, as has been said previously by the Minister of National Health and Welfare and by the Prime Minister, of at least a majority of the provinces.
I am particularly concerned here because I feel that the scheme can never be instituted unless my own province, Ontario, decides to take part in it. I think that proposition is generally accepted. We are a populous province. We are quite a rich province. In order to make a practical job of instituting such a scheme; in order to ensure that there will be sufficient participation in the scheme; and in order to make it at all financially practical to institute such a scheme I feel, and I think most hon. members will agree, it is necessary to have Ontario participate.
A procedure was adopted at the series of federal-provincial conferences in April of 1955 and October of 1955 whereby representations were made to the federal government by the provinces, and in turn discussions were carried on by the federal government with regard to several matters, among which was included this national health insurance program. I for one was rather optimistic after the conferences as to the future of our activities in this field. As I recall the conferences, particularly the October conference, the representatives of Ontario, led by the premier of that province, came forward with what I felt was a comprehensive suggestion for a national hospital scheme.
For the benefit of hon. members I should like to recall just a short excerpt from the representations he made to the conference.
I am quoting from page 24 of the proceedings of the federal-provincial conference, 1955, of October 3 last. The premier of Ontario made the following remarks:
It is beyond question that a comprehensive plan requires both federal and provincial participation. 67509-413J
Supply-Health and Welfare In its proposals of 1945, the federal government set its participation at 60 per cent. Thus, it is properly a federal-provincial matter, and it should be brought out into the open and placed before this conference for study and action. If this is not done, we can look forward to more misunderstanding and confusion. The federal government and the ten provinces will continue to move in different directions, creating a hodge-podge that no one will be able to disentangle; and a national health plan will never be achieved simply because of the impossibility of finding common ground upon which to act. A few years more and an integrated plan becomes an impossibility. It was with this in mind that Ontario asked that this matter be placed upon the agenda where it could be studied with a view to producing a sound, workable plan with which we could proceed.
Those were very positive and, I think, very sensible words.


An hon. Member:: Whose words were they?


Frank A. Enfield: They were the words of the premier of Ontario at the federal-provincial conference in October last. I am not going into the details of the plan proposed by the Prime Minister. They are all to be found in the proceedings. I was left with the impression that a great deal of consideration and study-and I think it is true-had been given to this problem by the province of Ontario.
Subsequently, as we all know, the Minister of National Health and Welfare of the federal government made a definite proposal to the conference for a health insurance plan limited to the field of hospital insurance. I think this was done in view of the fact that most of the representations of the provincial premiers and delegations indicated that some caution should be inserted into the proceedings, that the plan should be proceeded with in stages, that of course there were a great many matters to be considered such as the question of raising the money, the question of the cost of the scheme and so forth. Hence it was felt that the plan should be limited at this time to a hospital insurance scheme, and a concrete, positive, precise program was outlined by the federal government at the conference.
Subsequently the Ontario legislature met in the spring of 1956-that was in the spring of this year-and not too much was said about Ontario's participation in the proposed scheme. The legislature prorogued with no definite decision having been taken. As far as I know the problem was not given the aggressive, active consideration that one would have hoped it would be given by Ontario.
I realize that Ontario cannot enter into the scheme lightly. There arises the question of raising some millions of dollars at a time when expenses are running high, when there is a great deal of expansion of business activity in the province and when a great deal of capital expenditure is required. But

Supply-Health and Welfare in order to be fair with the rest of the provinces and with the federal government, I think the province of Ontario should at least have given to us and to the other provinces its evaluation of the scheme proposed by the federal government at the federal-provincial conference.
I am not saying they will not do this, but at this stage one begins to look at the situation with some anxiety. At one moment the province attends at Ottawa, led by its premier, and seems to be very keen indeed on a proposed health scheme. Then the legislature meets and there seems to be, to this date, in any event, a significant silence on the part of the province in regard to the scheme put forward. Hence I am getting anxious. The hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek said he was concerned about how we were going to collect the money for and pay the costs of the health scheme.


An hon. Member:: It was the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre.


Frank A. Enfield: I am sorry; I should have said the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He did not sound like a Liberal. I do not blame you for the error.


Frank A. Enfield: Thank you for correcting me. As I say, he expressed his thoughts with some concern and in my opinion neatly and concisely-and I think his point was well taken -about the collection of this money to pay for the scheme. What I am concerned about is this. I am getting anxious about whether or not any scheme at all is going to be introduced.
So, Mr. Chairman, having put these remarks on the record, I should like to point this out to the people. Unless we do hear this fall from the province of Ontario regarding their acceptance, rejection or other evaluation of this scheme, it does not appear to me as though we are going to be in a position to introduce legislation at the next session of this parliament which is, I think, what we had hoped, in order to institute a scheme of national hospital insurance that will be of benefit not to Ontario only but to the whole of Canada.


Mr. Cardiff:: Will the hon. member permit a question? Does he feel that Ontario should show the way and take the lead for the dominion?


Mr. Rowe:: They do in most things.


Frank A. Enfield: I certainly think there should be, as the premier of Ontario himself has said, co-operation between the two governments. He pointed out in no uncertain terms at the conference that it was a matter for

dominion-provincial co-operation. The conference took that line. There were suggestions made and there was a proposal put forward. The proposal was precise in its terms and it was given in detail. It left nothing to the imagination. It required only an answer. As I say, our concern is the lack of an answer.


Mr. Nicholson:: I am very glad the hon. member for York-Scarborough has taken part in the debate. Although the health experts from the three parties on this side of the house put on their very best effort this afternoon, the only contribution from the government side was the speech by the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre. We were disappointed that the minister and his parliamentary assistant remained in their places and gave first position to their new recruit.
There are rumours that there are cabinet changes to be made in the near future and that Saskatchewan is to have a new member in the cabinet. I hope the fact that the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre spoke on health will not mean that he will succeed the minister, if and when he accepts another important position. The contribution made by the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre certainly was not in keeping with the leadership the minister has given throughout Canada in the last number of years in the field of health. I will not say more about those remarks, except to emphasize again that I hope the fact that he was chosen to speak for the government this afternoon will not indicate that is the pattern we are to follow.
My colleague the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre dealt with two very important subjects that come under the supervision of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I want to confine my remarks chiefly to those two fields, too, and I shall not repeat any of the excellent material that was developed by my colleague. I think he established very clearly that the $40 per month that is available for our senior citizens in Canada just is not good enough when you consider the productive capacity of this country. We do not think the wealth of the country is a piece of pie that can be cut up and divided once and for all. We know the wealth of the country is created day by day by the labours of the men and women of this country applied to our natural resources. It can increase, and it is increasing. The fact that our gross national product has increased so tremendously in the past 10 years is a matter which should give most Canadians some pride; but the majority of people who have passed their three score years and ten are denied the right to share in that increased production.

I have a copy of "Age and Opportunity", an excellent study prepared by the welfare council of greater Winnipeg. They propose a monthly budget which I think most people will probably consider not too extravagant for a city like Winnipeg. They consider that a couple should have not $80 a month, but they should have each month $40 for rent; $60 for food; $20 for clothing; $4 for church; $6 for medical, insurance or care. Then they should have $10 for hobbies and membership-I suppose that would include newspapers-$9 for transportation; $10 for incidentals; $4 for laundry. This totals $167.
I feel that no member in this chamber can view with satisfaction the fact that such a large number of our fellow citizens are paid $80 when some of the ablest authorities in Winnipeg think they should have $167. They come up with a budget for the individual that is just half, $83.50 per month. They point out that two-thirds of the aged in greater Winnipeg are living on incomes that are marginal or less. No one can put any responsibility on the C.C.F. for the fact that two-thirds of the aged in greater Winnipeg are living on something that is marginal or less.
The pamphlet, "Fourteen days as an old age pensioner", describes life in Toronto the good. I suggest that the minister, who has been a friend of mine for many years since we were both private members and were not able to afford to stay in the Chateau, but shared quarters in a home in Ottawa which was not as expensive as the Chateau, should come along with me-


Murdo William Martin: We are getting very old.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: -and I would be glad to go along with the minister for two weeks so he could check on me and I could check on him, and we would try doing what this young reporter for the Toronto Star, William MacEachern, did. He describes in this way:
My existence for the next two weeks will depend on a one-burner hotplate, a frying pan, a teapot, $20 and my own resourcefulness.
Monday morning I move into an unheated stark, 2x4 cubicle on the edge of Toronto's slum empire, and for the next 14 days I will try to lead the life of an old-age pensioner. In my pocket will be $20-
May I invite the hon. member for York-Scarborough who is younger than we are to join us.
-the amount most pensioners receive over a two-week period; with this I will have to pay for my room, eat and entertain myself.
My room will cost me $5 a week, which means that I will have $10 to keep body and soul together for these two weeks.
Small and bare as my room is, it is by far the cheapest and by far the most acceptable of 39 places I visited in the city's so-called cheaper
Supply-Health and Welfare rooming house section. I also received 68 answers to an ad in the Star last weekend. In the ad I said I was a pensioner and wanted a light housekeeping room.
Only one-the one I eventually accepted-was under $6. Seventy-five per cent were over $10 and the rest were around $8.
At first I didn't give the callers any explanation but listened patiently while they extolled the virtues of their accommodations: ''Nice, clean room, fully furnished, quiet, in a nice section of town," and so on.
It's all over.
This morning at 10 o'clock-14 days, $19.98 and Ilf pounds after I began my ordeal as an old age pensioner-I walked out of my mothball mansion, out of the hotplate jungle, back into a world of satisfying meals, regular pay cheques and happy, fast-fleeting hours.
Behind me are two of the most memorable weeks of my life, two weeks spent slavishly worrying over little, petty, insignificant things-at least they seem petty and insignificant now but at the time they were the most important things in my life-trying to squeeze the last iota of purchasing power out of my dollars, quibbling over dimes and nickels and even pennies and scrounging and scrimping here, there and everywhere.	~
Gone are the niggardly, skinflint, pinchpenny days when a nickel for a newspaper was wanton extravagance, a dime for street car fare was out of the question, and a walk around town was an evening's entertainment.
Well, that is enough, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. Boisvert:: I would be willing to try.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I am sure the hon. member who has interrupted would be willing to try for two weeks, as this young reporter did.


Maurice Boisvert: I would be willing to do so.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: If the hon. member, the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the hon. member for York-Scarborough would be willing to try it, I am sure the four of us would come back here with a very different attitude from what we have now toward the people of Canada who are forced to live day after day, week after week, year after year on $40 a month.


Maurice Boisvert: How many million people are living under worse conditions?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I am aware of that; I am aware that in India, in China, in Burma and in a great many other countries people are having even worse times than our old age pensioners, but our old age pensioners are squeezed down to a niggardly $40 a month at a time when our corporation profits are higher than they have ever been in Canadian history.


Maurice Boisvert: Does the hon. member not think that those who are squeezing them down are-


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The hon. member can make his speech on old age pensions after I am through. My time is limited. I did not hear the question, Mr. Chairman. My time is limited and I want to-

Supply-Health and Welfare


An hon. Member:: Come back.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Yes, I shall be glad to come back when we reach the item, but I want to discuss the question of health as it affects the people of Canada. I was not surprised at the remarks made by the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, but no one in this day and age can establish the fact that good health is not a matter of national concern; the quality of the health services must not be measured by one's bank account.
Let me remind the committee that when war broke out we passed legislation that compelled the young people of this country to place their services at the disposal of Canada, and in due course we drafted mobilization regulations. I hold in my hand Hansard for November 11, 1941. At page 4427 the then minister of national war services, now Judge Thorson, placed before us a table showing the percentage of young Canadians of military age in the different categories in the different districts in Canada. Most people nowadays cannot quite realize, following those 10 years of depression, that 44-1 per cent of the young lads in the prime of life failed to get into category A. They were in other categories, B-l, B-2, C-l and C-2 and all down the line. Out of 209,298 called up there were 92,498 young Canadians rejected for military service in 1941 because they could not measure up to the standards that were thought desirable for military service at that time.
I realize that the regulations were changed later, and I also realize that there are many men who have disabilities which prevent them getting into A category who can do many other useful things. While I cannot prove it, I am sure that a great many of those 92,498 were rejected because they had been forced to live on relief budgets. In my area $5 a month, plus $1 per month per child, was the amount considered ample during those terrible 1930's. Therefore I submit, Mr. Chairman, that in wartime or in peacetime no nation can accept the situation that I have just described when such a large percentage are rejected for military service.
The hon. member across the way suggests that there are countries where conditions are worse than they are in Canada. That is quite right. I hold in my hand the book entitled, "The War On World Poverty" written by Harold Wilson. He gives some statistics for all the major countries of the world. These statistics are not right up to date; this book was written in 1953. Canadian figures are a little better at the moment. I think the figures for infant mortality can be accepted as a fair criteria of the general health of the people in the various countries. One

can see that Canada is in a much better position than Formosa, for example, which has an infant mortality rate of 125 for every 1,000 live births. Korea has 115; Burma, 203. Canada has a much better record, of course. Canada's rate at that time was 42-8; but let me tell the committee that the United States, New Zealand, Switzerland, Sweden, the United Kingdom, Denmark, Australia and Norway had much better records than Canada.


Hector Dupuis: What are their rates?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I shall be glad to give them. The rate for the United States is 31-1; New Zealand, 23-8; Switzerland, 34-3; Sweden, 23-2; the United Kingdom, 34-1; Denmark, 35-3; Australia, 23 [DOT] 3; and Norway, 29 [DOT] 6. There are a great many countries that have worse records than we have. I submit that our very rich country, with our broad spaces, with our trained personnel, cannot be proud of the fact that she is so far down the line in connection with such an important question as infant mortality.
The hon. member for York-Scarborough and the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre apparently are paving the way for some retreat in this important field of a national health insurance plan.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I can assure the hon. member with all the vigour at my command that the government is not in any way retreating, but is anxiously awaiting the replies of the provinces.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I am very glad to hear that statement. I wish the minister had made the statement before the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre spoke.


Murdo William Martin: My hon. friend has referred several times to the fact that I have not spoken. I felt that we would make more progress if we waited until we reached the item. There is an item for health insurance, and I will be prepared-


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Why did the minister not suggest that to the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre?


Murdo William Martin: I have already suggested it to several other hon. members, and I would be prepared to expand on our proposal and deal with some of the points that have been raised. It seems to me, if I can make a suggestion, that we have had a good general discussion, and I did think that was the right place and that I should give some leadership myself in that connection. That is the only reason. I am very anxious to discuss this particular question of the federal proposal on the matter of hospital insurance.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Well, Mr. Chairman, I am sure we are all very glad to hear the

minister any time he rises, but I want to assure him he is not closing me off at this point. I have here an interesting table which the minister presented to our committee. I think the hon. member for York-Scarborough should consult the proceedings of this committee. The information which has been compiled regarding the estimated cost of the proposed national hospital scheme is quite extensive, and I think they make the proposal so attractive that no province in Canada would stay out of this scheme.
The minister gave us figures for the provinces. I have not checked all of these. He also gave an estimate of what the people in the various provinces pay through Blue Cross and other non-profit plans and through private insurance companies. There is also an estimate of what people pay for hospital care in some 510 out of 855 general hospitals in Canada. This last figure is not complete, and the conclusions I am drawing are certainly on the conservative side.
This table points out, for example, that the province of Nova Scotia is now spending over $5-4 million, the municipalities are spending $1-5 million and the people in Nova Scotia are paying $1,085,000 under Blue Cross, $500,000 to private insurance companies and $1,585,000 to hospitals. This suggests that the amount that would have to be raised in Nova Scotia is only $2,400,000. They are already paying $3,304,000 for services which would not be nearly as complete.
The province of Quebec is now paying over $13 million and the municipalities $4-8 million. It is estimated that Quebec would have to raise $27,400,000. But when you add the other figures I mentioned for Quebec, they are now spending $28,323,000; so the province would actually be saving money if one considers what is being paid to Blue Cross, to private insurance companies and the sum the citizens are now paying to their hospitals.
In Ontario the amount to be raised is $36,100,000. They are paying to Blue Cross $24,273,000, to private companies $11,835,000 and to hospitals $27,894,000. The amount that is needed in Ontario is $36,100,000 and they are now paying for other services $64 million, so I do not see how Ontario can possibly stay out of the scheme.
Concerning the province of Manitoba, I note that the people in that province are already paying $1,400,000 for hospital care. Municipalities are paying $2,200,000 and under Blue Cross over $3 million is being spent. Altogether they are paying $7,800,000 in Manitoba. All that would have to be raised in Manitoba would be $5,700,000. As you go across Canada province by province and
Supply-Health and Welfare take into account what is being paid to Blue Cross and insurance companies and to regular hospitals you find that the people in the provinces would be better off if their provinces reached an agreement with the federal government and the scheme was set up.
I want to say that while the proposal is a step in the right direction I feel this committee must not let the minister get away with his proposal to bar from the scheme over half the sick people in Canada, those who are suffering from tuberculosis and mental illnesses. I received an answer to a question on March 12 of this year. My question was as follows:
For the last year for which statistics are available of the number of patient days spent in Canadian hospitals, how many and what percentage were in the following: (a) mental hospitals; (b) psychiatric wards in hospitals; (c) T.B. hospitals; (d) public hospitals:	(e) federal hospitals; (f)
private hospitals?
The two groups the minister is barring in the mental and tuberculosis hospitals represent only 50 per cent of the sick population of this country who are ill every day of the year. They are to be barred from the benefits of this legislation.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Is my hon. friend aware that that is not a completely accurate statement?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Well, the minister can correct it. This was an answer that was brought down by the Department of Trade and Commerce, and these are the figures of the dominion bureau of statistics which were given to me. On the same day I had another question which read as follows:
For 1943 and 1953, what was the estimated cost per patient per day in the following hospitals: (a) mental; (b) T.B.; (c) public?
If you go back to 1943 you will find that we were spending in Canada 98 cents per person per day for the mentally ill. There has been an improvement, and we are now spending $2.70 per patient per day. Concerning people suffering from tuberculosis, in 1943 we were spending $2.76 per person per day. That is now increased to $6.29. In our public hospitals for people who are going to be in for just a few days and then released we are now spending $10.77 a day compared with $4.08 in 1943.
I think the minister must not be allowed to get away with his proposal to bar over half the sick people in Canada from the superior benefits which will be provided as soon as a national hospital plan comes into existence. When we are spending only $2.70 per person per day for the mentally ill, $6.29 per person per day for people in tuberculosis hospitals and $10.70 per person per day for
6516	HOUSE OF
Supply-Health and Welfare people in our public hospitals I think a great injustice is being done to over halt of our sick population.
I can think of no good reason for the minister to exclude this large group except that people would demand and expect to have better care under a national hospital insurance program. Before the minister can expect to have an agreement from the provinces in connection with this important development I think he must be prepared to recommend that the benefits which he proposes to extend to the provinces to provide care for the sick should be available to all the sick. Surely we are not going to have one law for people in one type of hospital and a different law for people in another type of hospital.
I think the minister must also make more progress than he is making with a view to providing a complete medical health program for all the people in Canada. I mentioned earlier the serious problem which confronted us when war broke out. I might mention now that one of the problems which is having a very disturbing effect on our economy is the problem we have been discussing in the last few days in connection with the bill of the Minister of Finance.
I have before me a survey of physicians in Canada dated June, 1954. We find that while in Canada as a whole we have one doctor for every 971 people, in British Columbia there is one doctor for every 777 and in Newfoundland one doctor for every 2,117 people. It is possible that the people in Newfoundland are healthier than those in British Columbia, but I think the reason is that it is possible for a doctor to make a better living doing less work in a more congenial climate in British Columbia. Ontario is the only other province where the ratio is less than 1,000 people for every doctor. When disease hits the country the people living in Newfoundland are subject to plagues just as much as people living in any other part of the country. The training of doctors is now very costly, and when they graduate they are permitted to go to any part of the country or even to other countries. Therefore I submit that a complete program providing the very best health services for all the people of Canada should be accepted as a national responsibility.
The minister has put out another interesting booklet which I shall not discuss, but which I suggest hon. members should order from the very efficient research division of the department. This deals with selected public hospital and medical plans in Canada. I note that it has been necessary to draw on the province of Saskatchewan for a good deal of information.


Mr. Stuart (Charlotte):: Is it not true that shortly after the provincial election the hospital rates for the citizens of Saskatchewan were increased by the provincial government?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I believe that is true.


An hon. Member:: That has happened after every election.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I tell you frankly that that is one of our problems. If I were permitted to discuss the question which we were dealing with for the last few weeks I would mention that we have suffered real disabilities in Saskatchewan because we have had to pay a tremendous tribute as a result of tariff policies throughout the years. Corporations with head offices in Ontario and Quebec which have drained the maritimes have also drained Saskatchewan and we have had to finance a first class hospital program with the resources available in our own province. There was no way we could do it without passing the cost on to our people.


William Alfred Robinson: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but I must advise him that his time has expired.


John Horne Blackmore: Is it not the result of the scandalously increased prices which have been permitted in this country from 1946 on? That does not sound so good.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just spoken has made some statements which in view of the importance of the subject I am afraid should not go without some explanation or some challenge. I was hoping that we could discuss this matter on the particular item. I would not want to preclude anyone, nor do I want to take advantage of anyone, but I feel that the statements the hon. member has made should be dealt with, and perhaps this is the most convenient time to deal with them though I would have preferred to wait until we get to the item.
This is the first time I have discussed in the house the proposal put forward by the Prime Minister last January on behalf of the government, at a time when I was discussing the same proposal at a meeting of all the provincial ministers of health, the provincial treasurers and representatives of our own Department of Finance in an adjoining room in this building.
That proposal is recognized by all in this house as one of the most important to have been made by the federal government in this field. It is a proposal which has been widely commented on from all sides of the house. The hon. gentleman who has just spoken referred to it in eulogistic terms, as did the

hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, particularly when he was speaking in the committee on estimates. His enthusiasm in this house has not been as generous or as vigorous as it was some months ago, but I can only conclude that that is because he has some other preoccupation in his mind.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is because several months have gone by and you are not getting along very well.


Paul Joseph James Martin: On March 21 the hon. member did say in the committee on estimates, as reported on page 18 of the proceedings:
-we, of the C.C.F. group in parliament, are pleased that this step in the field of national health insurance is being taken-
And then at page 21:
The minister knows that we will support him 100 per cent against any opposition he may have to this plan-
Then at page 145:
I am glad to see this program coming into effect.
And again on the same page:
-in this commendable step which I am glad he is taking and which I support-
Then at page 178:
Is there not some way in which this committee could express its approval of the proposals made by the government to the provinces

I do not think I am being unfair to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre when I say that represented then, as I am sure it does now, his acceptance of this plan. The background of this proposal lies in the fact that in May 1948 the federal government embarked upon a large program of grants in aid away and beyond the proposals made in 1945 in the matter of what has been properly characterized as a package deal covering a wide front of government activity both federal and provincial. When the prime minister of that day announced that program he said it was a prerequisite to the kind of proposal which we are now discussing.
As the hon. member for York-Scarborough pointed out, last fall the premier of Ontario felt that the time had come when the provinces should give expression to this subject and when in a spirit of co-operation between the two levels of government some definite move in this particular field should be begun. It was as a result of that and the suggestions made by other premiers that it was decided to hold a conference apart from the fiscal conference which was then in session, to see if the responsible ministers with their colleagues in treasury could not meet and generally discuss this whole problem. We had a long conference, lasting a week, the
Supply-Health and Welfare longest dominion-provincial conference I think in history, last January when this whole matter was discussed.
The federal government took the position that we were not going to impose our views on any province. After a number of years in this portfolio I am satisfied that notwithstanding what may be the view of individual members, the only way to make progress in this field is by trying to understand the problems and responsibilities of the different levels of government and in that spirit to try to see if agreement cannot be reached.
I am sure that as a result of that view we have made great progress in the health field in this country between all the provinces without exception and the federal government. I am satisfied that if we are going to make further progress in this field that is the spirit which must animate those who have to do with any level of government. That certainly is the attitude I have taken and that I am taking tonight.
With that in mind, on behalf of the federal government I said that we had our view as to what the next step should be but we were not going to impose our view, and we would like to have the provinces tell us what they thought were the steps that should be taken, if any steps could be taken in so far as the provinces were concerned. I indicated that we were prepared now to give technical and financial support to schemes put forward by the provinces on the basis of roughly 50 per cent federal contribution and roughly 50 per cent provincial contribution, based upon 25 per cent of the national per capita cost and 25 per cent of the provincial per capita cost.
This formula would yield to the maritime provinces in particular greater proportions from the federal treasury than would be the case with certain of the western provinces, notably British Columbia and Saskatchewan, both of which provinces, by the way, through their appropriate ministers said that our formula was fair and, in the words of the provincial treasurer for Saskatchewan, that we had put forward at long last a scheme which he thought was calculated to encourage interest on the part of the provinces and which was fair to all the provinces.
The provinces then put forward unanimously, without any exception, the view that we should proceed on a stage basis, and no province insisted that we should go further than we have in the proposal before us, and that included every province without exception. The province of British Columbia did say that they would prefer a wider scheme; but they recognized that at the present time, as this situation depended on the co-operation

Supply-Health and Welfare of all provinces and the federal government, it would be impractical to try to impose upon certain provinces financial obligations which they were not prepared to assume or which they thought they could not bear. Therefore no one should suggest that the limited aspect of the program is the product of any one government, because that it not the case, as the records of the conferences would show.
The provinces suggested, and with this we agree, that the next steps in this matter should be in the fields of laboratory and radiological diagnostic services and hospital insurance. It is true that at the conference that was held in the winter the premier of Ontario proposed for study some six different stages and phases of health services which he thought should receive the embrace of the federal and provincial governments, but at that conference his spokesman joined with the other provinces in saying that they did not want at this time to deal with any other aspects than the two I have mentioned, radiological and laboratory diagnostic services and hospital insurance.
We have put forward this proposal based upon the formula that it can become effective if six provinces, representing a majority of the people of Canada, express their concurrence; and I have indicated that just as quickly as that concurrence is expressed no delay will be forthcoming legislatively on the part of the federal government. I have taken advantage of the interval between the conference in January and the present time to discuss this situation informally with certain provinces in the hope of helping them to arrive at a decision at the earliest possible date. Not very long ago I discussed this matter with the premier of Ontario. I think I can say, and I think this is the way in which I should express myself in a matter involving co-operation, that we had a useful conversation, a helpful conversation, a constructive one, the kind of co-operation, the kind of discussion which I believe is calculated to achieve results. I remain hopeful that as a result of these discussions there will not be undue delay.
I recognize, as the hon. member for York-Scarborough has said, that this is an important matter, a matter that will cost the federal government in the first year a minimum of $182 million with a total national expenditure of almost $400 million, a matter that quite properly should be considered with care by every government concerned. The province of Ontario has established now a hospital commission with a very eminent hospital administrator, Mr. Swanson, as chairman. While its existence is not predicated 
upon the necessary acceptance of this proposal, it would seem to me that the implications in the announcement of the commission are clear that the commission would not have been established if the government of Ontario was not giving sympathetic and serious consideration to the proposal which the federal government has made in this field.
The federal government will have to decide through its Minister of Finance, speaking on behalf of the government in terms of what the budgetary policy in this particular will be, but I can say that under no circumstances is it the intention of the federal government in any way to impose any condition on any province as to how it has to raise its portion of the sharing plan. The hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre expressed the hope, if I understood him rightly, that we would see to it that this would be on a contributory basis, and that we would see to it that the provinces embarked upon schemes with that principle in mind. I can only say that as far as the federal government is concerned we have indicated to the provinces that we attach no conditions as to how they raise their share of the program; and that was stated by the Prime Minister, I think, at the full conference as well.
I may express the view that contributions, as they have them in one province, are perhaps a more difficult way of realizing the program; but that would be a personal view. In the province of British Columbia they now take the money out of the consolidated revenue fund and I think the scheme there, in spite of the difficulties that attended it at first, is now working admirably. Let there be no mistake about this. The federal government is not dragging its feet on this matter, as was suggested by the hon. member for Mackenzie, and he knows better than that. I take it that was a slip of the tongue.
He knows we have put forward a proposal that was arrived at after careful consideration, a proposal that in our judgment, would have great benefits for the people of this country, a proposal which depends for its realization on acceptance by the required number of provinces. We have had three provinces, British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan, who after an interval, that interval being some months in the case of Alberta and Saskatchewan, have acceded to the proposal.
The hon. gentleman has referred to the table I placed before the committee on estimates, which shows the relative responsibilities of the various jurisdictions in so far as the net cost to governments of this proposal is concerned. I do not propose to go into those details now. We can do that if

necessary when we reach the item. But there is something I do want to say, and it is one of the main reasons I rose to my feet at this time. I did not want it to go out to the country that this proposal was giving preference to one group of sick people as opposed to another. The hon. member for Mackenzie said that we were excluding mental patients and tuberculosis patients. That is the same argument he made in the committee on estimates. Notwithstanding my answers he persists in making that statement.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Has the policy been
changed?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The fact is this. In every province of Canada but one the total cost of mental health care and of tuberculosis care is borne out of provincial revenues. It is not borne by the individual patient himself. The only exception to that, in terms of the provinces, is the province of Ontario. There the burden is over 90 per cent; that is the burden borne by the province, not by the individual patient. In other words, patients who are suffering from mental illness in the province of Ontario, to the extent of over 90 per cent, receive medical care and treatment for that illness at the expense of all of the taxpayers of the province. The individual does not pay for these services. That is the case in every other province, only to a larger extent. This is not a scheme to subsidize provincial governments-


Mr. Campbell:: Is the minister not wrong?
Saskatchewan does that.


Murdo William Martin: Yes. I said every province except Ontario; and there it is 90 per cent.


Mr. Zaplilny:: Has the minister checked in respect of Manitoba? I think he was wrong about that.


Murdo William Martin: No; they told us the same thing at the conference.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: If the minister checks, I think he will find that he is wrong.


Murdo William Martin: They gave us this information at the conference; that is the information I have given to you.
The point I am trying to make is this. This is a proposal for hospital insurance to assist the individual in meeting his costs of hospital care. It is not a proposal put forward to relieve the provincial governments of responsibilities which normally they have accepted and which they continue to accept. It is a proposal made to assist individuals in meeting the cost of hospital care. Any individual who is suffering from tuberculosis or from mental illness and who is receiving treatment in a general hospital is included
Supply-Health and Welfare in the scheme; and he should be included in that scheme because in those cases the individual is called upon to bear the hospital cost himself, not the province. The province does not give assistance in those cases. That kind of individual should be embraced by this proposal.
So the statement that has been made by the hon. gentleman is not a fair one. I am not criticizing the hon. gentleman unduly. I just think that in a matter of this importance he would want to join me in making sure that what I have said is correct. To show that the position we are taking is a proper one may I say this. No hon. gentleman can point to any jurisdiction in any country in the world, except in the case of the United Kingdom, where tuberculosis and mental patients are covered by the hospital insurance scheme. The reason they are covered in Britain is that the hospitals there now belong entirely to the state. In Canada I do not think anyone seriously proposes that the title to our hospitals should be transferred from religious or private bodies to the state, either in the name of the federal government or of the provincial government.
In any event, this government does not propose to enter into any scheme whereby we would take over the ownership of hospitals. There is not one jurisdiction in the world, including the province of Saskatchewan and the province of British Columbia, where the cost of tuberculosis and mental care is covered by the hospital insurance program. In the province of Saskatchewan there is a separate account. The cost of mental illness and the cost of tuberculosis care in that province, in British Columbia and in Alberta, is borne by the province out of the consolidated fund. It is not covered by the hospital insurance scheme.
In asking that we should do something the provinces themselves do not do, or do something that no other jurisdiction in this field does, my hon. friend is simply asking us to use a device to give further grants not to individuals but to the provincial governments themselves. I can tell my hon. friend this. Whatever he may think about us on this side, that is assuming a measure of naivete which I do not think even an active critic like the hon. member could possibly justify, and so we are not going to do what he urges. But let me make it clear that individuals who bear the cost of mental illness care and of tuberculosis care and who are in general hospitals will be embraced by this scheme.
I do not intend at this stage, Mr. Chairman, to deal with the other points that were brought up except to say to my friend the
6520	HOUSE OF
Supply-Health and Welfare hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that he may find it convenient to make all these proposals involving considerable sums of money. However, I should like to tell him this. We believe this proposal is a good one and I know he thinks so too. We should like to see it realized. One way to stop it from being realized would be to saddle the people with a burden which at this time I do not believe, on my responsibility as a minister of the crown, X should like to say they could bear.
For instance, he has proposed that we should have an enlargement of our old age security plan. I have calculated that the proposal he has made would cost another $621 million, which would mean that we would be spending on old age security at this time, if that proposal were accepted, more than is spent now in this entire department. He is asking us to spend in this one particular field twice as much money as the federal government spent on its entire account in 1938. If one were to accept hi# proposal now-which by the way does not take into account supplementary payments in British Columbia, in Saskatchewan and in Alberta-I am sure we would not have any hospital insurance scheme. If my hon. friend really believes in hospital insurance, as I believe he does, though I sometimes question the effectiveness of the methods by which he seeks to realize his objective, if he wants to stop this hospital insurance program all he has to do is to go on making extravagant demands that he knows or must know cannot possibly be met.
I say that to him. As anxious as he is, as am I and as is the government to see these things done, I ask him to realize the effect of some of his proposals. Does he think for one moment that it would be possible to persuade the people of Canada to increase appropriations in this one field by $600 million and at the same time go forward and realize the various schemes of health insurance that he has been talking about and that we have been talking about and with regard to which we are now proposing that something be done? When we come to this particular item-I hope he does not do it now, in order that we may get on with the business-no doubt my hon. friend will deal with the matter.
I simply want to conclude what I have to say by saying to the hon. member for Lanark that I thought he made an admirable statement today. I have always felt that the hon. member for Lanark makes a constructive speech on this particular subject, and I thought his speech today was of a high order. I can only say to him that the


matters he covered are engaging our attention. As he knows, many of the subjects referred to by him are subjects that come within the primary competence of the provincial governments. However, under the grants in aid program we are able to give great assistance to the provinces in these matters.
Finally I would simply say this with regard to the hospital proposal, the government has made this proposal one that has no strings attached to it except that the plan should be universally applied, that it should not be given to one class and not to another. That is the only condition we have put forward. I am hoping this, and I am not saying it in a narrow political sense, because I know what are the responsibilities of the provinces. I can only say in the name of the federal government that we are hoping the provincial governments will be able to give their acceptance to this proposal as quickly as possible.


William Scottie Bryce: I have one or two matters I should like to bring before the minister, Mr. Chairman. I should like to bring all of them before him at the one time, because in that way I will save your time, I will save my own time and I will save the time of the committee.
The first matter is the one which has just been discussed by the minister, the T.B. patients. I am not going into the problem of who pays for them. I know the province does that. We have built the finest hospitals in Canada, we take these people in and restore them to good health. After they have been in there two years, the doctor looks them over and says, "Now, you are getting on well and you can go home." He says, "Get a light job". Are there any light jobs for such people? I think all the jobs available are heavy jobs.
Then if an Indian who has T.B. comes down to Winnipeg or Selkirk he goes into the hospital for a year or two. When it is time for him to go home he is told to get a light job. He does not do anything, because there are no light jobs. He has to eat, so he goes to the Indian agent, and what does the doctor tell him? He tells him to live on a light diet and here is what the Indian agent gives him: 38 pounds of flour; five pounds of lard; one and a half pounds of tea; four pounds of sugar; a box of matches; two and a half pounds of baking powder; five pounds of beans; two pounds of cheese; seven pounds of salt bacon-that is not the kind of bacon we get on our breakfast table, that is sow belly-five pounds of rice; two and a half pounds of. table salt.

Here is a man who has been in the hospital for two years, and they give him that sort of diet on which to live. This can be remedied. A doctor can issue an order so he will get more nourishing food. There is no milk included in this diet, and I believe a sick man should get milk. However, I leave that to the doctors to decide. There should be some law by means of which these people would be taken care of in that period, because we make them better in these hospitals that cost a lot of money and then they are back again six months after we let them out, perhaps as bad as ever. I say, don't waste money in that way.
Now, you know, you have a very fine hospital at Norway House, but you cannot get service there because there is the break-up and the freeze-up.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would my hon. friend think I was unfair if I suggested that when we come to the item on Indians we could deal with this particular question? My hon. friend is obviously interested in Indian health, and would he not think that when we come to these various items he could then ask his questions and I could give him answers? We are now on the first item, the general debate.


William Scottie Bryce: I have no need for any answers, I am just going to tell you what can be done. I want you to hear me because I do not bother you very much. You are not listening to a word I am saying now. I want the minister to listen, Mr. Chairman; that is what I come here for, to tell him these things.
You can get double the good out of that hospital at Norway House by building a road. You will say to me, just as you say to everybody else, that is going to cost a lot of money. There are enough Indian prisoners up there to build the road, and they will be glad to get jobs. If you build a road around to the new hospital you will be able to use it at least Hi months of the year, whereas now you cannot get into or out of the hospital for six weeks. I should like the minister to take that up with his officials when he gets time.
What is the responsibility of the federal government in connection with retarded school children? Will the minister write and tell me?


Murdo William Martin: Is my hon. friend asking me a question?


William Scottie Bryce: Yes.


Murdo William Martin: That is the very difficulty I spoke to my hon. friend about. Can he wait until we get to that item?
Supply-Health and Welfare


William Scottie Bryce: The minister will let me know about that? I know the provincial government is still adding schools to take care of these children, but there do not seem to be enough. I wondered if the federal government contributed any money?


Murdo William Martin: I shall be glad to deal with it.


William Scottie Bryce: Then there is the matter I took up last year, that I thought the panels that were employed across the dominion in connection with the Disabled Persons Act were not uniform. I can prove that to you; they are not uniform in the various provinces.
I think it would be a good idea to get the panels together and agree on a standard; then we will not find people saying that one province is doing better than another.


Mr. Philpoli:: I have a few remarks to make of a general nature. First, let me say I was going to bring up the matter of old age pensions, but in view of what the minister has said I shall reserve my comments on that until we get to the item. Let me say I have no intention of unduly holding up the minister, because I know he has two very big jobs on his hands. One of his jobs is this department, which I consider is probably the most important department in the entire government. Then he has been picked by Canada, because he is Canada's ace peacemaker, to deal with the Russians in regard to disarmament. I personally believe that we will never have a really substantial increase in the old age pensions, family allowances and so on, until we do make a very drastic reduction in our expenditures on armaments. We cannot make a drastic and worth-while reduction in armaments unless we have a world agreement on disarmament. So I say everybody who really wants a better welfare set-up in Canada should do everything possible to send down to New York again our ace peacemaker, the present Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Now, in my opinion, and I have given a great deal of study to this as well as visiting a good many of the countries myself, Canada has the best balanced welfare system of any country, at least in our part of the world. I regard the proposal for the first stage of the national health insurance scheme as the most important proposal that has been made, even by this government all down through its long record of achievement in the welfare field.
Tonight during the supper hour I was reading some of the history of the introduction of family allowances into this house. I am glad I did take the time to read it, because I found that I was doing a great injustice in my own mind to the Conservatives.
6522	HOUSE OF
Supply-Health and Welfare
I had always thought all the Conservatives had opposed family allowances right down to the time of the vote, but when I read Hansard for 1943 and 1944 I found that all but one of the Conservatives in this house at that time did vote for family allowances. While it is true that one of the very ardent Conservatives from Toronto was temporarily suspended from the house because of the ardour of his opposition to family allowances, that was the beginning of the agreement of the whole party, because the whole party except one did vote for family allowances on that particular day.


An hon. Member:: That was not the reason the hon. member was suspended.


Elmore Philpott: I am glad to say that down through the years there has been manifested from time to time by all those in this house an appreciation of what national health insurance would mean for this country. For instance, last year I think we all received a great thrill, certainly I did, when the man temporarily leading the opposition, the veteran member for Dufferin-Simcoe, surprised us all by coming out for health insurance at the tail end of his speech in the debate on the speech from the throne. When I look back in Hansard, as I did in my search today, I see that the present acting leader of the opposition, my colleague the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, asked this question at page 5472 of Hansard of 1944, volume VI:
Then, what about health insurance? We were led to believe last year that a health insurance measure was shortly to be placed upon the statute books of Canada. Well, a committee was set up, and a draft health insurance bill was placed before it; not even having the endorsement of the government, but simply presented by a department of the government. That bill was considered all last session, and this year we have had the same procedure. Another bill has been thrown to that special committee-known as the committee on social security-and has been mulled over. But we are to provide for no health insurance in Canada at this session.
What I am pointing out, of course, is that as early as 12 years ago the prominent members of the Conservative party were pushing this government for health insurance. I ask, what is the reason for the strange paralysis that seems to have overtaken the Conservative party in this house and in the country during the past few weeks? We heard the premier of Ontario, as late as the conference of last autumn, pressing the federal government to go ahead with health insurance, and then finally we have the Prime Minister of Canada laying down the conditions on which this government will recommend to this parliament federal participation in national health insurance.


I should think those terms would be endorsed not only by every fair-minded member in this house, but also by every fair-minded citizen in the whole Dominion of Canada. The federal authority was to spend $185 million a year to go in with the provinces on what amounts to a fifty-fifty scheme, with the provinces left free to decide in their own way just how they would handle it; but the strange thing is this. Three provinces have already agreed to go ahead. Three of the necessary six, British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan, which have different types of governments, have already agreed to go ahead.
In terms of practical politics it means this. Unless Ontario agrees to go ahead it is impossible in the foreseeable future to get sufficient governments with sufficient populations to meet the very fair stipulation laid down by the Prime Minister of Canada. Therefore, I ask, why the strange lethargy on the part of the premier of Ontario; why the strange silence on the part of the premier of Ontario? Certainly when the great pipeline crisis was on the premier of Ontario took a very forthright stand on the side of the right. Why, when this great chance for a great social advance comes along, and when the attitude of the government of Ontario is so crucial, why do we get this strange delay?
I must say that as a member of parliament from British Columbia I have a very real and immediate interest in the accession of Ontario to this scheme. I certainly hope that Ontario does not continue much longer to hold up the whole procession toward adequate social progress in this great Dominion of Canada because we, as the minister pointed out in his evidence before the estimates committee at page 124, are in this position. This is what the minister said before that committee; here is how the provinces would make out:
So that Saskatchewan would have on the positive side some $9 million, British Columbia, $8-9 million, Newfoundland, $1-8 million and Alberta, $800,000.
In other words, if and when this plan goes through-and it will not go through until Ontario ceases to fail to co-operate-we in British Columbia will immediately benefit to the tune of almost $9 million a year without any further contribution on our part from any source whatsoever.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Elmore Philpott: Certainly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: While he is commenting on what he refers to as the lethargy of the premier of Ontario, will he not comment on

the attitude of the premiers of Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland?


Elmore Philpott: Why, certainly, and it is just as crucial that those provinces should cooperate; but surely even my hon. friend, whose mathematics are none too strong on a good many occasions, knows perfectly well that Ontario has the balance of population in this country with over 4 million people. Therefore, unless the government of Ontario agrees it is impossible to get the necessary 50 per cent.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a supplementary question, and in doing so I accept the hon. member's point that in terms of mathematics Ontario or Quebec must come in to meet the formula. Would it not be a good lead for Ontario if some of the Liberal provinces in the country were to say that the plan proposed by the Liberal federal government is an acceptable plan?


Elmore Philpott: Of course it would, and if the Tories here from Ontario will guarantee to look after the Tory government of Ontario we Liberals will guarantee to look after the Liberal governments in the other provinces.
That brings me to this. There is my hon. friend the veteran member for Dufferin-Simcoe, who has great influence with Premier Frost of Ontario. Certainly he should be able to stir Premier Frost from his long lethargy and get his government to take some kind of action. There is my hon. friend the member for Vancouver-Quadra, who like myself has a stake in British Columbia getting this benefit of nearly $9 million that will accrue to the province when Ontario comes into the scheme. There is my good friend the hon. member for Hamilton West, who comes from such an enlightened part of the country where all the people believe in social welfare. Surely she can get her friend, Premier Frost of Ontario, to quit his one-man sit-down strike and get in line with the provinces of British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan. And what a good article my good friend the hon. member for York-Humber could write in her column in the Toronto Telegram. She could write a good column in the Telegram entitled, "Step Lively, Leslie; It is time to Wake Up".


Stanley Howard Knowles: And the Minister of Justice could say the same thing to Premier Campbell of Manitoba.


An hon. Member:: What about Quebec?


Elmore Philpott: I do not know whether Quebec is hopeless or not.
Supply-Health and Welfare


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Never mind Quebec. Take care of British Columbia and we will take care of Quebec.


Elmore Philpott: I leave that to the experts on goats coming from that province.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: You have all the goats on the other side.


Elmore Philpott: I do not profess-


Some hon. Members:: Baa, baa.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: You hear them about 50 times a day; listen to them again.


William Alfred Robinson: Order.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: They are not satisfied with being sheep; they are goats as well. We can smell them here, you know.


Elmore Philpott: I just wish to say, Mr. Chairman, all in good fun, that I do hope and expect the great province of Ontario will not be too long in making up its mind and stepping into line with the progressive provinces in western Canada which have already given their consent to this great measure.


Mr. Small:: Mr. Chairman, tonight I was surprised to hear the hon. member for York-Scarborough in bringing forward the point he was trying to present take such a circuitous route to approach it. It seems to be the same point the hon. member for Vancouver South arrived at concerning the probability of Premier Frost of Ontario accepting the national health plan brought forward by the government.
I was perfectly satisfied to let the matter rest after hearing the explanation of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. His explanation was reasonable and acceptable. He pointed out that all the provinces in the dominion were very interested and co-operating with the federal government, and it was collaborating to the extent of trying to make the bill one which could be acceptable to all the provinces. He indicated that the federal government was not putting the provinces in a position where they would have to accept. The same thing is being done, apparently, as was done in the dominion-provincial tax-sharing bill. In other words the federal government is not forcing the provinces. Instead, the situation and attitude is, "If you do not like it you do not have to come in".
The situation today is that 37 years after the great Liberal party offered a national health plan as a plank in its platform, in 1919, it has finally brought it in. It did not bring it until after Premier Frost of Ontario had gone into a comprehensive and exhaustive study of the subject. As the Minister of National Health and Welfare said, Ontario has six different plans, but none are

Supply-Health and Welfare acceptable at the present time. However, the government of Ontario had a plan and was prepared to launch it, if the federal government was not prepared to do so. That is the *only reason the federal government has brought down this bill. It is because the province of Ontario brought one down and is willing to go ahead with it. Now the members of the government are standing up here and saying, "Where does Ontario stand on this matter?" Ontario is ready to give the lead any time but it is the same old story; this government has brought in a bill that has conditions attached to it.
As far as government public buildings are concerned, it will pay taxes under certain conditions. As far as dominion-provincial agreements are concerned, there are certain conditions attached. This government always brings in a jug-handled deal and usually a short-change bill as far as Ontario is concerned. The government tries to make Ontario the goat. Why does it not concentrate on bringing other provinces in instead of Ontario? Ontario will give you the leadership if you want it..


Stanley Howard Knowles: You cannot talk about goats or horses around here any more.


Mr. Harrison:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make some remarks at this juncture. I can see that the minister is anxious to get the first item through, but I require a little latitude here. I think it would be better if I brought this matter up under another item, if the minister does not mind.


Murdo William Martin: I do not want to preclude any hon. member from speaking particularly on these matters. We have now had a pretty general discussion and I am asking my hon. friend because he is on my side of the house *-I know what would happen if I asked others-would he not think it desirable if he has specific questions on specific items that we might deal with it when we come to the items?


William Earl Rowe: It is bad enough that you stop the opposition; don't stop your own men.


John Hornby Harrison: I am in somewhat the same position as the hon. member for Selkirk. I do not have a specific question, but I have a little discussion I want to go into. If it does not inconvenience the minister I might proceed with it now, unless the minister would care to give me a little more latitude later on when we are discussing some of the items.


William Earl Rowe: Go ahead. Read him a speech.


Murdo William Martin: When we come to the family allowance item I shall be glad to accede to my hon. friend's request.
rMr. Small.]


John Hornby Harrison: With that reservation I am quite satisfied.


Mr. Barnett:: I am going to preface my
remarks by saying I do not intend to speak at any great length, and I hope the minister will not take any of my time in trying to persuade me to defer what I have to say.
I waited with interest for the reply that might be forthcoming to the statement of the hon. member for Vancouver South in respect to action that might be taken by Ontario to facilitate what we hope to see in British Columbia. I am in complete sympathy with that aspect of the hon. member's discussion, but I must say I was rather disappointed at some of his earlier remarks when he dragged in the old bogey about an increase in the old age pension being dependent on some reduction in arms expenditures.
In this connection I notice that the minister -I am going to get mixed up in his title like the hon. member for Vancouver South did-* the Minister of National Health and Welfare-


Mr. Caslleden:: Wealth and hellfare.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: -'did not suggest that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre earlier today had made a slip of the tongue when he put forth his proposal in respect to an increase in the basic old age pension. He can say that something is being done in the field of national hospital insurance, but I certainly cannot go along with the thinking of people like the hon. member for Vancouver South and the minister who suggest that an increase in the old age pension at this time would necessarily endanger progress in the field of hospital insurance. I can understand the minister with the responsibilities of his office perhaps being a little more timid, particularly when he might have to convince some of the more timid-minded members of the cabinet-


Paul Joseph James Martin: None of them is timid.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: -but I am surprised to find the hon. member for Vancouver South tagging along with that timidity.
The suggestion the minister made that this increase would cost $600 million is one I do not find the least bit appalling. I think it is a matter of having a proper appreciation of what is important, an appreciation of those things on which the people of Canada should be spending their money. I agree that $600 million sounds like a lot of money, but to me in terms of the plain economics of the productive capacity of the Canadian people, $600 million is not a great sum. It might mean that some people in this country could possibly not afford a new car quite as often, or perhaps they could not turn in their old television set for the latest model as frequently,

but I believe a proper appreciation of the values involved would indicate that even if some people had to make minor sacrifices of that kind the $600 million would be much better spent in the field of old age pensions. I certainly would not agree that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was the least bit unrealistic when he put forward his proposal.
I would like to tell the minister a little story concerning something that happened to me last fall. I was invited to attend a banquet of an old age pensioners' organization. I felt this was a strictly non-political gathering and I made what I considered to be a nice little speech appropriate to the occasion. I very carefully avoided becoming too fervent in any expression of my own particular views on the subject of what should be done concerning an increase. I found myself with mingled feelings of consternation and delight when a little later on in the proceedings one of the women in attendance, who I happen to know is the president of the Liberal women's association in the district, got up and made a very forthright speech on the subject of what should be done about old age pensions.
I only wished I had a tape recorder there so I could play her speech here for the benefit of the minister at this time, because I am sure no words of mine could be as forthright in expressing the requirements in this connection as her words were. I am completely confident that the majority of people-at least those in my own constituency-would be quite prepared to support a proposal to increase the old age pension in something like the degree suggested by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
It seems to be that if this great Liberal party with its huge majority in this parliament had a bit more courage and would take that kind of issue to the people of this country, they would be more likely to prolong the life of this government than if they hang back with their present timidity in this field. I think it is time to go out and tell the people of Canada that an increase in old age pensions is going to cost money. Let us not try to hide the fact that these things do cost money. Let us go out and say that in the kind of society in which we feel we should be living, this is the sort of thing we should be spending our money on instead of on some of these highly advertised, unnecessary gadgets which we find in the country today.
This is all I intend to say on this particular subject, but there is one other point with which I should like to deal while I am on my feet. I have made previous reference
Supply-Health and Welfare to this question, and I should like to make a special plea for a specific guiding allowance for the blind persons of Canada.


Murdo William Martin: Would my hon. friend be prepared to deal with that when we come to the particular item covering blindness allowances?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I shall co-operate with the minister to that extent. He knows I have an interest in this matter.


Murdo William Martin: I shall be glad to deal with it then.


John Horne Blackmore: Before the item carries I should like to ask the minister a specific question. This is the occasion on which he is officially before the committee, but there are certain matters which I wish to discuss with him pertaining to his performance at the United Nations. Will he be appearing in a capacity in which I can ask those questions at a later date? To be more specific, will he be along with the Secretary of State for External Affairs when we are discussing those estimates? Will he be prepared to explain what he did in respect to the package deal he worked out last year? I shall refrain from asking any questions now pertaining to that matter, on the understanding that he is making a special commitment to be here so I can ask him these questions at a later time.


George Hugh Castleden: Mr. Chairman, during the past two or three years there have been a number of times when hon. members on this side of the house have asked the minister questions on the orders of the day and he has spent a great deal of time eulogizing his party and the great program they have undertaken. He has given the impression generally throughout the country over the years that this was just about the most perfect thing that ever happened in a most perfect world, and everything was shipshape. However, that is far from the truth in the case of old age pensions of $40 per month on which people of 70 years of age and over are asked to live.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would my hon. friend permit me, as an old-time room-mate who lived in the same house, to suggest that we could discuss that on the particular item?


George Hugh Castleden: If the minister will give the same kind of long dissertation as he gave on health.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I shall be glad to do that.


George Hugh Castleden: Is the minister prepared to give it now?


Paul Joseph James Martin: When we get on the item.

Supply-Health and Welfare


George Hugh Castleden: There are a number of things I would like the minister to talk about when we come to that. I can list a few of them. He may try to place the blame on the increased cost of living, but I would like him to explain how we can expect old age pensioners to have a better standard of living today on $40 a month than they had 15 years ago when the cost of living was about half what it is today.


Murdo William Martin: When we come to that item I shall be happy to deal with it.


George Hugh Castleden: Are you going to deal with the matter?


An hon. Member:: Only three minutes to hold it up.


George Hugh Castleden: I will not take as long as the hon. member for Vancouver South, and I shall try to deal with matters having to do with the department of wealth and hellfare, when people of 70 years of age are asked to live on this amount. The cost of living is striking these people so hard that it is just utterly impossible for them to carry on. This will require a lot of explaining, and I hope the minister will have something more than words to give us. What I want to see is something in the way of action in giving assistance to people who have to live on $40 a month. The hon. member for Mackenzie referred to an article in a Toronto paper where a reporter outlined his experience trying to live on $40 a month. It brings things pretty close to home.
We read in the paper that the cost of living index had gone up 1-2 points, but that was let go by almost without a gesture or statement by the government. The great part of that increase was made up by the increased cost of food. It is costing the older people more for the food they have to buy, while the producers in my part of the country find that their returns are going down. The Minister of Agriculture knows that.
There is something wrong about the way we are forcing and compelling these people to live when the cost of living continues to

go up. There is absolutely nothing being done to help people who are absolutely helpless and able to do nothing about it except wait for their cheque for $40 at the end of the month. The first statutory item under the minister's estimates is for $17,000 for himself, which is quite a bit more than the $40 per month the old age pensioner gets. Under the present system, when the minister reaches 70 years of age he will have that added to the $17,000, provided he is still minister.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Heaven forbid.


George Hugh Castleden: I do not know how many years he has to go. This matter is far too important to be glossed over when we are dealing with this department.


Murdo William Martin: We will be coming to the item dealing with old age pensions, when we can have a full discussion.	.


George Hugh Castleden: The only difficulty about that is I may be called out to a committee meeting. The committees could have been sitting in January, February and March. I asked the chairman of one committee when the committee was going to sit and he just said, "How high is up?" May I call it ten o'clock?


Murdo William Martin: Would the hon. member not agree to leave this until we come to the item, so we can pass the general item? We have had a very full general discussion.


George Hugh Castleden: I am sorry, I cannot concede that. I have other remarks I should like to make on the matter.
Item stands.
Progress reported.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: Tomorrow we shall continue with these estimates and then C.B.C., justice and agriculture.


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