1956-07-27

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Public Works perhaps I should direct this question to the Prime Minister. Press dispatches of this morning indicate the probability of the Department of Public Works cutting back their program for this year to the extent of $20 million. I wonder whether the Prime Minister can tell the house whether or not that is so and, if it is so, whether a similar pattern is to be followed in the other departments.


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: There has been no decision reached as to cut-backs. Of course, no department can do more than supplies of material and manpower will justify, and the matter of the possibility of there being $8 billion of capital development in Canada made this year is now under very serious consideration.


Howard Charles Green: There is a possibility that a cut of this type will be made?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: There is a possibility that it may not be feasible to do all the things that were being planned for this year, but no decision has yet been reached.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinton):: May I
ask the Minister of Finance if, in view of the long delay and the number of press articles and rumours that are going about, he does not think it is about time to stop coyly playing the game of hide and seek and tell the house whether he does or does not intend to proceed with the proposed 20 per cent tax on advertising matter in certain magazines.


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: have been informed by hon. members opposite that the session will take quite a while, and
under those circumstances there will be plenty of time to deal with the resolution.



PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State. Can the minister tell us what the situation is now with respect to the study of redistribution that was recommended by the committee on privileges and elections last year?


Hon. Roch Pinard (Secretary of State):: have just received a letter from the counsel who was appointed to make a study of methods of redistribution in other commonwealth countries, and he informed me that his report is now ready and he will send it to me in a few days. This report will have to be studied and action, if any is to be taken, will then be announced.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a supplementary question? If this material is not studied and available in time for consideration by a committee at this session, will it be considered at the next session if there is another session of this parliament?


Roch Pinard: I will make a study of the report and will announce the decision taken at that time, after discussing the matter with my colleagues.



INQUIRY AS TO QUOTAS IN NEW CROP YEAR

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. M. Nicholson (Mackenzie):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact that the new grain crop year in the west begins next Wednesday, could the minister announce the amount of grain farmers will be permitted to deliver on the new quota?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I understand a formal
announcement from the wheat board will issue today. In the meantime, subject to that
6530	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry announcement-in other words if there is any error here it will be corrected in the announcement and I am not guaranteeing this information-my present information is that the initial quota on Durum wheat will be 5 bushels per seeded acre; flax 5 bushels; grains generally 100 units, the same as the opening quota for last year. There will be the same provision as last year for the delivery of malting and pearling barley. In order to help out points with a lower quota than normal at the present time, all outstanding rail orders will remain in effect so as to effect higher deliveries at the opening of the new season for points that have not already shipped the maximum quota.



INQUIRY AS TO QUOTA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the minister's statement with respect to grain quotas for the new crop year and the fact that in western Canada there is likely to bd a large flax crop, do I understand that there is to be a quota on flax this year? This seems to be a departure from previous years when flax was not under quota. Will flax be under quota during the new crop year?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, as I recall the situation of a year ago, flax was initially under a quota and the quota was removed shortly after the opening of the crop year.* I understand that there will be an initial quota of 5 bushels per seeded acre which, in my opinion, is a large quota. Whether a quota on flax will be maintained throughout the year I cannot say.
See amended answer on page 6783.



BOX CARS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Casileden (Yorkton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Will he look into the matter of allocation of box cars at the delivery points in Saskatchewan? He asked me to draw this to his attention if I was interested in it. My attention has been called to the town of Wishart where the pool is unable to get its allocation on the basis of shipping orders.
Hon George C. Marler (Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker, I shall draw the matter to the attention of the transport controller.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. E. Johnston (Bow River):: The other day I asked the Minister of Veterans Affairs if he would give an explanation of the unfortunate incident which occurred in the Colonel Belcher hospital a few days ago. He said at that time he was setting up an independent inquiry to investigate this. My information is now that the inquiry which has been set up is to be made by three D.V.A. officials, and is not what I call an independent inquiry. Will the minister or his assistant make an explanation of that?


Mr. C. E. Bennett (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Veterans Affairs):: I shall bring the question to the attention of the minister when he returns on Monday.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: should like to ask the Prime Minister whether a decision has now been arrived at by the government to preserve the old supreme court building as one of the shrines of our national freedom, rather than allowing it to be destroyed for the demands of the moment?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, Mr. Speaker, there has been no decision reached about that matter.


John George Diefenbaker: Is consideration being given now to its preservation?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: There has been no report from the Minister of Public Works to the cabinet about the matter so far.



ST. THOMAS, ONT.-INQUIRY AS TO DATE OF CALLING FOR TENDERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. James A. McBain (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Public Works I should like to direct a question to his parliamentary assistant. Can he advise the house of the progress being made toward the construction of the new post office and public building at St. Thomas, and approximately at what time tenders will be called?


Mr. Maurice Bourgel (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Public Works):: think this is the kind of question that should be put on the order paper. If my hon..

friend will put his question on the order paper we shall give him the information he wants.



TEXTILES-ENFORCEMENT OF ANTI-DUMPING LAWS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. Charlton (Branl-Haldimand):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Is the government taking any further action with respect to the antidumping laws, having particular regard to textiles, in view of the purported action being taken by the United States government on August 1?


Walter Edward Harris: The anti-dumping laws are part of our laws and will be enforced in the normal way.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. G. J. Hahn (New Westminster):: should like to direct a question to the minister of national wealth and hellfare-I mean the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is the minister now in a position to indicate whether his department is prepared to take action regarding the use of coal tar food colouring in this country, in view of a recent press dispatch headed "Probers Claim Some Food Dyes Poisonous-Linked to Cancer", a copy of which I sent to the minister some days ago?


Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I have been introduced as the minister of health and welfire and wealth and hellfire, but the man who introduced me referred to me as heading one of the best departments of the government of Canada, although this is to my officers and not to me.
After August 1 of this year, oranges coloured with oil red XO will be treated as a food containing a non-permitted colour and subject to the sanctions of the Food and Drugs Act.



REPORTED ISSUANCE OF INSTRUCTIONS FOR GENERAL ELECTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct to the Secretary of State a question which has been only partially answered in a previous reply to questions from other hon. members.
Inquiries of the Ministry Will the Secretary of State inform us whether instructions have gone out to returning officers in federal constituencies to prepare for an election? If not, will the minister explain why I have now received a communication from the returning officer of my constituency asking that I submit the names and addresses of 140 enumerators in my constituency?


Roch Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I was told by the chief electoral officer some time ago that the documents, with instructions, that had gone to returning officers were just routine; but in view of the remark that has just been made, I shall take the matter up with the chief electoral officer to learn what has been done and report later.


Hon. W. Earl Rowe (Dufferin-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, following the inquiry just made and in view of the statement made by a reporter very close to the government and one who is usually correct in his prophecies, and in view of the statement in the Ottawa Citizen that an election is likely to be held October 29, will the Prime Minister tell the house whether there will be an election this year?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, there has not been any date fixed for an election, and when one is fixed it will be announced to the public otherwise than through any reporter.


William Earl Rowe: Thank you very much. I would expect that.


John George Diefenbaker: That reporter is usually correct in his predictions.


Mr. W. M. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):: Mr. Speaker, is the Secretary of State aware that the necessary official preliminaries for an election which are being undertaken in most constituencies are not in progress in Notre Dame de Grace owing to the government's failure to appoint by order in council one of its supporters as an impartial returning officer for that constituency?


Roch Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of that fact. I will inquire of the chief electoral officer and see whether this could not be attributed to the hon. member himself.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He is not an impartial supporter of the government.


Roch Pinard: In any event I will see what the situation is in the hon. member's constituency.


William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, as a supplementary question, would the Secretary of State take steps to see that
6532	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry an order in council is passed appointing a returning officer for this constituency so that polls may be delineated and the other work undertaken? It is the government's responsibility to recommend that name to the chief electoral officer.


Roch Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I will surely take this question as notice of the wish of the hon. member to see that this is done and it is also our intention that a returning officer be appointed for that constituency.

On the orders of the day:


William Earl Rowe: I should like to ask the Secretary of State, in how many electoral districts are there returning officers now established either by recent appointment or permanently from the last election.


Roch Pinard: I think this question could have been put on the order paper. In any event, I shall make inquiries and find out.



NATIONAL REVENUE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. Blackmore (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue, notice of which I have recently sent him. In the geographical area that has been and is now being served by the Lethbridge income tax office, how many persons were required to pay income tax during each of the years 1951 to 1956, inclusive? How many of these consulted the Lethbridge income tax office personnel for guidance or assistance during each of the years 1951 to 1956, inclusive?


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I shall have to regard this question as notice, as I received it only about five minutes ago. However, at this time I should like to answer questions that were put by the hon. member a few days ago as follows:
Will the minister tell the house how much the maintenance of the Lethbridge income tax office has cost the department during each of the years 1950, 1951, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1955 and 1956 to date?
The answer is as follows:
Other
Salaries Expense	Total
1950	
$14,148	$ 500 (Est.) $14,6481951	
15,620	525	16,1451952	
17,060	1,302	18,3621953	
17,650	1,460	19,1101954	
19,050	1,343	20,3931955	
19,680	1,435	21,115
This does not include rent, stationery and supplies or public forms.


The second question was as follows:
Will he tell the house how many income tax cases the Lethbridge income tax office has dealt with during each of the years 1950, 1951, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1955 and 1956 to date?
The answer is as follows:
No. of Cases
1950-	51	
1,2501951-	52	
7801952-	53	
9521953-	54	
1,2001954-	55	
2121955-	56	
205
Since the end of December 1954 most of the work formerly done in Lethbridge has been done by our Calgary district office. Since that time the number of returns sent to Lethbridge for action has been restricted to the number that can be efficiently handled by the three assessors who were stationed there. Field investigations for the Lethbridge area have as a matter of fact always been undertaken in large part by Calgary assessors. In effect, therefore, the volume of assessments actually handled in Lethbridge is, and always has been, a small part of the total.
I would like to assure the hon. member for Lethbridge that the Calgary district office will each year hereafter station two or three assessors in Lethbridge for two or three weeks in the spring of each year when it comes time for the filing of income tax returns. These men will provide adequate service for the area and will for the most part be a satisfactory substitute for the maintenance of a permanent staff there.
This, I think, will give the reason and the justification for closing up our last regional office in Canada.
There was a further question asked by the hon. member for Lethbridge on July 25. The hon. member asked me to state the boundaries of the area served by the Lethbridge office. I again emphasize the fact that the whole area of southern Alberta is served by the Calgary district office. The portion of the province served by Lethbridge is undefined because the only returns handled are those specific cases referred to them.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, on July 20 I told the member for York West (Mr. Hamilton) that I would look into the provision of food for militia units at camp Niagara-on-the-Lake. This matter has now been looked into and,

as so often is the case, the allegations made have been found to be somewhat exaggerated.
However, the commanding officer of the camp who conducted the investigation has reported that the quality of catering, which was by contract, was not as good as it should have been when the camp opened. It should be pointed out that to organize a catering service to take care of a large number of men at one time and quickly does present some difficulties, particularly at the opening of the camp season before the catering organization has got into its stride. However, there has been steady improvement in the situation at this camp and the quality of food and arrangements for its serving are now reported to be reasonably good.
Since the difficulty here stems from the early camp catering period I am asking the army authorities to look into ways and means of getting the quality of catering up to better levels at the outset of militia camp training next year. Our objective is to provide members of the militia with first quality food well prepared and well served. I am hopeful that our studies of the situation at this camp and elsewhere will lead to improvements in the quality of commercial catering services for which we must contract to supplement our regular army facilities.



WEST GERMANY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Ralph Osborne Campney: 

AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Ralph Osborne Campney: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon.
member for Victoria, Ont. (Mr. Hodgson) asked me the following question:
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 19537
The short answer is that there was no authorization because there was no flight by an R.C.A.F. plane for the .former minister of transport during July, 1953. I am very much surprised that the hon. member should persist in raising this question with monotonous regularity, particularly as a very full answer was given to his own written question on this very subject and which, if he will take the trouble to look, he will find at page 1422 of Hansard for February 23, 1955.


Mr. Hodgson:: Would the minister like to have a picture of the plane when it landed at Sturgeon Lake?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I always like to look at pictures.

Supply-Health and Welfare SUPPLY
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE

[Stage Direction]
244. Departmental administration, $1,222,800.
George Hugh Castleden: Last evening we were discussing the matter of the administration of the Department of National Health and Welfare and the matter of old age pensions. The minister seemed to be rather pleased that I should keep this item open. I should like to tell him that the members of the C.C.F. party in this house historically have been acting as a goad and a spur to the governments of this country in the matter of old age pensions ever since the party was elected to this house. It was largely through the efforts of one of the original members of this party that the old age pension was established.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


George Hugh Castleden: I see that a lot of other members agree with me. Today we have some 745,000 pensioners in Canada, and the cost to the Canadian government is about $353 million. I think that the fact that we pay that amount of money and are taking care of those people is all to the good in Canada, and we can be proud of the record. However, there is something very seriously wrong with the pension that is given out today. I think the Canadian people will support an increase in that pension because it is the actions of the present government at Ottawa that have brought about a condition that these people are not living as senior citizens of this country should live.
I refer to the fact that the $40 a month that is now paid to old age pensioners, to people in Canada when they reach the age of 70, is not sufficient for them to live in the way they should live after reaching that age. A few years ago, a pension of $40 per month probably would have been sufficient to take care of the needs of an average person, but the cost of living-the cost of rental, clothing, food and particularly medical attention in hospitals-has increased so tremendously that the value of the $40 per month is practically wiped out. The people are still trying to exist on a niggardly, paltry $40 which will buy very little. I do not know any place in Canada where a person can obtain decent shelter for $20 per month, certainly not in the cities. To try to exist on the remaining $20 a month, to buy food, clothing, medical care and medicine, with the costs today constantly increasing, means that these people just do not get them.

The government that sits opposite today is responsible for the increased cost of living. When they took the price controls off, immediately after the war, they allowed the cost of living to skyrocket to a point where they have found it necessary to see that the Canadian people got some increase in their income. Members of parliament increased their pay to $10,000 per year. Cabinet members increased their pay. Wage earners have found it necessary to go on strike to get more money in order to be able to cope with the constantly increasing costs of living. The provincial governments have difficulty in administering their own departments. The minister's estimates and the report of his department show how the costs of administering that department are constantly increasing because of the cost of living.
One group of people who seem to be unable to pass on their costs are the old age pensioners. Left with a miserable $40 a month, life to them is a mere existence. It is fortunate that in some provinces these people receive a little extra because the provincial governments have assumed a responsibility which I maintain is not theirs out of pity for the old age pensioners. The province of Saskatchewan, and also the provinces of British Columbia and Alberta, pay a supplementary allowance in order to help the pensioners to eke out an existence because they cannot exist on $40 a month.
The provincial government of Saskatchewan has assumed the responsibility for all medical care for old age pensioners. What a relief that must be for the people who live in that province compared with other provinces where the old age pensioner must spend part of his $40 a month on hospital care, doctors and medicines. Our province provides free medical attention, free hospitalization, eye, ear, nose and throat care, dental care and other assistance of that kind to needy pensioners without cost.


Mr. Studer:: How many people get the supplementary allowance?


An hon. Member:: How many get it in Manitoba?


George Hugh Castleden: All needy people get the supplementary allowance.


Irvin William Studer: You are the humanitarians. How many get the supplementary allowance in Saskatchewan?


George Hugh Castleden: I suppose none at all?


Irvin William Studer: Only twenty-two.


George Hugh Castleden: Is that all the people who get the supplementary allowance in Saskatchewan? The hon. member ought to be ashamed to say that is all who get the additional allowance.


Irvin William Studer: I said supplementary allowance to the full extent.


George Hugh Castleden: To the full extent-now you are changing it a little. The allowances are given according to the need.


Mr. Ellis:: How many Liberal provincial governments give anything?


George Hugh Castleden: Saskatchewan gives an allowance although the per capita income is quite low and it is one of the poorer provinces.


Irvin William Studer: Only twenty-two people with need.


George Hugh Castleden: Now you are trying to go back again. Is that all who get any supplementary allowance? Is that all who get free hospital care and free medical attention? Are those your figures?


Irvin William Studer: Who get the maximum.


George Hugh Castleden: Now you are changing it. Every person who is in need gets a supplementary allowance and receives the full benefits of free hospital care and free medical attention, and you know it.


Alfred Claude Ellis: What about the Manitoba Liberal government?


Irvin William Studer: Manitoba does not claim to be humanitarian but you do.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Manitoba is not humanitarian; Manitoba is Liberal.


Irvin William Studer: Tell the truth over there for once.	I


George Hugh Castleden: Absolutely everything I have said is true. You are the one who is trying to twist things and make it look as though there were only twenty-two people receiving hospital care, medical care and so on.


Irvin William Studer: Receiving the maximum allowance under the supplementary pension.


George Hugh Castleden: It is amusing to listen to you, old flannelmouth. It is nice to have you back in the house again after your long sojourn in the west.


Irvin William Studer: When did you come back?


Mr. Dickey:: Yesterday.


George Hugh Castleden: I have been back a long time. Unfortunately I had to go west to see some of my friends.


John Horace Dickey: It seems like a long time, as you have been speaking ever since you got back.
67509-414^
Supply-Health and Welfare


George Hugh Castleden: The government is now spending a matter of $353 million on old age pensions at the rate of $40 a month per person. I suggest that if this government-


Mr. Marlin:: The figure is $379 million.


George Hugh Castleden: For what year?


Murdo William Martin: That is the estimate. It has increased this year by $11 million.


George Hugh Castleden: I took the latest figure from page 114, I believe, of the minister's annual report and the figure is $353,205,333.


Murdo William Martin: Actually it is $379 million.


George Hugh Castleden: That was last year?


Murdo William Martin: No, that is the estimate for this year.


George Hugh Castleden: That is your estimate for this year. Good. We are pleased to see them spend that, but I am trying to point out to the minister that with the cost of living increasing the amount is still insufficient and quite inadequate. Certainly it does not take care of the old age pensioner trying to exist in those provinces where he does not get any additional assistance. We intend to continue to fight to get an increase in the pension to take care of these people adequately.
It is because of their suffering that we cannot allow the minister's estimates to go through again without a further and emphatic protest. An increase of even a little bit would mean so much to these people. You are giving the pension to every person who has reached the age of 70. How many thousand people are there, 745,000?


Murdo William Martin: We are giving the pension to about 780,000 people 70 and over.


George Hugh Castleden: That is the old age pension.


Murdo William Martin: Old age security recipients number about 780,000.


George Hugh Castleden: That is in what year?


Murdo William Martin: That is as of today.


George Hugh Castleden: The minister can give me all the figures he likes.


Murdo William Martin: I would point out to my hon. friend what the difficulty is, as I suggested to him last night. He is dealing with a particular subject and I have no objection to his carrying on, but only when we get to the particular item. I will answer what he says and deal with it then, which I think is the proper way to do it. If my hon. friend wants to make a general speech, that is his privilege. I do not want him to think that I am huffed in any way. He can take all the time in the world, but the appropriate place is on the proper item.
6S36

Supply-Health and Welfare


George Hugh Castleden: That is true, but at the same time general speeches are made on the first item of the department which the minister administers. We hear him speak quite frequently in the house and on almost every occasion he is asked a question he gives a long talk on the splendid work the government is doing.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am not a bad old fellow.


George Hugh Castleden: The minister referred yesterday to the fact that we used to be roommates some years ago.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We lived in the same house.


George Hugh Castleden: That is right. I was using the minister's words. I can remember your cherubic figure in those days, and I suggest that if you had gone on the old age pensioners' diet at that time you would not have had to go on an artificial one to attain your present fine figure. The minister's waistline in those days would scarcely have been appropriate for a minister handing out $40 a month to old age pensioners living in the condition of starvation in which they have to live. The point I am trying to make is this. The fact is that the situation is so bad that provincial governments have to enter the field in order to relieve the dire need of people who are unable to help themselves, whose earning capacity is practically gone and who have no [DOT]way of passing on increases in the costs of 'living to anyone else, as the manufacturers can. Even with the supply of food that we have in this country, old age pensioners who are attempting to live on this amount of money cannot help but be actually hungry. Coming from the prairie provinces as I do, and seeing the abundance of food in that part of the country, in my opinion it is a shame that these old age pensioners have to pay the prices that they do, even for the bread they get, for the meat they have to buy and the other things they have to purchase. The fact that people over 70 years of age are hungry in this land, with hundreds of millions of bushels of surplus wheat, is a tragic situation, in my opinion.
I believe that the federal government has got to assume responsibility for a larger and larger share of the payments to old age pensioners in this country. These people have made their contribution to Canada. They have completed their life's work and in their declining years most of them, through no fault of their own, find themselves in dire circumstances. They could live on $40 a month if the cost of living were not so high. But where there are cases of need, particularly in the matter of hospitalization and medical care, surely it is the responsibility of the federal government to see that their senior


citizens in any part of Canada do not suffer. If the provincial governments are going to undertake this, and they do it because the federal government refuses to do so, that is a sign that the need is there. It is a sign that the federal government should accept its responsibility. So long as these conditions exist we cannot be complacent; we cannot be satisfied and we cannot be proud of the achievements of the minister's department.
I am willing to pay tribute to what he has done in some fields. In view of the fact the cost of living is so high, with the resulting hardship on old age pensioners, I say that here is a place where humanity demands that the Canadian people should take care of their senior citizens. Some years ago when I came to this house I protested against conditions amongst the native people of this country, our Indians, particularly in the matter of health and welfare. I want to commend this department for the job it is doing in taking over the matter of health amongst the Indians. The result has been, as departmental records show, that with the new treatment for tuberculosis remarkable steps have been taken. It is only because we constantly bring these matters to the attention of the people of Canada so they know what is going on that we get action. I want to tell the minister that we are going to continue to pound at this government for action on the matter of old age pensions. Until we can get some action, we will continue to talk on every possible occasion.


John George Diefenbaker: I have just one or two
words which I want to say to the minister with regard to the level of old age pensions today. No one can deny that the level is such that many of our old age pensioners find themselves in an impossible position. The reason for it, of course, is simply this. While Canada has in circulation more and more dollars, those dollars buy less and less. Indeed, having regard to the remarks yesterday by the chairman of the Bank of Canada, we are facing inflation in this country. More and more the level of prices is rising as inflationary influences are felt. I regret that today little or nothing has been done by the government but to continue their course.
I believe we have arrived at a plateau and that prices will continue to rise rather than return to the levels of 1949, the basic year now taken as a standard by the bureau of statistics. The old age pensioners, because of that fact, find themselves in difficulties and in an intolerable position. My hon. friend mentioned that the entire responsibility is that of the federal government. I do not belong to that school. I believe that the provinces have a responsibility, without in any way relieving the federal government of

a primary responsibility which it has accepted to assure that old age pensioners shall not be made to suffer unnecessarily. The fact remains that there is also the responsibility of provincial governments.
I am not going to enter into a controversy that has been carried on between the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek and the hon. member for Yorkton, but it is a fact that in Saskatchewan the numbers receiving the maximum amount of the provincial government additional assistance to old age pensions is less than 30 pensioners.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: How does the percentage compare with Ontario?


John George Diefenbaker: My hon. friend can deal with that. I have heard my hon. friend for so many years preaching this humanitarian-ism here. We are all in favour of that. When one commences to discuss the situation in the province of which I know something, he immediately goes to some other province because he believes that in doing so he can take the heat off.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: But you are running down your own province.


John George Diefenbaker: I am not running down, I am giving facts. There is no question of running down. I simply say that from 1944 on we have heard that old, old story that social security can be provided for everyone without cost to anyone.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: No, no.


Alfred Claude Ellis: That is a figment of a Tory imagination.


John George Diefenbaker: Apparently that is a sore point with my hon. friend. It is nonetheless a fact, that in Saskatchewan we were told about the wonderful Utopia that would be established; that social security would be available for all out of the profits that were going to be made by the corporations that would be publicly operated by the government. I am simply pointing out that in the light of our experience social security can only be provided if the people are prepared to pay for it. I am in no way excusing the dominion government for the present level of old age pensions when I say this, that in the province of Saskatchewan, where my hon. friends who now interrupt me are in power, there is nothing to prevent them from raising by an additional amount standards in so far as old age pensioners are concerned.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: What do they do in Tory Ontario?


John George Diefenbaker: My hon. friend may have his say afterwards. I am simply pointing out the facts.
Supply-Health and Welfare


Alfred Claude Ellis: What about Tory Ontario?


John George Diefenbaker: I am dealing with Saskatchewan, since it has been raised as the standard of standards, and I simply say this. As for these humanitarian claims-and all of us have them; they are not a monopoly of my friends to the left-there is a simple way whereby they may achieve an additional amount for the old age pensioners and that is within the province of Saskatchewan where their own government is in power. I say that at the same time as I note that the situation of the old age pensioners is such that all of us must realize that many of our old age pensioners are in need and find themselves in dire circumstances.
What I rose to speak about particularly was the administration of the Disabled Persons Act.


Murdo William Martin: Would my hon. friend not agree to wait until we come to the item? I would appreciate it if he would.


John George Diefenbaker: As a matter of fact, I do not expect to be here.


Murdo William Martin: The difficulty is, I do not have an opportunity to reply directly.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Hit and run is the term.


Murdo William Martin: I think the hon. member for Prince Albert is being fair.


John George Diefenbaker: I want the opportunity of doing this and I may not be present when the item comes up. As I understand it, this is a general discussion.


Murdo William Martin: My hon. friend will not mind my intervening. I am saying this by way of suggestion to the Chair as well. We are now dealing with particular items. If we were having a general debate it would be proper on the first item, but the hon. member for Yorkton spoke a moment ago and I should like to deal with what he said, and I should like to deal with disability allowances, but I cannot do it on the general item. I should like my hon. friend to accommodate me; I am sure he will do his best.


John George Diefenbaker: I am going to be so brief and so succinct that I am sure my hon. friend will have no objection to my taking a few moments on the general item instead of discussing it piecemeal here and there. I am referring to the Disabled Persons Act, passed by this house in 1954. This act provides for dominion and provincial contributions; it provides for the payment of an allowance to those who are totally and permanently disabled as prescribed by the regulations. In my experience, this act is being altogether too rigidly administered. The joker in the act is the section that provides

Supply-Health and Welfare that the definition of total and permanent disablement shall be that definition determined by regulations.
The situation today, in whatever cases have come to my attention, indicates that the basis of interpretation excludes many persons who should be qualified and who should receive the allowance. I am not going into particular cases, but I am going to say this. The regulations were apparently designed to deny many persons who should be entitled. I have a recent example in mind, and I am not going to refer to the man's name because the minister has it. It is the case of a young man willing and able to work who is afflicted with a disease.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is the boy who cannot walk?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have that case.


John George Diefenbaker: He has always been
willing to work, but he is stricken with a disease that has made him permanently the occupant of a wheel chair. He is a married man with one child. He does not ask for charitable assistance. I heard of his case and the difficult position in which he finds himself. I took it up with the authorities. The man has tried to train himself through the instrumentality of courses that are available to those who are totally incapacitated. Since he is a married man with one child he finds it difficult to take the type of training that is only available some 150 miles from the place where he lives.
The man's wife has endeavoured to work. From time to time she has been incapacitated, or at least ill, and unable to carry on. The definition of total and permanent disablement has denied him this allowance. This is one case of many. I feel that at the next session this question should be submitted to a committee in order to determine a fair and proper definition of total and permanent disablement. Parliament never intended that the definition should exclude many who should be entitled on the basis of the ordinary meaning of the words and expression "total and permanent disablement". I also feel that this is a matter that deserves the attention of a committee of this house for the reason that while in part the contribution is provincial and the definition of total and permanent disablement has been arrived at as a result of conferences with the provinces, there can be no justification for the rigid and utterly inexcusably restrictive nature of the interpretation of this term as now exists. In saying that, I realize that the provinces have an equal responsibility to make sure that the definition will guard
[Mr. Diefenbaker.!
against the possibility of claims being favourably accepted from those who should not be entitled but at the same time will be so interpreted that worthy cases will receive a fair opportunity to receive the allowance which is admirable in its purpose and deserving in its concept.
I have nothing more to say at this time regarding this matter, but I ask the minister to give consideration to having a definition arrived at in keeping with the ideas of this house when it passed the legislation. This is one of the great dangers of regulations. Parliament passes the law, regulations define it and, in many cases, the actual ambit of the law, and in that definition departs from the concepts that were in the minds of legislators when they gave support to the legislation in question.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I say to the hon. gentleman, Mr. Chairman, that I will reply to him. He deserves a reply, but this is not the appropriate time. I would be completely out of order in doing so. I am rising at this time to suggest to the chairman, with much respect, that when we are dealing with particular items, he should see it desirable to indicate that it is out of order on the general item to do so, and that we should have an orderly debate where we can put questions and give answers on the particular items. In doing it in this way we are going all over the map and we are not having a meeting of minds.
I had to ask the hon. member for Meadow Lake last night, an hon. member from our own side, not to go ahead with some questions that he wanted to put to me critically, I know, in respect of the family allowances situation. I asked the hon. member for New Westminster last night and he acceded. I asked the hon. member for Yorkton a moment ago and he did not see fit to do so. That is his own affair. The hon. member for Prince Albert said he had to leave and that is why he was making his remarks now. I submit to you, Mr. Chairman, that that is the desirable way to proceed and one in which I am sure no one will lose the opportunity of expressing himself, or expressing his view, but at the same time we shall have an opportunity to put the other side of the case. I rise at this time, Mr. Chairman, only to suggest that this course be followed.


Frederick George Hahn: Mr. Chairman, earlier today
I had occasion to refer to the Minister of National Health and Welfare as the minister of wealth. I am pleased to hear at this time that he is again pointing out the desirability of taking some of these matters on a particular item. However, Mr. Chairman,

in speaking to that for a moment before carrying on with my discourse, I am sure the minister realizes as do many hon. members in this house that we are not always free to be in the chamber at the particular moment when' specific items are called. Many of us belong to various committees, some of which are sitting, and it is difficult for us to be here at the appropriate time because we have other commitments and it is unfortunate that we cannot be here when a particular item is called. Because we have certain other engagements which sometimes take us from this chamber while the house is in session the only time we can raise particular questions is at the opportune moment and I would say that possibly the purpose of having the first item as an administrative one is in order that we can deal with specific problems under it.


Murdo William Martin: No, no.


The Chairman:: Order; may I just interrupt there. The hon. member has mentioned duties on committees and elsewhere which might prevent him from making a speech on the particular item under which it would be relevant. Of course, the Chair could not recognize any such argument. If we have a rule of relevancy it must be strictly adhered to and speeches should be made at the proper time.
I have no intention of curtailing in any way the general discussion which takes place on the first item of the estimates but I must agree with the remarks which the minister made a few moments ago and say that in my opinion we can proceed with our work in a much more orderly manner if we confine our speeches on the first item to a general discussion.
Hon. members will realize that the minister in charge of a department has his officials appear when the particular items are before us. It would be much preferable and would enable us to do our work in a much more orderly manner if the particular matters raised were dealt with when the relevant item is called. Therefore, without attempting to limit the general discussion in any way, I do suggest it should be a general discussion.


Frederick George Hahn: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In that case I shall continue. As I said earlier, I referred to the minister as the minister of wealth. I am sure everyone here recognizes that he has a wealth of words, a wealth of diplomacy and a tremendous ability to evade. Today he has also demonstrated, to me at least, a wealth of wisdom in' the case where I asked him to implement
Supply-Health and Welfare a certain restriction in respect to the importation of oranges with colour added to them.
In respect to this matter I might say it is not a case of constituents always bringing problems to one's attention, but in the matter of health I think it is our duty from time to time to try to find where possible any instances wherein we can safeguard the health of our constituents and the people of Canada as a whole.
I drafted a particular question having to do with colour which is added to oranges that come from Florida and brought it to the minister's attention. He was kind enough to have the question examined into and after further discussion with him on this particular matter I was finally put in receipt of a newspaper article which appeared in the Vancouver Sun and with which I think every hon. member in this house should be somewhat familiar.


Murdo William Martin: Would my hon. friend feel
he could discuss that on the appropriate item, the food and drug item? We can deal with it at that time. It is a most important subject and I cannot deal with it now. Perhaps we could deal with it when we come to item 255 which is where it belongs.


Frederick George Hahn: I will accede to the minister's
request, Mr. Chairman.


Murdo William Martin: Thank you very much.


Frederick George Hahn: I will do so because I am opening up a new subject and I realize it has not been discussed here earlier. However, in doing that I am satisfied that when I deal with the next item I have on my list in a general fashion the minister will agree that I am quite in order because of the extensive way in which discussion has taken place up to this moment. I wish to speak in a general way of the health of pensioners, not specifically old age pensioners but blind pensioners as well.


Murdo William Martin: Could we deal with that when we come to the specific item?


Frederick George Hahn: I am satisfied, Mr. Chairman, that what the minister says is quite true. There is not an item in this book with which we could not deal-


Murdo William Martin: I am referring to item 279.


Frederick George Hahn: -but I am dealing in a general fashion with this particular subject. I am not making my speech on the subject of blind pensioners. I am simply asking at this time that the minister keep in mind the fact that we have blind people in this country who require special assistance.
The hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke in sepaking for this group also drew this

Supply-Health and Welfare matter to the minister's attention. In my capacity as a member of parliament I have received-and I think this might interest the minister-more representations from groups including fraternal societies and so on concerning special assistance for the blind than I have received in respect to any other piece of legislation that is before this house, and that includes further assistance to old age pensioners or senior citizens as the case might be. Concerning pensions, those who are in the low income group, and I am thinking particularly of pensioners such as C.P.R. pensioners, have sent me a great deal of correspondence on this matter.
Possibly in speaking concerning pension legislation the minister would care to outline how the new act we passed this year with respect to insurance for unemployed employables might apply to this group of citizens in order to save my asking questions on it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: When we come to that particular item I will be very glad to do so. These are all specific questions.


Frederick George Hahn: Then we have the old age pensioners themselves. I know the minister will say we have an item for that particular question and I agree that we do have one, but he will realize as I do that every group in this house except this one has indicated something concerning their stand on the question of old age pensions.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member for Okan-agan-Revelstoke did so extremely well.


Frederick George Hahn: I would be very happy to accede to the minister's request but I am satisfied he would agree upon an examination of the speech of the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke that the hon. member did not deal with it in specific terms, as some of our friends to the right may have done.
I have just one or two observations to make in respect to this matter. A great deal has been said about humanitarianism and the attitude of the various provinces concerning it. I believe there is no disagreement among hon. members of this house concerning the fact that the provinces do owe something to our senior citizens. Whether we are members of the C.C.F., the Social Credit group or the Liberal party, I think we all agree something more should be done for the senior citizens. However, our points of view differ in some respects from those of the minister, and those who support him, who have suggested it is impossible and impracticable to do it at this time. Yesterday an hon. member suggested that we would have to do away with our defence spending, but such is not the case as far as I am concerned. There are other means

which could be devised. We find our Conservative friends are highly in favour of this but they feel that the provinces owe more in this regard. I am satisfied that those who took part in or listened to the debate on the provincial-federal tax agreements which took place a few days ago must realize that the provinces are not in a position to do much more than they are doing at the present time. The federal government seemed to realize that when they suggested equalization payments.
I come now to the charge made, I believe by the hon. member for Yorkton, with regard to supplementary allowances as paid by the various provinces. I think everyone recognizes the virtue of the C.C.F. government as far as the people of Saskatchewan are concerned. Those people had the opportunity to elect a better government but decided against it and to carry on with the type of humanitarianism under which they suffer in that province.


Edward George McCullough: You put
in all your big shots and you were not very successful.


Frederick George Hahn: I am always amazed at the comments we hear from our hon. friends when we try to draw a parallel between what they are doing and what other provinces are doing.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Keep the record straight.


Frederick George Hahn: I am going to keep the record straight. If my hon. friend hears anything to which he wants to take exception he can do so.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would my hon. friends agree to have this dispute when we come to the particular item?


Frederick George Hahn: If the hon. member will allow me to finish.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I would ask you to ask hon. members, unless they are going to deal with matters generally, which they are at liberty to do, they should in fairness to all of us deal with the specific items. There will be various opportunities offered and I would ask you to see that the discussion is general. I am sure that hon. members will be glad to follow your directions.


Frederick George Hahn: I shall be only too glad to accede.


William Alfred Robinson: Hon. members will realize that there is difficulty in deciding what is a general discussion. I recall that the hon. member for Yorkton and other hon. members discussed the very question which the hon. member for New Westminster is now discussing. I do not feel I would be dealing fairly with the hon. member for New Westminster if

I attempted to limit him in discussing matters which have been discussed previously by other hon. members.


Frederick George Hahn: Thank you, Mr. Chairman; you have stated exactly my reason for being on my feet at this time. I would be only too happy to agree with my C.C.F. friends that Tory Ontario is giving nothing in the way of supplementary allowances, and neither are Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and Manitoba. On April 1, 1955 the province of Saskatchewan increased the maximum supplementary allowance from $2.50 to $20 per month payable to those who are eligible. That would be the maximum amount payable to a married couple where only one was receiving an old age pension. I do not think my hon. friends will take exception to that statement.
That means in effect that a married man and his wife who are both in receipt of old age pensions and can prove under a means test that they are in need will receive a combined payment of $20 from the province of Saskatchewan. I do not say that to belittle the efforts being made by Saskatchewan. Possibly that province is doing all it feels it can do.


Alfred Claude Ellis: It was the first province to give supplementary allowances of any kind.


Frederick George Hahn: I notice the increase is phenomenal, from $2.50 to $20 for a family of two. I am satisfied the people of Saskatchewan like that attitude or they would not have reelected the government they have at the present time. At the present time British Columbia pays a supplementary allowance of $20 per month to each individual who is in receipt of old age pension and who can prove need. It was pointed out earlier by an hon. member that there were 22 per cent or so of the citizens in Saskatchewan who receive this supplementary maximum allowance of $20 per month. I am not sure of the exact number in British Columbia but I am satisfied that the figure would be something like 75 per cent of the total number of recipients of old age pensions.


Mr. Philpott:: You are a little too high.


Frederick George Hahn: What is it?


Elmore Philpott: Substantially less than that.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: There is a means test.


Frederick George Hahn: I said all those in receipt of old age pensions who could prove need. Then there would be those who would get less than the maximum.


George Hugh Castleden: The per capita income of that province is higher.



G7509-415

[Stage Direction]
Supply-Health and Welfare Mr. Hahn: The point I wish to make is that both the husband and wife are eligible for further assistance. In other words, the maximum is $40 per month as compared with $20 in Saskatchewan and $15 per month each in Alberta or a maximum of $30 for a family of two. I have a table here which indicates the maximum amounts payable in each province. The figures are as follows:
British Sask-Aiberta Columbia atchewan
Old Age Security
Single 	
Married (both receiving old age	$ 900	$ 780	$ 600security) 	
Married (one receiving old age	1,440	1,440	1,080security) 	
1,380 Blind Persons Allowance	1,260	720Single 	
Married (both receiving blind per-	960	900	600sons allowance) .. Married (one receiving blind per-	1,560	1,560	1,080sons allowance) .. Old Age Assistance	1,440	1,380	720Single 	
Married (both receiving old age	780	780	nilassistance) 	
Married (one receiving old age	1,320	1,320	nilassistance) 	1,320	1,140	nil
Now, Mr. Chairman, I think that in view of that-
Edward George McCullough: I
wonder whether the hon. member would permit a question.


John Horne Blackmore: Why not let him give his talk? You do not expect him to be an encyclopedia, do you?


Edward George McCullough: I do not
think the hon. member should get excited. I just wanted to ask the member a question, possibly to prevent me from making a speech. I wonder whether the hon. member would complete the picture and put on record the comparable services in Alberta and Saskatchewan in connection with nursing services, optical services, physiotherapy, chiropody, and everything else in connection with the two forms of assistance given.


John Horne Blackmore: In other words, be an encyclopedia.


Frederick George Hahn: I am very appreciative of what the hon. member has asked me. With the wisdom of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and taking a leaflet from his booklet, I will say that I shall take the question as notice, for I do not carry such information with me, and I shall give it further consideration at a later date.

Supply-Health and Welfare


Alfred Claude Ellis: Why not get a well-balanced picture?


John Horne Blackmore: Why not give your own speech?


Mr. Goode:: On a point of order. We all like to enjoy the sweepstakes in regard to old age pensions, but I suggest that when a member of this house wishes to ask a question he should address the Chair and not have a personal conversation with someone else in the house.


Frederick George Hahn: Mr. Chairman, I had intended to touch on another project as well, but I see that it is nearly 12.30 and I have practically come to my full allotted time, so that I shall give way to the next speaker.


Murdo William Martin: I had not intended to deal with this question of old age security at this time, but in view of the fact that-


Mr. Gillis:: The minister had better not, or he will start another round of speeches. I wanted to say something myself.


Murdo William Martin: In fairness to those of us who sit on this side of the house, I should say that it is not fair that there should be statements made about old age security and government policy without the government's point of view being put forward so that people can really see what the situation is. I am perfectly aware, as my hon. friend from Cape Breton South has pointed out, that that is the situation, but I asked hon. members if they would not accede to the suggestion of the Chair that we might on these specific items deal with them when they were reached. The hon. member for New Westminster did not see fit to accede to that request. That is his privilege, although I submit with much confidence that he was clearly out of order.


Frederick George Hahn: On a point of order. I would ask the minister to indicate whether the members who preceded me and talked about old age pensions were not justified.


Murdo William Martin: I think they were justified in talking about them, but what I am saying is that this is on the general item. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was perfectly in order, as he dealt with it in a general way in terms of principle along with the whole work of the department, but the member who has just spoken-and he is a man for whom I have great personal esteem -did not deal with it in a general way. He dealt with particular items, as did the hon. member for Prince Albert, who is now out of the house and will not be listening to what I am saying. Those who sit on the Speaker's right and who have propounded


these policies should have a chance to answer. I have decided that the fairest thing is for me to answer this right now, and I propose to put forward the government's position in the matter of old age security.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I do not blame the minister for what he is about to do, but would the minister care to ascertain whether any other members propose to speak on the first item. If perchance there are none, we can get on with it. If others intend to speak, the minister is perfectly right in seeking to go ahead.


Murdo William Martin: I would agree not to make my statement if it is agreed that we can pass the general item and deal with these matters specifically. I know how hon. members on the government side feel; they feel that I should be answering these things. I think we have something to answer and I think it is my duty to do so, but I am willing to wait until the appropriate item if the house will accede to that.


Harold Edward Winch: I wish to speak on the first item, not on anything that has come before but only under the general item.


Murdo William Martin: Is it a general subject? If it is a specific subject it means-


Harold Edward Winch: It will not take more than four minutes.


Murdo William Martin: That is what the hon. member for Prince Albert said. He took 15 minutes.


Harold Edward Winch: Give me four minutes and I shall be through. I postponed what I intended to say because I found no place under which I could say it except under the general item. That is the matter of the natural health resources of Canada.


Murdo William Martin: That can be discussed when we come to the research grants, item 264. I shall bear that in mind when we come to that item as we did last year.


John Horne Blackmore: On a point of order. I have been sitting in this house now for 20 years and I know a little about these things. The minister is now attempting to establish a principle which is unsound. Ever since I have been here, it has been customary as a principle for a member to discuss any aspect of the whole estimates under the general item. If I might just kindly suggest it to the minister, we have just seen the Minister of National Defence go through just the kind of grilling that he is going through, and the Minister of National Defence answered every question that was asked under the general item.


Murdo William Martin: May I point out in fairness that the only-


John Horne Blackmore: Will you let me finish what I have to say?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Minister of National Defence has only four items. We have nearly 40. There is no comparison. I know my hon. friend is a fair-minded member and he would agree with me-


John Horne Blackmore: Yes, your hon. friend wants to be fair-minded to both sides. I remember when we were practically squeezed right out of discussion by a rigid application of the relevancy rule in respect of the individual items as we came to them. That is the reason why the members began carrying on full discussion under the general item. That is the whole situation. May I tell the Minister of National Health and Welfare that if he will permit this discussion to go along without any interruptions and answer where he has the experts to do so and, where he has not the experts, say, "I shall answer this at such and such a time," I shall promise him that the same thing will happen as has happened already with the Minister of National Defence. The members said all they wanted to say. They asked all the questions they wished. When they will have done that and the first item goes through, the other items will go through like straw through a threshing machine. It has happened time and time again. If he will not be so particular about keeping people in order, he will get his estimates through just as fast, perhaps faster, and we shall all feel happy about it. I wish to commend the chairman for the ruling he has made up to the present time. I do not wish him to move from that. I must support him in that position when he resists the minister's desire to restrict the discussion on the general item.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. I do not think there is any attempt here to establish any new principle or to restrict discussion in any way. The difficulty is merely one of the Chair being able to interpret to the satisfaction of the committee what is general discussion and what is particular discussion. I notice that when the hon. member for New Westminster started to speak on one subject the minister pointed out that it could more appropriately be discussed under a particular item, and the member immediately acceded to that request. I think that if the committee proceeds on that basis we will not be establishing any new principle but that the chair will be assisted very materially in making what are at times very difficult decisions as to interpretation.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The general discussion has gone on for quite some time and 1 think the government is partly to blame. I believe it was understood yesterday that one speaker from each party would speak and then we 67509-415J
Supply-Health and Welfare would get on with the items, but the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre spoke for the government and raised some very controversial questions and since that time I think it is only natural that members of all parties felt that they wanted to make some comment. I had no intention of speaking on the general item yesterday until the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre made his provocative speech.


Harold Edward Winch: I would have been all through with what I had to say by now but the minister said I should make my remarks on item 264. I have looked at item 264 and the details as found on page 368. Where in those details is there any item on which I can discuss it? I can only see one and that is on a grant.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Go ahead.


Murdo William Martin: That is the place where I would have the authority-


Harold Edward Winch: You could have had the entire speech over by now if you had not been so damn sticky.


Murdo William Martin: That is the item where I would have the authority to do what my hon. friend has in mind.


Harold Edward Winch: Where, under item 264?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, the general health grants.


Harold Edward Winch: But this is strictly something: of a federal nature.


Murdo William Martin: I know, but the only authority we would have to provide for that particular form of research would be under that item. When we come to it my hon. friend will see what I mean.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
National health branch-
245. National health branch - administration, $155,250.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister a question which perhaps it might have been better to ask under the item we were just discussing but I was prepared to wait until we reached the detailed items. I wonder whether the minister's attention has been drawn to the fact that companies selling batteries for hearing aids have recently increased the prices of those batteries rather substantially. If not, I am drawing it to his attention, and in view of his interest in the health of people I wonder whether he will look into the matter and see if there are any appropriate suggestions that can be made so that people who have to use hearing aids and have to replenish the batteries will not be put to unnecessary expenditure.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We are already looking into that.

Supply-Health and Welfare


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I have a question about the world health organization which perhaps I might ask at this point. In returns prepared by the Department of Trade and Commerce in connection with the Colombo plan administration I notice that there are 44 Canadians employed by the world health organization in different parts of the world. I think it is unfortunate that the people of Canada do not get better information regarding the splendid contribution which is being made by these 44 Canadians. I have had some conversations with the minister. When I ask external affairs about their publicity they say that the Minister of National Health and Welfare knows everything about that and that the minister has a great deal of information.
But when you telephone the information section of his department and ask what information is being supplied regarding Canadians who are working for the organization, where they are working and what they are doing, you get very inadequate information. Could the minister make some statement about the possibilities of giving the Canadian people better information regarding the general problems of health throughout the world, the progress that is being made towards meeting them and the contribution that these 44 Canadians are making in different parts of the world?


Murdo William Martin: The world health organization, as my hon. friend knows, came into being in 1946 at the United Nations as the result of a proposal made by Canada and China. I mention that to indicate the interest of this country in the world health organization. Canada has been a member of the executive council of the world health organization for two years, and we are the only country in Its history to have been assigned a second term, which is an indication of the interest we have taken in this organization.
My hon. friend asks quite properly that information about its work should be distributed more widely throughout the country. Since he discussed this matter with me a few days ago, I have looked into what we have done and have arranged to send him some of the material we have been distributing. It may be that as a result of the suggestion he makes, I know quite sincerely, we may be able to do more because the world health organization does very important work not only for materially underdeveloped countries but for all countries.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
252. Occupational health, $332,373.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Under item 252 there is a question I should like to ask the minister.


He will recall that a few weeks ago I asked him a question on orders of the .day concerning news reports having to do with radioactivity. The particular reference in the news reports was as to whether or not persons in various occupations or persons being exposed to X-rays in trying on their new shoes and so on are getting too much radioactivity. As I recall, he indicated at the time that the matter was being looked into. Has he any further information on this point?


Murdo William Martin: I am grateful to the hon. gentleman for asking this question because I had wanted at some time to make a statement on this subject. I would think it is possibly one of the most important matters facing the world and certainly facing Canada at this time. The minister of health in the United Kingdom recently made a comprehensive statement in the House of Commons. I understand that my opposite number in the United States is about to do so and I know that the same will be done again in the United Kingdom. In view of this, and particularly in view of my own participation recently in certain phases of disarmament activities, I feel that I should make a statement, and that I now propose to do.
On April 4, 1955, I tabled replies in answer to a series of questions by the hon. member for York-Scarborough which outlined in some detail the work being carried out by the Department of National Health and Welfare and other federal agencies in studying the health effects of ionizing radiation and in supervising the safe use of radioactive materials in industry, medicine and research. In describing the potential health hazards of radiation, reference was made not only to the deleterious effects on exposed individuals, but to the possible genetic damage that might be done by ionizing radiation arising from test explosions of atomic and nuclear weapons and from other sources of radioactivity. Anyone who has seen the statement made by Dr. Lapp, the eminent American scientist, will recognize that perhaps no subject that has been discussed in this house is as important as the one now involved in this statement.
Two important scientific reports have recently stimulated increased public interest in this matter. I refer to the report of the national academy of sciences in the United States and the report of Great Britain's medical research council which was recently presented to the United Kingdom parliament at the request of Prime Minister Eden. These two reports have confirmed the views expressed to me by the late Dr. A. J. Cipriani early in 1955 which largely formed the basis on which we have developed our own departmental program in this field. Dr. Cipriani

died after having served only a few months on the United Nation's special scientific committee, and Canada and the world owe to this late distinguished and eminent scientist a debt of gratitude which I am sure history will recognize.
I want to make it perfectly clear, speaking on behalf of the government, that if, as a minister of health, the expert technical advice available to me indicated that there were serious health hazards to the human race in the continuance of test explosions at the present rate I would consider it my duty to recommend urgent negotiations directed towards their total abandonment and thorough re-assessment of the international political consequences of such action.
Now, I must say at once that this is a complex problem, and one about which much remains to be learned in so far as the health effects of radiation are concerned. However, there is already a body of scientific opinion of very great value available to us. It is on the basis of this evidence, admittedly imperfect and at times contradictory, that we must base our decisions in this matter. The urgency for filling the gaps in our existing knowledge in this field was recognized last November at the United Nations when approval was given to a proposal put forward by the United States for the establishment of a scientific committee on the effects of atomic radiation, to collect and collate all available data in this field.
Now, this committee has made a valuable contribution. The place of Dr. Cipriani has been taken by Dr. E. A. Watkinson, who is responsible for our department's very considerable program of research in this field. On this committee will depend much of the scientific assessment in this very important field for the future.
In examining the health effects of radiation, two points must be borne in mind. First, the effects of radiation are almost invariably harmful. This characteristic is utilized to advantage in the treatment of malignant tumours by radiotherapy. Second, radiation is not a new phenomenon. Human populations have always been exposed to ionizing radiation from natural sources including cosmic rays from outer space and radiations emitted by compounds of certain heavy elements such as uranium and radium. It is therefore the degree and not the nature of the hazard that is new.
Now, in the past 60 years since the discovery of radium and X-rays, some individuals have been exposed to greater amounts of radiation than naturally occur in the everyday environment. As new applications of atomic energy to industrial, medical and
Supply-Health and Welfare research uses are discovered and developed; more and more people will be exposed to increased levels of radiation. This is altogether apart from test explosions or the possibility of nuclear warfare. The potential risks of deleterious effects to health must be weighed against the unquestioned benefits to be gained from the use of ionizing radiation in various forms and the exploitation of nuclear energy for constructive and peaceful purposes.
Now, before dealing with the health effects of test explosions, I should like to touch briefly on the hazards associated with these other uses of radioactive materials and to describe some of the steps taken by the Department of National Health and Welfare to ensure that high standards of protection against radiation injury are observed. In doing this I am answering a request made the other day by the Canadian Medical Association for a statement by the government on this subject.
As long ago as 1950, the department established a radiation service for the express purpose of providing health supervision over the use of artificially produced isotopes in industry, research and medicine. Among other things, this service includes advice to prospective users of radioactive isotopes on recommended methods of planning laboratories; periodic inspections of such establishments to ensure continued safe handling practices; the maintenance of a film monitoring service for measuring both gamma rays and X-rays, thus assisting in the protection of persons who may be exposed to these rays in the course of their work; guidance in regard to the safe storage of radioactive materials, as well as the safe disposal of radioactive waste. As a major contribution to protection efforts, we have also assisted in the preparation of a summary of the recommendations of the international commissionti on radiological protection for wide distribution to radiation workers throughout Canada.
As part of its advisory service, the department has also drawn attention to the health hazards associated with the use of shoe-fitting fluoroscopes. In this particular, I am answering directly one of the questions asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. In an effort to ensure protection for the customer as well as the members of the sales staff, detailed recommendations on the operation of these devices have been prepared and are being widely distributed. While it is acknowledged that this is not a major source of radiation, these machines contribute unnecessarily to the total radiation background. In this connection, the international

Supply-Health and Welfare commission on radiological protection has recommended that their use should be limited to strictly medical procedures under the supervision of qualified persons. This is a matter which the federal government has no constitutional authority to act upon and is one that has been brought to the attention of the provincial governments concerned for enforcement purposes.
Then, services for the monitoring of dental and hospital X-ray installations have also been made available through our radiation service for several years. A pamphlet was prepared on the subject of protection in diagnostic X-ray departments in response to an increasing interest in this subject from radiologists and X-ray technicians. In addition, the department provides advice in regard to the health supervision of cobalt 60 beam therapy units, which of course is a very important instrument in the treatment of cancer, and other similar sealed sources of radiation for the treatment of cancer and allied conditions. This may be taken then as an indication that Canadian physicians have been aware for some time of the potential hazards related to medical uses of X-rays and are developing methods to ensure the maximum safety against possible deleterious effects associated with the use of this very valuable diagnostic and therapeutic agent.
Recognizing, therefore, the public health implications of exposure to increasing levels of radiation resulting from the wider development of peaceful applications of nuclear energy the department, over a year ago, convened a meeting of experts to assist in planning studies and investigations which would enlarge our knowledge of this exceedingly complex field. As a result of the recommendations of this advisory committee, a special laboratory was established to determine levels of radioactive strontium 90 in certain food products and other biological materials. Our findings from these investigations will serve to establish a base line for the future. In addition to laboratory investigations, we are also developing studies related to the incidence of radiation-induced diseases and the possible genetic effects.
With regard to the latter, the genetic effects, the department is now engaged in investigating three distinct lines of research. The first is the assessment of trends in the genetic components of the public health. That is to say, a study of vital statistics records to determine whether there has been any increase in the incidence of certain conditions that might be induced by exposure to radiation. The second is a study of the incidence of congenital defects among offspring of heavily irradiated individuals. The

third is the measurement of spontaneous mutation rates for particular human genes. All we have to do is observe what happened to those Japanese fishermen to realize that there is, perhaps, no study as important to the human race as this one.
So far, we have been giving most attention to the first of these, which may give information on long-term genetic effects of ionizing radiation. Our country, with its well developed and highly mechanized and centralized system of vital records and statistics, is particularly well equipped to consider this approach. Should this prove practicable, it may lead to the extension of present health record and reporting systems to include a recognition of the genetic aspects essential to the assessment of this potential hazard.
It will be seen, therefore, that vigorous measures are being taken by the department to supervise, from a health standpoint, the use of all radioactive materials and to further research into the potential future hazards. The results of our Canadian research are being made available to the special United Nations committee to which I have already referred.
I come now to the question of the bomb tests and their implications for the health of this and future generations. As we see this problem, the chief hazards for world populations are of two distinct kinds:	(a)
those associated with the ingestion of radioactive material, principally radioactive strontium 90; (b) those associated with effects on reproductive tissues and having a possible genetic effect on future generations.
When a nuclear bomb explodes radioactive fission products are produced. Close to the site of the explosion, the radiation given off from the bomb and the resulting fission products can cause serious radiation injury and even death. For this reason, testing sites for these explosions have been chosen in remote areas. Some of the fission products are carried high into the atmosphere and eventually fall on all parts of the world. The potential hazard for humans associated with that portion of the fission products carried up into the higher atmosphere results from the fall-out of these products onto the surface of the earth.
Some of us may conceive the hazard of radioactive fall-out as an immediate danger to human health and well-being. This, however, is not the case and, for a proper understanding, it should be appreciated that the important radioactive element, strontium 90, slowly settles to the earth over many years and becomes incorporated into soil and subsequently absorbed into certain plants.

Since strontium is deposited chiefly in the bone, where a sufficiently high concentration could cause tumours or other serious effects, the consumption ol food with a high content of radioactive strontium could constitute a major health hazard. I now quote from the British report:
Such measurements as have been made of strontium 90 in human bone suggests that the highest levels are at present about a thousand times less than is considered permissible for those occupationally exposed.
Work which has been done to date in our country indicates that Canadian levels are substantially the same as those in the United Kingdom and in the United States. Nevertheless, it should be pointed out that the best scientific opinion suggests that for the population at large the concentration of radioactive strontium should not exceed one-tenth of that permitted to the small number of persons employed in radioactive industries.
With regard to the genetic effects, it is accepted that exposure of the reproductive tissues to ionizing radiation may result in mutations which are mainly deleterious in effect when transmitted to succeeding generations. However, according to the best scientific evidence available to this government and to the governments of the United Kingdom and of the United States, and from recent discussions that I had in New York with France, the testing which has occurred to date will have no significant effect on the genetic quality of the population as a whole. Therefore, the principal cause for concern at this time is not, as some have feared, the possibility of genetic damage that would adversely affect future generations, but what are called the somatic or the direct effects from radioactive strontium 90. It should be clear from what I have said that the present levels of strontium 90 are well within acceptable limits for the general population.
May I just briefly summarize what I have been saying before I take my seat? Three propositions have been arrived at after a most careful study of the British and the United States reports, and data available from other countries as well as from the findings of our own research. I may say the statement which I have given to the committee today represents the compilation and efforts not only of officials of my own department but of some of the most eminent medical scientists, chemists and physicists in our own country and some with whom we have collaborated elsewhere, so that I am giving a statement that has behind it the authority of the best skills available in this field. My summary, therefore, is, there have been no significant harmful effects on the world population as a whole from all the
Supply-Health and Welfare nuclear weapon tests that have occurred to date. If testing continues at the present rate the genetic effects on the world population will be negligible. However, the strontium 90 levels will increase and may ultimately reach a point beyond which harmful effects could result. I therefore suggest to the committee that this is evidence of the interest and concern which we share with other countries, in this important matter, one which is receiving our continuing study.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am grateful to the minister, and I am sure the entire committee is, for the statement that he has made in answer to my question. Indeed, he has answered not only the question that I put to him this morning but other questions that have been asked in the house from time to time with regard to radioactive fall-out. It is good to know that the governments of countries like the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada are giving serious thought and serious study to these problems, and there will be a measure of reassurance in the kind of statement the minister has given here which, I understand, is a counterpart to a statement being made shortly, or that has been made, by the governments of the United Kingdom and of the United States. Nevertheless, Mr. Chairman-


John Horne Blackmore: Are we going to talk all through noon? It is one o'clock now. Why not go on after 2.30?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am in the hands of the Chair or the committee, Mr. Chairman. I could finish my reply to the minister in a couple of minutes.


Murdo William Martin: Finish it and pass the item.


The Deputy Chairman:: It being one o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, at one o'clock I had just indicated to the minister that the house would be interested in the statement he had made concerning the studies conducted by his department into the question of radioactivity in relation to human beings and the studies into radioactive fall-out generally.
I had said there would be a measure of reassurance gained from the statement made by the minister but I admit I am not sure just how great will be that measure of

Supply-Health and Welfare reassurance. As the minister is aware, conflicting statements do come out from time to time from eminent scientists and one cannot help but be conscious of the fact that there are rather eminent scientists who are afraid that continuing nuclear bomb tests hold the prospect of danger to the human race.
If I may put it just in this very brief form as certainly nothing more than a layman in this field, it seems rather strange to me that in the same statement the minister tells us of the care that should be taken with respect to fluoroscope machines that are available when one buys a pair of new shoes and at the same time we are told in that statement there is not really any danger from the nuclear tests that are being conducted.
It seems to me if the minister is correct in suggesting that people should not submit themselves to unnecessary radiation in the use of the machines to which I have already referred it would be the part of wisdom for mankind not to submit itself to unnecessary nuclear bomb tests.
I hope that in his joint capacity as Minister of National Health and Welfare and Canada's second minister of external affairs, in view of the large part he plays at the United Nations, he and the government will consider if the time has not come in the interest of the safety of the human race to put a stop to these nuclear test explosions.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Chairman, such wise counsel as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has just given is all to the good if the minister starts at the right end, if he starts with the Russians, the communist conspiracy that controls Russia, and succeeds in making them see that they should discontinue these tests; otherwise, to talk this way to our people is to talk sheer defeat. It is just saying in effect that the British race, the Anglo-Saxon Celtics are wasting their time in trying to stand up against the Russians and that they might as well sit on a log and cry themselves to death because there is not a thing they can do about it and in the interests of protecting ourselves from fall-out we simply have to put the hammer and sickle over Washington, London and Ottawa and call it a day. Surely we should not have too much of that kind of talk in this house. At the same time I appreciate the point of view of the hon. member for Winnipeg North.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Winnipeg North Centre.


John Horne Blackmore: It is interesting that so much of this kind of warning comes from one group in this house. May I now read to the minister something which I am sure he

will be glad to have put on the record as being in support of what he has just said.
I have in my hands a copy of the July 21, 1956, Lethbridge Herald. On the last page of the Lethbridge Herald for that date a statement appears which has some bearing on the other side. It reads:
U.S. Atom Chief Cagey
Says Progress is Made "Localizing" Fall-out.
Washington-(AP)-Pacific island nuclear tests have brought reports of "real progress" toward goals of reducing radioactive fall-out and of providing atomic anti-aircraft weapons.
The announcement came from chairman Lewis L. Strauss of the atomic energy commission in a generalized statement on which other AEC officials declined to elaborate.
The statement raised the possibility that American atomic scientists have found the secret of how to blast an intended H-bomb target without spreading radioactivity to other areas.
Strauss indicated progress also in the weapons field, and spoke of the goal of "a wide range of weapons . . . including defence against air attack."
Much of the statement was devoted to limiting the danger of radioactive fall-out-the fearsome by-product of nuclear explosions.
It said the tests have shown progress toward "achievement of maximum effect in the immediate area of a target with minimum widespread fall-out hazard."
I do not wish to elaborate on this matter but I do wish to point out to the country and to this house once more that we do not need hon. members in this house preaching defeat to this nation. We have to have people who will preach hope of ultimate success. I see no reason at all why the great Anglo-Saxon Celtic people with their admirable and enviable record of benefit for mankind extending over thousands of years should be ready to surrender themselves to a group of evil-minded men, some few millions in the world, who are seeking by all sorts of devices to talk us into surrendering to them and letting them rule the world.


Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo):: Mr. Chairman,
I will not comment on the remarks of the hon. member for Lethbridge-


John Horne Blackmore: No comment is necessary.


Colin Cameron: -while at the same time pointing out to him that the almost unanimous opinion of the report of Admiral Strauss on the ability to now control fall-out has been described by almost every observer in Washington by the charitable word "disingenuous" which is, of course, a polite term for a harsher expression.
I was rather interested to find that the Minister of National Health and Welfare was able to extract so much comfort and assurance from the report of the British medical research council recently tabled in the British House of Commons because from the information I have received direct from London, and in one case from one who is

actually engaged in research work tor the British medical research council, and from the reports on that report that were carried in the New York Times of June 13, I doubt whether the minister's optimism can really be justified. In this report in the London Times reference is made to the report of this committee of the medical research council as follows:
On the question of long-term genetic effects, the report states that present knowledge does not justify the naming of any specific figure as a limit for the average dose of radiation which might be received by the population as a whole. "It is highly desirable," the committee state, "that such a figure should be named as soon as possible; and we understand that the international commission on radiological protection has this matter under consideration."
"In the meantime, we feel bound to state our opinion that it is unlikely that any authoritative recommendation will name a figure for permissible radiation dose to the whole population, additional to that received from the natural background, which is more than twice that of the general value for natural background radiation." The recommended figure might be appreciably less, and those concerned with the development and use of such sources of radiation would be well advised to keep this possibility in mind.
Although no specific recommendations on longterm genetic effects are thus made, the view was expressed yesterday in circles closely in touch with the report that the effects of thermonuclear explosions would exceed the criterion in respect of radioactive strontium in bone at an earlier stage than they would approach any reasonable limits that might be recommended in respect of the total radiation dose to the whole population.
I suggest that that indicates that this committee has in fact been warning the world of the possible, in fact the probable dangers of continued thermonuclear tests. To pretend that we can get comfort from that and go on gaily approving such tests is I think a distortion of the facts. I have here an article written by Dr. James G. Foulks, department of pharmacology, University of British Columbia, in which he quotes leading British and United States scientists on this point. He quotes Dr. A. H. Sturtevant, one of the United States foremost geneticists, as follows:
There is no possible escape from the conclusion that the bombs already exploded will ultimately result in the production of numerous defective individuals, if the human species itself survives for many generations, and every new bomb exploded will result in an increase in this ultimate harvest of defective individuals.
Dr. Foulks also quotes Dr. H. A. Muller, who received the Nobel prize for his researches in this particular field. I would remind the committee that Dr. Muller was the man who was prevented from going to the Geneva conference by the United States atomic energy commission because of his
Supply-Health and Welfare views with regard to the possible genetic effects of thermonuclear explosions. Dr. Muller had this to say:
Despite a number of unfortunate publicized statements by non-geneticists casting doubt on the mutagenic effectiveness of small doses of radiation, the work has gone so far as to make it inconceivable, on physico-chemical grounds, for a single ionization track traversing a cell nucleus to be without its proportionate probability of inducing a gene mutation.
The article continues:
Actually, Dr. Muller believes it probable that a single ionization or molecular activation, when properly situated, will suffice to produce a mutation.
And again:
Such considerations have led one scientist to conclude that "the long-range genetic danger of exposure of mankind as a whole to low-level, but widespread and persistent radioactivity, is the most ominous of all the dangers of the atomic age."
The chairman of the subcommittee of the British medical research council is Sir John Cockcroft, usually considered to be one of the outstanding British scientists. I was interested in finding in Nature, volume 176 of July 16, 1955 a criticism of Sir John Cockcroft's estimate of the dangers of radioactivity by J. B. S. Haldane, usually considered one of the world's leading biologists. In the course of this article in Nature, Dr. Haldane suggests that Sir John Cockcroft's estimates of permissible dose may be ten times too high. I am not going to read the whole article because it is much too technical but the conclusion he reaches is that Sir John Cockcroft has been far too optimistic. He winds up in this way:
The problem is not insoluble. The figures given above could, I think, be improved. I have, however, deliberately used estimates made before the question of the genetic effects of experimental explosions was raised. Estimates made later may have been influenced by conscious or unconscious political or ethical bias. Research on this problem requires extremely careful planning, including the realization that apparently hopeful projects may prove useless.
I would point out further that as a result of this report by the subcommittee of the British medical research council last week in the British House of Commons Sir Anthony Eden agreed that his government would make direct approaches to the Soviet union, and presumably to the United States, with a view to seeking a limitation of these bomb tests. I would suggest that that was a more rational and realistic result of reading the report of the British medical research council than the one indicated to us this morning by the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Health and Welfare
255.	Administration of the Food and Drugs and the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Acts, $1,389,761.
Frederick George Hahn: Mr. Chairman, earlier today it was suggested that the discussion I had in mind might better be brought up under this heading. I refer to a question which I asked the minister following up one presented to him on May 24 and having to do with the toxic effect of colouring used on oranges imported from Florida in the United States. This question and the question of added colouring to foods may not seem too important, but when one considers the number of boxes of oranges that come into this country and the fact that it has been found that certain coal tar colours are toxic and poisonous, then I think it does become important. I should like to quote from an article which appeared in the Vancouver Sun to indicate just how important this really is. This is an Associated Press Dispatch from Washington under date of July 16, 1956, and it reads:
Probers claim some food dyes ''poisonous", linked to cancer.
A special committee says there is evidence some coal and tar dyes used in food, cosmetics and drugs actually are poisonous or cause cancer.
The committee added that it may take the food and drug administration another 25 years to determine whether 116 dyes now certified as safe under U.S. law really are harmless.
It said the research program should be strengthened.
Only 15 of the 116 dyes certified under the 1938 food, drug and cosmetic act have been studied to any great extent, the committee said. These 15 are used in foods.
Just commenting on that article, I wonder if the minister could indicate to us how many such dyes are used in Canada in comparison with the number used in the United States. The article continues:
Among the 15 coal tar derivatives which have been studied, the committee said, 10 resulted in some harmful effects on experimental animals.
"Several are distinctly toxic (poisonous) when fed to rats at levels as low as one-quarter of one per cent of a standard diet," the committee said.
This morning the minister, in reply to my question, suggested that he was having the question of added colour put under the Food and Drugs Act for administration purposes. I was wondering exactly what his departmental findings were in respect to this substance that was used and what work has been done in discovering the dangers that are pointed out in this article, whether or not the colours used in oranges are the only food colourings that are being examined or whether we have used in this country food colourings from this coal tar substance. The article goes on to say:
The committee also said the practice of labelling certain dyes as harmless is unrealistic unless the amount which can be safely used is specified.


I should like to know whether we have any control of the amount of colour that is being used in those oranges, what the percentage is, and what experiments have been conducted to indicate that there is no poisonous effect.
The group concluded, in view of the widespread use of coal tar dyes in foods, cosmetics and drugs, that it could "see no alternative to strengthening of the present research position of the food and drug administration in the area of coal tar colours."
The question in my mind is whether or not the very fact that oranges and such foods are being put under the Food and Drugs Act is a sufficiently strong measure in so far as periodic examination is concerned, and exactly what the department has found in respect to the toxic effect of these colours, as mentioned in this United States dispatch.


Harold Edward Winch: There is one matter I should like to raise under this vote. I shall admit quite honestly that I am hesitant in raising it, and yet I have to. I am a great cheese eater. I like cheese. I like Canadian cheese. Nine times out of ten when I order dessert, I ask for cheese. Therefore I am very much interested in that product, especially if produced in Canada. I was very much disturbed at something that appeared in the daily press relative to the conditions in some of the cheese factories in Canada. I have been in receipt over the past few weeks of a great many letters from my constituents enclosing copies of what was published in the British Columbia press of an article under an Ottawa dateline. In almost all the letters I received, they pointed out that they felt, along with others, that they would be very much disturbed if the situation as outlined were not denied nor a statement made in public by the minister that the situation had been corrected.
It is solely because of my desire to see more Canadian cheese consumed that I agree with those who have written to me that, in view of the publicity that was given, now is the time to have some publicity counteracting it-as I hope-to the effect that the situation now is not as outlined in the press release, as the result of the investigations of Dr. Thatcher, the head of the department's microbiology section and the two bacteriologists in the same department who were with him. I am not going to place on the record the published results of their findings, because I am certain the minister knows to what I refer and the reason why I am so concerned about it. Can he give some assurance to this house that, as a result of the investigation, action has been taken and that those who like eating Canadian cheese can now do so without any

fear that the situation which the department found to be prevalent is now continuing.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I can give my hon. friend-and I am glad he raised this question-full assurance in that particular. Under the Food and Drugs Act, the dominion analyst advises me that our examination of Canadian cheese shows that it contains the qualities that justify all of us in this house ascribing to Canadian cheese the highest standard which we have attributed to it. My hon. friend refers to a paper that was written three years ago in reference to a particular batch of cheese. That paper must not in any way be construed as in any way a reflection upon the wholesomeness and the good quality of Canadian cheese, a liking for which I share with the hon. gentleman.


Harold Edward Winch: Is the minister referring to the same report? This says that 137 factories were examined.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right.


John Alpheus Charlton: Would the minister also point out that the situation was rectified shortly after the first investigation, which was three or four years ago, and that this was a repetition-which was very unfortunate, I might say-of an article written three or four years previously as a result of an investigation, of some three or four years previously, and it was repeated after the situation had been fully rectified?


Harold Edward Winch: I point out to my hon. friend that I am trying to do him a favour, if he represents a cheese producing area. It has appeared on the front pages of the Vancouver press. I asked whether or not this could be confirmed and whether the matter had been straightened out, and I did so in the interests of the cheese producers, because this has appeared in the press in recent weeks.


Mr. Blair:: I think that the publication in the press of a report three years old has done a great deal of damage to the cheese industry. The fact is that the situation has been corrected, and there should be a statement to the Canadian people, as the minister said, that Canadian cheese is of high quality. I consider it most unfortunate that this report of three years ago concerning a certain number of factories has been given to the public and that a slap in the face has been given to the cheese industry of Canada.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I fully agree with what the hon. member has said, that this report should never have been published. It was done without my knowledge. It was with regard to particular situations. We all know that Canadian cheese can compete in quality with cheese of any country in the world.
Supply-Health and Welfare


Frederick George Hahn: The minister did not answer any of my questions. Perhaps he does not care to.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, I was going to deal with them right now. I thank my hon. friend for acceding to the request, as he did so kindly, to discuss this matter under this item and not under the general item this morning. I shall simply say, in addition to what I have already said, that in taking the step that we did with regard to the particular colour in oranges the ban applies as of August 1. It was not because we had found dangerous levels in colour in oranges in Canada but because we simply wanted to take a precautionary step.
In the regulations under the Food and Drugs Act, provision was made for the use of 17 coal tar colours in foods. In addition there is a requirement that the maximum amount of colour to be used in any food is limited to one part per 3,500 parts of food or approximately 0-03 per cent. In surveys which have been conducted in the food and drug laboratories of our department, it has been found that this level is reached in only a few foods, and the level of colour in the majority of foods, where it is used, varies from one to two parts per 100,000 parts of food. At the time the permitted list of coal tar colours was established, and with the evidence then available as to the safety of their use in foods, no indication of harmful effects was evident. Moreover, no reports have come to the attention of the food and drug directorate that the ingestion of foods containing any of the colours in amounts permitted in Canada has caused harmful effects in humans. However, my hon. friend may be assured that this matter will continue to receive the attention of our officials in the food and drug division in conjunction with our own work along with that particularly carried on in the United States.


Mr. Bryson:: It seems rather obvious that the report referred to by the hon. member who spoke was more or less suppressed. I should like to ask the minister if that report was suppressed and why the information has only come to light now.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What report is that?


Hugh Alexander Bryson: The condition that the hon. member has spoken about.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We have passed that item. However, I will answer briefly provided we do not carry on a discussion. We have passed that item.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: Oh, no.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Oh, yes, we have passed that item.
6552	HOUSE OF
Supply-Health and Welfare


John Alpheus Charlton: No, you have not.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Well, there is no sense arguing. Our officials examine these things. Dr. Thatcher had made an examination of a particular group of cheeses. I would not want to be regarded as publicly criticizing an official who generally does great service to the country, but in this particular instance his report should not have been published. I was not aware that it had been published, I can assure my hon. friend, but that is the situation and what I said about Canadian cheese stands.


Harold Edward Winch: That raises an issue that I think is of prime importance. The minister says that it should not have been published. Is the minister saying that this information which has the character of dynamite should not have been published and made available?


John Alpheus Charlton: On a point of order, that is not proper information. The minister has just made the statement that the report should never have been published. I want to say that the report was published at the time. The minister has just given information which is not correct. The report was published at the time and that was three or four years ago. It should never have been republished. If it has been republished now it should not have been done. The report was published. The information was never stifled. The information was given to the public at the time and these situations have been corrected since. It is not fair that the matter should be brought up again after an interval of three or four years.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I agree with what my hon. friend has said. It was not published at the time.


John Alpheus Charlton: Yes, it was.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My deputy minister tells me it was not. However, that is not an important fact.


John Alpheus Charlton: Yes, it is.


Paul Joseph James Martin: All right. Our officials make reports to the dominion analyst daily. These reports go to the desk of the deputy minister. Those that he thinks should receive the attention of the minister go to the minister. All I am saying is that a report made by an individual in his capacity as a member of a government department should not have been published without the authority of the head of the department. That is all I was saying a while ago.


John Alpheus Charlton: You are making it worse all the time.


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

256.	Administration of the Opium and Narcotic Drugs Act, $188,171.
Mr. Campbell:: I should like to ask the minister if peyote buttons have been brought under the Opium and Narcotic Drugs Act.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, they have not.


Alexander Maxwell (Max) Campbell: Is the department considering taking that action?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is now being studied, as I said three weeks ago in the house in answer to a question.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: Apparently we are on different items for some reason or other, but I should like to ask the minister if he will explain to the committee the contributions that are made by his department to the province of Saskatchewan in respect to the hospitalization of Indians and the out-patient treatment that the Indians receive.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We are not on Indians. That is item 257.


Harold Edward Winch: We are dealing with the
administration of the Opium and Narcotic Drugs Act. I should like to ask the minister if this is the place to ask him what action, if any, is going to be taken on the report on narcotics made by the senate committee. What is the present situation and what policies does the minister have in mind?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The report of the committee is now before a group who are in consultation with the provincial departments of health in respect of certain portions of the recommendations which apply to the provinces. The penal sections are likewise under discussion with the Department of Justice. I hope before too long to have an opportunity to make a public statement in this regard.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Indians and Eskimos health services-
257.	Operation and maintenance, $15,983,621.
John Alpheus Charlton: The minister received a letter from the council of the Six Nations Indian reservation some time ago, as a matter of fact it was in April, regarding the situation existing there now at the Willingdon hospital on the reservation. I received a copy of the letter the minister received. I wrote to the director of Indian health services and subsequently received a letter from the minister explaining the situation. However, the minister did not answer one of the questions I asked him. I asked him if there had been a change of policy with regard to Indian health services at the Lady Willingdon hospital, and if so, when the change took place and why it took place.

It has always been the understanding of all the people on the reservation at Brantford that hospitalization was provided to them free of charge. It has always been the case up until very recently. During the last year, in most cases, although possibly not all, charges have been made and several bills have been sent out to people on the reservation after hospitalization has taken place.
It is my understanding, and I have it on very good authority, that subsequent to the sending out of bills for hospitalization some official of the department was sent to the Six Nations reservation after the minister received the letter to which I have referred and that some of these people at least were told that they did not need to pay the bill and that, moreover, they should forget ever having received a bill.
If the situation is as expressed in the letter to the minister and if after some complaints are made some people are told not to pay the bills they have received and to try to forget they ever received them, then I suggest to the minister that is a very unfair practice.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Was it an official of the department who said that?


John Alpheus Charlton: Supposedly, yes. Either the people on the Six Nations reserve are to be charged for hospitalization or they are not to be charged. No charge has ever been made before. Therefore, I ask the minister now, as I asked in the letter I wrote to him in May, when that policy was changed and why it was changed.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend may be assured that th,e policy in this particular has never changed. The policy always has been that those who can pay should pay. That is the only policy. If there are hardships, my hon. friend might bring them to my attention. Of course, only a small portion of the Indians are able to pay, but where they can I think it is generally felt that they should pay. I am going to look again at the particular case to which my hon. friend refers to see what it is about. However, if the individual cannot pay, then of course he is not going to be called upon to do something he cannot do.


John Alpheus Charlton: That is not the point. I do suggest that might be the case for Indians living on the reservations, living there permanently. There are, however, cases of Indians residing on the reservation and working off the reservation, only coming back week-ends or something like that. Then, there may be some excuse, but if the rule is to be made for one then it should apply
Supply

Health and Welfare to all. Where a person has been frugal during his lifetime and has saved his money, he should not be jeopardized in his old age or jeopardize his children by having that money taken away from them, while the chap who has not saved any money is getting away free.


Harold Edward Winch: I might mention the same
subject to the minister. I would ask the minister to look into the situation in British Columbia. I have letters in my files, I am sorry I have not them here, from the north Thompson tribes who complain about the fact that it was their understanding they were supposed to be supplied with medical attention while they were on the reservation. They complain that they cannot get a doctor to go to the reservation. They are told to go into his office, and if they go into his office he makes a charge. That is a complaint almost identical with that of my hon. friend, and it is from the north Thompson tribes in British Columbia.


Murdo William Martin: Certainly, I will look into
that.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: May I ask the minister now
a question as to what contribution is made by his department to the province of Saskatchewan for Indians who are in receipt of hospital care or are outpatients there?


Murdo William Martin: In the case of Saskatchewan, we suggested to the government the desirability of including Indians under their hospital insurance scheme. We would, of course, be prepared to pay the premiums. The commission there was not able to accede to our request. We had been able to make similar arrangements under the hospital insurance plan in British Columbia. That being the case we continue to exercise towards the Indians in the province of Saskatchewan the same attitude that we do towards the Indians throughout Canada, and that is to pay their actual costs of medical and hospital care.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: My question was based on
an article I have here quoting Mr. Bentley, the health minister. I should like to read it to clarify my question. Speaking about the health services rendered to Indians, Mr. Bentley had this to say:
Another difficulty, as Mr. Bentley saw it. was the problem of Indians In the program.
He is speaking about the Saskatchewan government health program.
The province had never been given any authority or responsibility for the health of its Indian population. That was a federal prerogative. But, under the federal proposal, the province must provide hospital and outpatient service for Indians.
I was wondering what the proposition was.

Supply-Health and Welfare


Murdo William Martin: We do that now.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: What was the proposition
which the department made to Saskatchewan in that respect?


Murdo William Martin: I think I indicated that we
had offered to pay the premium cost of Indians under the hospital insurance plan in Saskatchewan. They did not want to include them.


Alexander Maxwell (Max) Campbell: There is one phase of the
medical health service for Indians that I should like to draw to the attention of the minister, and that is the field nursing service. There is a very fine body of women doing that work under a terrific handicap. For instance, there are no roads on the reservation. As soon as one leaves the main highway to go into the reservation, one is met by mudholes or snowbanks in the wintertime. These nurses are running the danger of losing their lives by freezing to death. I am wondering if the minister could not get together with the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to do something about roads.
Last summer I went into several Indian reservations. When I came to one reservation I asked an Indian if he would take me around the reservation and he said, yes. We had not gone 100 yards until we came to a big mudhole. I looked at it and I said, "We will never get through that." He said, "Oh, yes, the nurse was here this morning and she went through; if she got through, you can get through too." The rest of the reservation was just a continuation of the mudhole. I do not think it is fair to ask these girls to take such chances by driving where there are no roads, either winter or summer. I think it would be a good thing if the minister would consult with the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and try to get roads provided so that these girls, who are doing such a fine job, will have some chance of doing their work without taking their lives in their hands.


Mr. Dinsdale:: On this item, I should like to pursue the point raised by the hon. member for Brant-Haldimand a moment ago. There is an attempt being made to encourage Indians to emancipate themselves from the reservation. There has been an increasing number doing so, leaving the reservation and finding employment in various capacities. As a result of this new move, I have discovered a few of them running foul of the regulations pertaining to Indian health services. Can the minister say if there is any formula which can be applied to those Indians who are not completely enfranchised, but who have moved off the reservation-perhaps they

might be working in a neighbouring military camp-and who find they have incurred medical expenses? They are presented with a hospital bill of $200 or $300 and this scares them back to the reservation. It is discouraging this very desirable movement away from the reserve system. Is there any formula being applied to ease the problem during the transition period?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, we allow them 12 months. If they establish a residence off the reservation, after a period of 12 months they are expected to bear their own expenses. But we give them that 12 months in which to work it out. If they return to the reserve, as sometimes they do, the status quo is reverted to.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Is there any suggestion in the formula that the expense is borne only by those Indians who are actually paying municipal taxes?


Paul Joseph James Martin: There is nothing of that nature.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: If they are not able to pay their own medical expenses, it means the municipalities automatically become responsible, and it seems to me that tying it up to some tax paying responsibility might be a step in the right direction.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Once they have established their residence, after a period of 12 months they are like anyone else. Most municipalities recognize that.


Mr. Bryce:: I should like to ask the minister if he has any answer to the problem I raised with him a month ago regarding the hospital at Selkirk supplying services to treaty Indians. I sent the minister the bill. I know that other arrangements have been made since and they are sent to the Dynevor hospital, but when is the bill going to be paid to the hospital at Selkirk?


Paul Joseph James Martin: After my hon. friend asked his question I got hold of the director and he has sent out a message to get further elucidation. I hope that next week I will have something I can tell my hon. friend definitely.


John Alpheus Charlton: I wonder if the minister would give me the number of doctors in attendance at the Willingdon hospital at Ohsweken?


Paul Joseph James Martin: There are four.


John Alpheus Charlton: I might say, Mr. Chairman, that up until the time Dr. Davis retired, he looked after the hospital alone. He made thousands and thousands of calls all over the reservation himself.


Murdo William Martin: There were two doctors with him, I think.


John Alpheus Charlton: For a good many years there were not two doctors; he was there alone. Now with tour doctors there the doctors refuse to come out after six p.m. to make a house call in the reservation unless it is a case of very extreme emergency. How is a person going to know at six p.m. at night whether or not the case is going to develop into an emergency at midnight? I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that with four doctors doing the work that we will say two did before-I am not criticizing, actually I am criticizing because I do not think they are taking the interest in the job they should take if they refuse to make the calls after six p.m. Probably their hours are short enough, and they could quite nicely make emergency calls after six p.m.


Murdo William Martin: I shall certainly look into that, but I want to pay this tribute to the doctors and nurses in this service. If my hon. friend knew the difficulty of getting professional help, because of the incomes received outside by professional people, he would see why I am anxious to pay a tribute to them. We have part-time doctors, full-time doctors and nurses all through this country who are giving yeoman service in remote places as well as in settled areas, and while that does not excuse an individual indiscretion or failure of duty, my tribute to them all is certainly well deserved. I shall be glad to look into the other question and discuss it further with my hon. friend.


John Alpheus Charlton: The reservation at Brantford is not in a remote place. The doctors do not have to travel over bad roads.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I said I will be glad to look into that particular situation.


John Alpheus Charlton: I accept that, Mr. Chairman, but I do want to point out that Ohsweken is not comparable with other places. What salaries do these doctors get there? Are they underpaid in comparison with other doctors? Is it a fact that they are underpaid in comparison with what they could earn in private practice? I do not know whether it is at all comparable or not. As I understand it, these doctors are not Canadian-born, and they might not be able to get positions that other doctors can get.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Two of them are not Canadian-born, but that does not alter the fact that they are all good doctors.


John Alpheus Charlton: I know it does not. I do not want to be misunderstood at all. Can the minister give the salaries of these doctors again?
Supply-Health and Welfare


Alexander Maxwell (Max) Campbell: The minister paid a tribute to the doctors and nurses in the service. How well is he paying the doctors? What is the average salary of the doctors?


John Alpheus Charlton: I asked that question.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The average is $7,500.


John Alpheus Charlton: The average is $7,500? That does not answer my question.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is the question I was asked.


John Alpheus Charlton: What are the four doctors getting?


Murdo William Martin: Would my hon. friend not think it would be fair if I gave him that information privately? I have given the average. I do not think it is fair to give the salary of an individual, but I shall be glad to give it to him.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: In the minister's explanation he mentioned the Saskatchewan health service and said that he had offered the province the premium which has been $40 a year. He knows as well as I do that that does not in any way cover the cost of hospitalization.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I said we would continue the tubercular care, as we had in the past. I was simply putting it that way. We wanted the Indians to be included in the hospital insurance plan to the extent that the plan covered the ordinary individual. We would continue to be responsible as we are now.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: Yes. Since the minister's
department and the department of Indian affairs accept Indians as wards of this government, I certainly cannot understand how the minister can reconcile his explanation with the position that he has taken with respect to this offer.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not think there is any difficulty. The situation is briefly this. There is no legal responsibility on any jurisdiction in Canada to look after the health of the native population of this country. That is the general situation; but the federal government has assumed that responsibility. Ten years ago our budget for Indian health was a little over $1 million. Today, it is between $18 million and $19 million. Hon. members, like the hon. member for Brandon and the hon. member for Brant-Haldimand and others, who have Indian hospitals in their constituencies, recognize the great service that is being performed by our officials under the direction of the present director in the matter of the improvement of the health of Indians and Eskimos throughout this country. All one has to do is to look at the

Supply-Health and Welfare reduction in the incidence of tuberculosis as a result of this program in which we operate hospitals all over the country at considerable expense for a population of around 150,000 people. The fact that the Indian population began increasing almost concurrently with the establishment of this nation-wide hospital policy is a pretty good indication of the effectiveness of this work.
There is no attempt on the part of the government of Canada to get out of its responsibilities. In the particular case to which my hon. friend has drawn attention we are simply seeking for general hospital purposes, with the payment of a premium, to do the job in a more efficient way, and we could not get agreement in that particular. In British Columbia we were able to have it included under the hospital insurance scheme there; that is all. It does not mean that there has been any retrogression.


Mr.   Patlerson@: The minister will remember that some time ago I brought to his attention some of the problems faced by the administrators of the hospital at Abbotsford, British Columbia, in their dealings with the Indians. One of the problems was the fact that in many instances Indian children were brought to the hospital, or hospitalized, and because of the nomadic character of their parents, when the children were ready to be discharged the parents could not be located, and therefore the hospital had to accept the responsibility of caring for those children until such time as the parents could be found, even though they were eligible for discharge prior to that time. I did raise the question. I realize, of course, the province of British Columbia has assumed responsibility for the Indians-at least they are bringing them under the hospital plan. The question was raised whether or not some facilities could be provided to where those children could be moved after they were discharged from the hospital instead of continuing to occupy beds in the hospital, which are at a premium, I may say, in Abbotsford. The suggestion was that possibly some provision could be made at Coqualeetza Indian hospital. There is a new addition to that hospital. I was advised by the minister it would not be possible to place the children in that institution. I was wondering whether the minister had given any further consideration to this problem and whether he has any suggestion to offer for alleviating the condition to assist in the provision of adequate hospital space for the residents of the Abbotsford community?


Hugh Alexander Bryson: I should like to ask a further question on this Indian problem. A moment ago the minister mentioned the incidence of

tuberculosis. Certainly, he knows as well as I do that a few years ago the incidence was appalling. As a matter of fact, the incidence of tuberculosis among Indians at the present time is almost 12 times that of whites. What is the per capita amount the department is paying in the province of British Columbia for hospital and other treatment and care?


Paul Joseph James Martin: For Indians? I do not understand my hon. friend's question. Does he mean for Indians?


Hugh Alexander Bryson: Yes.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend is asking how much money we pay for the health of Indians in British Columbia as compared with the amount we pay in Saskatchewan?


Hugh Alexander Bryson: Per capita.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not think we have it on a per capita basis. I will try to work it out, but we do not keep it on a per capita basis.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Indians and Eskimos health services-
258.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment. $1,272,200.
George Hugh Castleden: Will the minister give us a breakdown of the $894,000 for acquisition of buildings and works, and $387,000 for acquisition of equipment? Could you give us a rough breakdown as to where the buildings are located?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The total is $1,272,000. The sum of $410,000 is for the completion of a number of construction projects which are under way, including the dispersal of frame buildings at the Charles Camsell hospital, which is our leading tuberculosis hospital, in Edmonton; a residence for 29 nurses at Sardis; a residence for 29 nurses at Miller Bay, and a residence for 29 nurses at Fort Qu'Appelle. The sum of $304,000 is for the improvement and rehabilitation of existing properties, including the enlargement of our water and sewage processing system at Moose Factory, for the connection with the municipal sewage system at Fort Qu'Appelle, for the rehabilitation of the culinary facilities at Coqualeetza hospital. My hon. friend may not have heard my answer but the matter he raised is actually being studied.
This is for a standby generator at North Battleford. Power failures have been frequent there and they have had alarming possibilities. We have had to do some work there. At Cardston we are replacing a worn-out low pressure boiler. We have $180,000 for new construction at Baker Lake, at Fort Providence in the Mackenzie district, at Obed-jiwan in the province of Quebec and in Manitoba at Little Grand Rapids. The remaining

item is for the purchase and transporting of hospital lighting and other equipment for all our hospitals generally.


George Hugh Castleden: That lighting equipment is the other $378,000?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes.


George Hugh Castleden: That is lighting equipment?


Paul Joseph James Martin: 


George Hugh Castleden: That is the amount, but I was wondering if that is all lighting equipment.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, no. It is lighting, transporting and other equipment generally. It is general hospital equipment; X-ray and operating equipment.


George Hugh Castleden: Can you give the total amount of the contract for construction at Fort Qu'Appelle?


Murdo William Martin: 


George Hugh Castleden: Is that the building?


Murdo William Martin: No, that is to connect with the municipal water and sewage facilities, and to provide additional fire facilities.


George Hugh Castleden: And what is the contract price for the nursing home you are building there?


Paul Joseph James Martin: 

Item agreed to.
259.	Grants to hospitals which care tor Indians and Eskimos, $64,000.


Mr. Barnett:: Mr. Chairman, I have one or two questions on this matter. Am I correct in understanding that this is a grant for the operating costs of hospitals?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, these are grants to the hospitals that look after Indians and Eskimos.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Are they operating grants or construction grants?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, these are construction grants.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I wonder if the minister could give us a breakdown of what the grants are?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The sum of $44,000 is for our nursing station at Nain in Labrador; $10,000 is for our general hospital at Queen Charlotte, British Columbia, Skidegate Inlet; and we are making a contribution toward the construction of a hospital at Alert Bay in British Columbia.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: Have you any available figures for Saskatchewan?
Supply-Health and Welfare


Paul Joseph James Martin: There is nothing beyond what I have already indicated to the hon. member who raised the question.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
263. Health insurance studies and administration oi the general health grants, $108,355.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say just a few additional words concerning the federal government's proposals to the provinces regarding hospitalization insurance.
The minister was perfectly correct last night, even though he quoted just excerpts from the remarks I had made in the committee on estimates, in putting statements of mine on the record to the effect that this group hopes the proposals the government has made will soon be put into effect. We express that hope and we give the minister our support to that effect, despite our clearly expressed dissatisfaction in that we feel these proposals do not go far enough.
We feel that in this year, 1956, we should be a lot closer to an over-all program of national health insurance. The minister knows that that is our view, and that even after we get any beginning such as he may be able to bring before parliament after obtaining an agreement with the provinces we will press for an improvement and a moving on to an over-all national health plan including provision for all of the costs of health care, and including as well sickness benefits to take the place of income lost when the breadwinner is out of work.
Nevertheless, Mr. Chairman, having made a speech last night expressing our general aim in this field, I shall content myself now with a few remarks with respect to the actual proposals the government has made to the provinces.
I say quite frankly that our concern is that time is running on. The minister may say it is only a few months since the proposals were made to the provinces. It is actually six months since that time, and with the Liberals months have a way of running into years, years have a way of running into decades and decades have a way of running into lifetimes. We are afraid that unless some bold steps are soon taken by the government the proposals that were made last January may collect dust along with the green book proposals of 1945, the draft bill of 1944, the Marsh report of 1943, a few speeches from the throne in the early forties, and the Liberal platform of 1919.
In six months three provinces have signified their readiness to come into the plan outlined by the federal government in January, and I think credit is owing to those three provinces, British Columbia, Alberta

Supply-Health and Welfare and Saskatchewan, for the studies they made of the proposals and for the replies they gave to the minister. But surely it must be evident that with this much time going by and no other province showing any indication that it is going to come into the plan, the time has come for the government to revise its proposals.
There are certain modifications which might have the effect-in fact we believe they would have the effect-of encouraging the provinces that have not yet agreed to come into the plan to give the plan favourable consideration. I will not rehash the arguments we had in committee and those which took place last night between the hon. member for Mackenzie and the minister with respect to the inclusion of patients in tuberculosis and mental institutions, but that is one way in which the plan could be modified with the possible result that more of the provinces might agree to it.
I think perhaps an even more significant modification could be made with respect to the sharing formula. I will not take the trouble to spell out in detail this roughly 50-50 formula that is based on a 25-25 proposition. As I said in the committee on estimates, we feel there is justification for splitting that federal portion into two divisions, one arrived at on the basis of the provincial per capita cost and the other arrived at on the basis of the national per capita cost; but we think that instead of a 25-25 proposition it should be a 37J-37J proposition, or something even better.
In stating that view we are concerned not only with setting out these proposals in a way that will make a better appeal to the provinces, but we are also concerned with the end result. Despite what was said yesterday by the new Liberal member across the way, an attempt should be made to put the payments for medical and health care on the basis of ability to pay rather than according to the illness that hits the particular individual. To the extent that payment for hospital insurance or health insurance or medical care is left to the individual or even to direct premiums to that extent you are making people pay according to their requirements for health care rather than according to their ability to pay. To the extent that you pay for health care out of the federal treasury, which is collected in the main out of income tax, corporation tax and taxes paid to some extent at least according to ability to pay, you approach recognition of the principle we advocate, namely that health care should be paid for according to ability to Pay.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, both because in principle we think it is more correct and
TMr. Knowles.]
for the reason that we feel more of the provinces might come in if the percentage paid out of the federal treasury were increased, we think the government should give consideration to revising the 25-25 formula to a higher figure. I suggest that 37J-37J or indeed a still higher figure might be considered.
We feel something should be paid by the provinces in order to bring them into the picture, not only administratively but in terms of cognizance of the cost, but that the main burden of the care of the health of the Canadian people should be paid for out of the main treasury of the Canadian people, the federal treasury, which as I say is collected more than any other treasury in this country according to the ability of our people to pay.
Last evening the hon. member for Vancouver South, making a speech when the minister was trying to encourage us not to talk about health insurance on the administrative item but to wait until we got to this item, spent most of his time dealing with what he referred to as the lethargy of Premier Frost in not showing more interest in the proposals made by the federal government. I agree with the hon. member for Vancouver South, and I agree with the Minister of National Health and Welfare that the provinces of Ontario and Quebec hold a key position in relation to the formula the government has laid down. The formula is that six provinces, representing a majority of the Canadian people, must agree before it comes into effect, which means that one of the central provinces has to agree. If all the other eight agree and those two stay out, the terms of the formula have not been met.
Therefore there is no question but that there is particular importance attaching to the consideration which Premier Frost or Premier Duplessis may give to this matter. I agree with the hon. member for Vancouver South that anything that can be done, whether it is through a provocative speech such as that made by the hon. member for Vancouver South or through the co-operative attitude shown by the Minister of National Health and Welfare, to persuade those two premiers to give more serious attention to this matter is all to the good.
I should like to take just a moment to develop the question which I interjected during the speech last night by the hon. member for Vancouver South. That is, if the federal Liberal government is keen-I am satisfied the Minister of National Health and Welfare is keen, because I am sure that there are few things that would delight his heart more than to get this plan on the

statute books-about matters concerning health and welfare, I suggest that they should begin talking turkey or something stronger to the Liberal premiers of four of the provinces in this country. Premier Frost could very well reply to the hon. member for Vancouver South, "Supposing I do agree, that would bring the total number of provinces up to four but the plan still could not go into effect." Unless you get Quebec to come in-of course if you could get both Ontario and Quebec to come in that would be fine; that might be different-but if you cannot get both Quebec and Ontario, if you simply get Ontario along with British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan you would have to find two more.
Where are you going to find them? There are four Liberal provincial governments in the country, in Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Manitoba. I suggest that if Liberals like the hon. member for Vancouver South and the Minister of National Health and Welfare want this plan to go ahead they should see to it that those four Liberal premiers realize the importance of their position in relation to this formula.
I noted the remarks the minister made with regard to Premier Frost; I have noted the very co-operative manner in which the minister has approached this whole question, but I suggest that the premiers of those other four Liberal provinces hold a pretty important place. I suggest to the minister that he would make much better headway if he would just get those Liberal premiers to take a good look at the matter. As I say, Premier Frost can say, "What does it matter if I come in or not; there would be only four provinces that agreed, Ontario, British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan." If two of the Liberal provinces came in, two out of Manitoba, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, then there would be five, and only one more would be needed.
I suggest that one or the other of these two lines should be taken by the government if they mean business with respect to their own proposal. They should either revise the proposal with regard to the percentage the federal government is prepared to pay, or they should talk turkey to the Liberal provinces of this country so we can get somewhere with this formula which the federal government has laid down. I urge upon the government that one or the other if not both of those courses be followed. Although the plan may have shortcomings, which we deplore, nevertheless it would be a step in the right direction. It would be a beginning after all these years, 37 of them, during which the Liberals have been promising health insurance. I think it is high time we had at
Supply-Health and Welfare least a beginning along the lines laid down in the federal government's proposals to the provinces.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
General health grants-
264. To authorize and provide for general health grants to the provinces, the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory upon the terms and in the amounts detailed in the estimates and under terms and conditions approved by the governor in council including authority, notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act, to make commitments for the current year not to exceed a total amount of $48,460,401, $33,750,000.
Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, there are two matters I should like to place before the minister arising out of this vote. The first has to do with the possibility of help being given under these grants toward the construction of small hospitals. I understand that at the present time the requirements of the grants are such that it is practically impossible for a hospital with fewer than 30 beds to qualify for help.


Murdo William Martin: We have made many grants to hospitals with fewer than 30 beds. There was one case in western Ontario where the hospital had only 9 beds.


Howard Charles Green: This difficulty has arisen in British Columbia, and I believe it is due to the standards required under the regulations. In some small towns it is not necessary to have a hospital with all the facilities to be found in a city hospital.


Murdo William Martin: Could my hon. friend give me the particulars of the case so I might see just what are the facts?


Howard Charles Green: This case arose in Agassiz where the citizens were trying to work out a scheme for the construction of a small hospital, but evidently the requirements were such that it was impossible for them to qualify for assistance. Perhaps the minister would explain to the committee how these regulations work in a case of that kind. If a patient requires special treatment, he or she can of course go to the large hospitals in Vancouver or New Westminster or one of the other larger centres, and there is no need for a small hospital to have all the facilities that are found in the larger hospitals.
Is there not some way in which this help could be spread out to a greater degree to aid in the construction of hospitals in the small centres? The grants have been in existence for eight or nine years, and perhaps the time has come when there should be some concentration on helping with the construction of these smaller hospitals which would not have all the facilities of the main hospitals in the country.

Supply-Health and Welfare


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend may be assured that there is no discrimination as between the small and the large hospitals. The procedure is simply this. The province is the only jurisdiction under the British North America Act that has authority over hospitalization, so if a province requests a grant for a particular hospital we are prepared to make a grant of $1,000 per acute bed or $1,500 for a chronic bed. The requirement we have is that of safety. We have had no difficulties. I can only recall one hospital, and I think it was in the constituency of one of the members opposite, where we had a difference with the hospital authorities, and there we were not satisfied that they had complied with the report of the fire marshal of the province. That is the only case I know of in British Columbia.
I have sent for the particulars of that case. I do not know what they are, but I can assure my hon. friend that no discrimination whatsoever was made between the large and small hospitals. The conditions are laid down primarily by the province. If they say that the hospital should be built there and assistance is forthcoming from them, then we give consideration as to whether or not in the circumstances there should be assistance given by the federal government. However, I am going to have that case looked up and I shall be very glad to discuss it with my hon. friend when I get the facts.


Howard Charles Green: Does the minister have any
check made in respect of the decisions of the provincial governments about these smaller hospitals? It may be that in British Columbia the provincial government is laying down provision of such a nature that these small communities cannot qualify for this federal assistance. Perhaps it would be wise for the minister to look into that situation. I should like to have the minister's assurance that this plan is designed to help with the construction of hospitals in small centres as well as in large centres and, even though the hospital to be built in the small centre has not the same high standard of equipment as the hospital in the large centre-


Paul Joseph James Martin: I assure my hon. friend that is the case. I have already given him that assurance. The position and the standard of equipment in the hospital does not enter into our calculations at all. I am not aware of the particular facts; I shall have to go into that particular case. Ours is a sharing plan. The province must give at least a similar amount. There have been a number of cases in two provinces where the province has not wanted to give the full $1,000, and as a result we have had to give less than $1,000, or we were not able to give more than


$1,000, and the result was that the total amount of money available was not sufficient.
That may be the case; I do not know. I shall be glad to go into it, but I can assure my hon. friend that there is no discrimination under this plan. We have provided assistance, along with the provinces and with the voluntary groups, for the building of almost 80,000 hospital beds in the last eight years. I am sure that represents a tremendous achievement on the part, first of all, of the voluntary bodies, the provincial governments and ourselves. It is a cooperative arrangement, and is I think a great monument to what can be done co-operatively in this country.


Howard Charles Green: The minister will realize that this is one of the serious problems facing the residents of the small communities, and I hope he will do his best to remedy the situation. The other question I wish to raise has to do with the program for research in connection with the rheumatic diseases, such as arthritis. Under the health grants there is no specific provision for this particular type of'service.


Paul Joseph James Martin: There is no particularization at all for any research grant. We have given funds for arthritis research in great amounts for many projects, particularly in British Columbia, but the vote does not call for a particular research. The procedure is that we have a special committee that take into account all applications for research grants. This committee is made up of eminent officials in our own department and outside. If they say that a certain project should receive consideration and should receive financial assistance, that forms the basis for our policy. My hon. friend says there is no grant for research in rheumatism and arthritis, but he will find that we have given almost $491,000 for research in that particular field to date.


Howard Charles Green: I did not say there was no money spent on research in our province. I said there is no specific grant for that particular type of research. There is provision for a general public health grant and a public health research grant, but research for arthritis could only come under either of those headings if the provincial government or the public health authorities should decide that research on arthritis is a matter of public health. I am asking the minister whether this disease is not serious enough in its effects on the Canadian people as a whole to have a health grant for the specific purpose of dealing with the problem of arthritis.

We have raised this question in other years, and the minister has said that money is spent on it, just as he started to say today. Last year he said in reply to questions, as reported on page 6296 of Hansard, that $78,000 had been made available to an arthritis and rheumatism society in British Columbia. I found out subsequently that that $78,000 covered a period of several years. It was not a grant for one year. It included amounts paid for seven or eight years, beginning with the year 1948, and out of that sum $67,000 was for the provision of equipment-


Murdo William Martin: A travelling clinic.


Howard Charles Green: -and not for research at all. Only $11,000 had been spent for research; not all of the $78,000. I am also told that the total research grant for rheumatic diseases in Canada, as of last summer, was $173,719.73 which would make an average annual grant of $21,715 for the dominion research program for rheumatic disease. That does not seem to be very much. That does not seem to go very far toward meeting the problem of research in connection with this particular type of disease. Can the minister tell us whether there is any plan at the present time for increasing this particular type of research, and if so, what it is?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I .thought I had explained the situation carefully earlier, but perhaps my hon. friend has understandably not appreciated the nature of the grants. If we were to have a research grant for arthritis or for rheumatism we would have to have equally a research grant for every conceivable disease.


Howard Charles Green: Why does the minister say that?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am going to explain. The general public health grant is the generic term that covers general public health which includes research, which includes treatment, which includes everything. Then the other grants are the tuberculosis control grant, the mental health research grant, the hospital construction grant, the cancer control grant-


Howard Charles Green: Those are special grants under the plan.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Those are specific ones, but you could not possibly have a grant for every conceivable disease. Any particular disease in this country that is given priority by our scientific assessment committee or by decision of the government based upon other considerations can qualify for a research grant. Out of the national health program we have spent on research over $7 million since the beginning of the program.


Howard Charles Green: How much of that was on arthritis?
Supply-Health and Welfare


Paul Joseph James Martin: Just a minute. When this program began there was no money spent at all on research by the federal government except through the national research council's grants, which were very limited. With regard to arthritis, the figure my hon. friend referred to in British Columbia of $78,496 was for mobile and other equipment. That did not have anything to do with research. The research in these things is done at places like the Connaught laboratories. It is done by the University of British Columbia medical school. It is done by the neurological institute of Montreal. It is done by the Charles Best research institute in Toronto, the Dr. Collip institute at the University of Western Ontario, the great research centres where personnel are heavily concentrated.
Taking arthritis, we had a project on ACTH and cortisone, as the hon. member for Lanark will know, that alone cost $436,000. That is only in the field of arthritis. We have other projects now. There is one at the University of Western Ontario. There is a small one at Laval University. There are two at McGill University. I am not sure whether or not there is one at the University of British Columbia. These are projects of research into the various forms of rheumatoid arthritis, but the organization to which we have given assistance in British Columbia is not a research body. It is a body to teach people what can be done, to bring them to the clinics. For instance, there are the automobiles they use. I do not know if my friend has seen those in British Columbia. Undoubtedly he has. They are very fine and they were provided largely, I think entirely, by us out of our funds. But these are not research projects.
My hon. friend may be sure that consideration is given to this subject, which is a very important one. We estimate that there are about 150,000 people in Canada who suffer in a serious way from rheumatoid arthritis of one kind or another, and I am told there are over two hundred different types. There are many more people who have the disease. The Metropolitan Insurance Company has made an estimate of 700,000 people who suffer from rheumatism in one form or another, not in the way the 150,000 do but who are afflicted by it.
These various research centres are dealing with this subject. But you have to have the personnel to do it, and you have to have the projects to do it. Last year under the national health grants we provided almost 2,000 different bursaries to 2,000 individuals engaged in the health fields, and of that 2,000 over 250 went to men engaged in fundamental research, cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, heart disease and various other maladies.

Supply-Health and Welfare
We are now about to make a big grant for the new heart disease institute in Montreal. We have just finished giving a grant of $150,000 to an organization in Toronto for the study of heart disease. My hon. friend will see that not only rheumatoid arthritis but all these various other diseases are the subjects of great research projects.


Howard Charles Green: The minister has himself explained very clearly the very large numbers of Canadians who are suffering from this disease, and he knows just as well as I do just how serious a factor it is in the national picture. Surely those very facts are sufficient to warrant the extension of the health grants to cover arthritic and rheumatic diseases. The minister has a general public health grant, a tuberculosis control grant, a mental health grant, a venereal disease control grant, a crippled children grant, a professional training grant, a cancer control grant, a public health research grant, a laboratory and radiological services grant, a medical rehabilitation grant and a child and maternal health grant. These are all excellent. I am not quarreling for a moment with any of them, but does the minister not think that the problem of arthritis is sufficiently serious to warrant having a specific grant for the purpose of dealing with this condition?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I agree that it is an important matter, and it is the subject of research, as I have indicated to my hon. friend. I do say that if we were to particularize all the illnesses that should be the subject of research the list would be endless. I do say that rheumatoid arthritis is not the most important. One of the most important concerning which we are now engaged in a coordinated campaign effort is heart disease. Another is cancer.


Howard Charles Green: You have a grant for cancer.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I know, but we have not got one for heart disease.


Howard Charles Green: Perhaps you should have.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think my hon. friend misinterprets. Except for the tuberculosis and the mental health grants, these various grants are all generic in quality and out of any of these sums, general public health grant, research grant, cancer control grant, can come moneys for research in those particular fields. Out of the general public health grant can come, in addition to a research grant of $500,000, assistance for arthritis or anything else. My hon. friend is asking that we should name arthritis as opposed to other diseases. I cannot agree with that. It is very important and it is a very unfortunate malady, but the titles of these grants does not interfere with the nature of the assistance that is given.


Howard Charles Green: I am only suggesting that if there were a grant for this purpose it would focus attention on the problem, and I think the result would be a great deal faster and more far-reaching action to solve that problem than we are likely to get under the present method of handling research in connection with arthritis and the other rheumatic diseases.


Harold Edward Winch: There are two points I would like to discuss under this vote. One has already been mentioned by the hon. member who has just taken his seat, the question of hospital construction grants. Back in 1948 the government laid down what was undoubtedly a very fine principle, namely the acceptance of responsibility in a financial way for a basic contribution to the construction of hospitals in this country. As was mentioned a little while ago by the minister, the basic grants as they were outlined back in 1948 were $1,000 per bed for active treatment hospitals, $1,500 per bed for chronic, convalescent, mental and tuberculosis hospitals, and $500 per bed for nurses' living quarters. I think the government should be commended for the fact that in the years that have gone by since 1948 they have extended that to include other fields. There is now some provision for a basic hospital construction grant in the realm of laboratories, health centres and training facilities. The government, as I say, are to be commended for the action they have taken in that regard.
I do think it is time for the government to take a second look at their basic construction grants. Since 1948 when they laid down the rates of $1,000 per active treatment bed, $1,500 for chronic and convalescent beds and $500 for nurses' beds, there has been a great alteration in the cost of construction throughout the dominion. I am speaking for no other province except British Columbia, and in British Columbia I only speak on behalf of Vancouver.
In 1948 when the basis was laid down, the cost of active treatment hospital construction, excluding equipment, was $9,000 to $10,000 per bed. There has been a great deal of construction going on in Vancouver in the realm of hospitals, and I am informed by the authorities there that the cost this year for active treatment hospitals is $14,650 per bed. When you compare that with the basic cost in 1948 of $9,000 per bed I say I think it is only reasonable that the time has come for the minister to give consideration to increasing the basic grant at least by an amount that is going to take up a fair share of that increased cost. I do not want to enlarge too much upon that point, having stated it.

In addition, in connection with this question of hospital construction grants, I do think the minister should pay particular attention to one aspect. When this principle was laid down in 1948, and when the chronic and convalescent basic rate was set at $500 higher than the active treatment rate, as I read the reports of the department they state very definitely they had a reason for doing that. One of the objectives of the hospital construction grant was to encourage the construction of additional accommodation for chronic and convalescent patients in order to remove these categories of patients from active treatment hospital beds. They can be accommodated in specially designed hospitals, or in wings attached to acute hospitals, with potential savings in nursing and other costs. I think it is regrettable that the objective of the government in 1948 has not been achieved.
I was most interested in reading a breakdown showing how the grants of the minister's department have been made. Since 1948 the grants have gone on this basis: for active treatment, $31,161,000; for chronic and convalescent, $5,037,000; mental hospitals, $14,293,000; T.B., $4,292,000; bassinets, $6,604; nurses beds, $8,574,000; community health centres, $4,142,000; combined laboratories, $130,000; training facilities, $35,000. These grants total $74,268,000. But the important point is this. The grants for active treatment have totalled $31,161,000 and for chronic and convalescent only $5,037,000. Although the government in 1948 recognized the problem by granting an additional $500 per bed if they would build convalescent hospitals, these figures show what has occurred.
Now, sir, during the last day or so we have heard about hospital insurance in Canada. This government will have to assume a substantial part of that cost. Therefore the government should be keenly interested in efficiency in the operation of hospitals and keenly interested in seeing that, although they pay all that is required for medical and hospital attention, they do not pay any more than they have to for these services. I think most medical men will agree that now, when we are moving into a national health insurance plan, we have to concentrate more intensely on convalescent hospitals. I am not speaking of the chronics, I mean those who require hospitalization but do not require the medical care of an acute hospital for a certain period of time.
Unfortunately this spring I had to spend 14 weeks in hospital and I know, as a result of my observations, that including myself, a number of the patients there did not need
Supply-Health and Welfare to be in an acute bed. Our requirements could have been met in a convalescent bed. I made inquiries of the hospital authorities in Vancouver, and they told me that the difference between the maintenance of an acute bed and a convalescent bed in Vancouver is the difference betwen $18 and $10 a day.
Now then, that being the case, if under proper arrangements and planning medical attention can be given the convalescent in the neighbourhood of the acute, so you could get that treatment if required, it does seem to me that in the interests of federal government financing they should not only increase the basic hospital construction grants in comparison with 1948, but there should be a greater increase in the grants for the construction of convalescent hospitals. This would act as a persuader to the provincial authorities to increase their activities in this field of hospitalization.
I have spoken to a great many medical men and hospital authorities, and they all seem to be in agreement with that opinion. I am certain the minister must be in agreement also. I do believe he should give a little more in the way of financial persuasion so as to get this work under way in all provinces. Admittedly it will require the expenditure of additional money, but I think it is almost axiomatic that sometimes you can save money over a long period of time by making an expenditure at the proper time. Surely it would not be asking too much, because under the item we are now discussing I note that the allocation is only $6,762,000' plus $2,736,000 of a revote; plus $4 million in another revote, or a total in all of $13,499,060' in hospital grants in this present fiscal year. I most certainly would like to hear the comment of the minister on those two aspects which come under this item.
There is one other subject which I mentioned in the general discussion and agreed to have stand over, and that is the question of the natural health resources of this country. I took occasion in the committee to speak of it, and on other occasions I have spoken at length on Canada's natural health resources. I am not going into the details. I only say that I am still convinced Canada has the greatest natural health resources in the world. If we had the proper research to develop them Canada, and in particular British Columbia, would become the health mecca of the world. We have a potential multi-million dollar industry, but so far we have not done anything about it. Last year the minister was kind enough to say he

Supply-Health and Welfare was interested. If we refer to page 6286 of Hansard for July 16, 1955, we find that I said this:
But I hope the minister who, I understand, is interested in what I have said, and has made some inquiries, will give some indication of his stand at the present time and tell us if something is going to be done in the next year or two, or in the next five years perhaps, in the matter of research and development.
Then the minister said:
My hon. friend may be sure of my deep interest. This matter is now being discussed, as a matter of fact, with the Charles Best institute ... in Toronto, and a project is possibly under way. In any event, the matter has been referred to the research committee and it is being given further attention.
In view of this statement by the minister last year about research and the Charles Best institute, would he kindly give us a report as to what has taken place in the past year?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am sure I express the view of every member in this house when I say that one is reminded, when the hon. member speaks, of the fact that he himself has unfortunately been indisposed for some months now and has been a sufferer in one of the Vancouver hospitals. Several months ago we told him how glad we were to see him back, and perhaps I would be permitted to do so again at this particular moment.
With regard to the other matter, it is one on which there is a divided opinion scientifically, as to whether or not there is value in that particular form of research. Last year I indicated my own personal interest in the matter, along with that of the hon. gentleman. We did discuss the matter with the director of the Charles Best institute, Dr. Best himself. Dr. Best felt that since at this particular moment he is engaged on a program of research he could not disturb it with advantage at this time, and quite properly so. The matter was discussed as well by me and by one of my officers with another research director who is now giving consideration as to whether or not his program of research in his centre-he has a very important cancer project under way-could be fitted into this particular field, because this one is not a specific subject. This is one, as my hon. friend knows from his interest in it, that covers a very wide field.
I can only say to him that the matter had not escaped my interest even before he raised it. I can assure him, as I think I did privately, of my own personal interest in the matter. These researches cannot be undertaken by us; they have to be undertaken by particular medical scientists. They have to be people who can fit into their program. I certainly hope that will be possible.

With regard to the hospital construction matter that my hon. friend raised earlier, our objective, when we brought in the national health program, was to assist in the building of 60,000 beds in a period of 10 years. We have exceeded that objective. I am not saying there is not much to do yet. Of course there is; there always will be in the field of health, but I think, as I said a moment ago, that the combined efforts of all of us, of all jurisdictions and of people generally in this field, have been notable in this country, and we have every reason to be proud. We estimate now there are about 25,000 beds to be built. That number will increase as the population increases. That represents pretty much the current need, but it does not create, in these terms, the problem that might be suggested by the mere mention of the 25,000.
I agree fully with what my hon. friend has said about chronic beds. The reason we have a higher grant for the chronic, as opposed to the acute, is in part the reason he himself mentioned a moment ago. We wanted to encourage the provinces; we wanted to encourage private institutions to pay more attention to chronic care and to building institutions for chronic keep, and we have not succeeded. When I say "we" I mean all of us. I have sought in declarations I have made from time to time to keep emphasizing the importance of chronic care. Of course one of the finest chronic hospitals in Canada is St. Mary's in London. I mention that to those who are interested in this work. If they will go there they will see what can be done in a chronic institution. I can only hope there will be an increasing interest in this phase of the matter.
My hon. friend said that one way to do it is to increase the amount. All I can say at this time is that that matter, of course, continues to receive our attention.


Clarence Gillis: I should like to ask the minister a question. These general health grants to the provinces are matching grants?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Not all.


Clarence Gillis: A lot of them are.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hospital construction grant is; the cancer control grant is; the rehabilitation grant is in part; the laboratory and radiological services grant is in part; the venereal disease control grant is. All the rest are not.


Clarence Gillis: What I would like to find out is this. A certain amount of money is available to each province each year, provided it can match the grants that have to be matched. Can the minister give us the amount of money that was available last year

to each province and how much of it was taken up? I think it will partly answer some of the questions.


Murdo William Martin: It is a very long list. Does my hon. friend want me to table it, or does he want me to go through the whole list? It is quite an extensive table.


Clarence Gillis: If the committee is agreeable, table it.


Murdo William Martin: There are the general public health grants, which are not matching; there is the tuberculosis grant, which is not matching; there is the mental control grant, which is not matching; there is the research branch, which is not matching; and the professional training grant, which is not matching. The hospital construction grant is; the cancer control grant is; the child and maternal health grant is not; the rehabilitation grant is, in part. Therefore my hon. friend will see that over two-thirds of the money made available by the federal government to the provinces is not on a matching basis.
Obviously the money must not be given unless for good purposes. I am not criticizing
Supply-Health and Welfare the provinces for this, but sometimes for personnel and other reasons they have not accepted the moneys. For instance, I shall take my hon. friend's own province of Nova Scotia. The amount available to Nova Scotia last year was $2,480,581. We have approved projects in the amount of $2,041,000. There is a free balance left of $438,000. That is for Nova Scotia. If I file this table it might be of interest to my hon. friend.


Clarence Gillis: That is fine.


Paul Joseph James Martin: With the permission of the committee I will table it.


Mr. Thomas:: Could we have it in Hansard at this point?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, it is going in now.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Is it agreed that the Minister of National Health and Welfare can include this table in Hansard at this point?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The table follows:
HEALTH GRANTS ANALYSIS TO MAY 23, 1956 (FINAL) FISCAL YEAR 1955-56 Summary by Provinces
Province	Amounts Available	Projects Approved	Per- centage Approved	Free Balance	ExpenditureNewfoundland...	$ cts	$ cts. 1,097,038 86 367,880 75 2,041,754 74 1,445,294 50	%	S cts	3 cts.Prince Edward Island	521,104 00	86-6	169,172 14	1,008,285 49Nova Scotia...	70-5	153,223 25	357,060 21New Brunswick	82-3	438,826 92	1,561,825 00Quebec	57-8	1,052,644 16	1,293,145 76Ontario	11,091,529 50	73-9	3,915,531 37	10,115,525 45Manitoba	12,450,288 44 2,473,743 09 3,260,569 29 2,848,654 92 3,181,497 10 37,069 66	73-9	4,387,557 76	9,156,973 10Saskatchewan.	84-1	466,995 66	2,184,600 03Alberta	88-5	422,420 71	2,833,091 24British Columbia...	79-5	730,626 08	2,553,897 67Northwest Territories.	103,209 00	74-1	1,107,163 65	2,426,389 85Yukon	35-9	66,139 34	23,261 79Public health research (unallotted).	6,787 11	16,141 00	24-4	49,743 00 6,787 11	14,797 85Total	53,278,293 00	40,311,461 85	75-6	12,966,831 15	33,528,853 44
6566

Supply-Health and Welfare


Clarence Gillis: The minister said that $400,000 was available to Nova Scotia last year that was not paid out. Was that because of inability to match the grant?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, it was not all matching. A portion of it was for hospital construction. Hospital construction was the largest amount, $183,000; $8,000 for crippled children; $4,000 for professional training; $35,000 for mental health; $3,000 for general public health, and so on.


Mr. Richardson:: Mr. Chairman, notwithstanding the legitimate differences of opinion members in different parts of the house may have on many problems, it is rather a satisfaction that we have now spent some hours today discussing those problems which concern human distress, and that no party and no individual in the house has any particular monopoly on compassion and regard for those problems. It is with some diffidence that a member who does not belong to the medical profession speaks on a subject with relatively little knowledge; but I want to add just a few words at this time which I think properly comes under this vote, Mr. Chairman. I refer to the matter of mental health.
The minister may recall that on the opening day of the session, and for some weeks, there stood in the name of the member for St. Lawrence-St. George a resolution to the effect that a national survey might be called under the leadership of his department, in co-operation with the provincial authorities anti other groups in Canada, with respect to the question of mental illness. Members here, who are all relatively well informed, need not be told about the problem of mental health in Canada at this time. We are all pretty well aware of a real interest in that aspect of illness.
I think we as Canadians might take some degree of legitimate pride in the fact that Canada stands somewhat in the forefront in what is being done in this field. It may be, Mr. Chairman, that while we are giving consideration to the question of mental health today we should not be too smug, because it is possible that throughout the country there may be little clusters of men like ourselves in mental institutions who are trying to decide what they should do with us here. It is a question of relativity and of degree. I am not at all certain, Mr. Chairman, that I would want to pass an intelligence test for admittance into this honourable chamber at this time of my life.
I think we are all seized with the importance of mental illness, and this is borne out by the fact that in a constituency such as I have the honour to represent we have one


of the great international institutions in this field, the Allan Memorial Institute presided over by one of the leading psychiatrists of the world, Dr. Ewen Cameron.
My proposition, Mr. Chairman, is one which I suggest requires no money from the government of Canada. Even within the vote the minister has under this item it may be that his department would give the necessary leadership in encouraging private institutions, provincial medical authorities and the professions themselves to make what I would call a reappraisal of the whole problem of mental illness. If that is done, and if additional money is required, then I am sure those great benefactors throughout Canada, both private and corporate, who are interested in this problem would gladly respond in providing whatever funds are necessary for this service.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, while the house has not been required to engage in a long debate on the resolution standing in my name, I thought it only right in the interests of all my fellow Canadians who are suffering from mental illness today and who have very few to serve as spokesmen for them, that all of us in this chamber and our friends and relatives who are more happily blessed should take a moment to suggest that notwithstanding the great work that is being done by provincial and federal authorities, by the profession itself and by helpful and compassionate individuals, we all might take a new look at the whole question of mental illness and make a national survey in order that this modern pestilence may soon be obliterated to the extent that we as decent people in our modern society might expect.


Mrs. Fairclough:: Mr. Chairman, I would like: to ask the minister a question with regard to the general health grants which are participated in by the provinces, and in particular a grant which has heretofore been made to St. Patrick's College under the mental health training project for psychiatric social work, which in 1954-55 amounted to $2,739 and in the preceding year to $2,600. It is my understanding that this project was approved by the Ontario department of health but was turned down by the federal authorities. The grant was used to pay part of the salaries of a lecturer in psychiatry and the professor of psychiatric social work. Would the minister say what reason there is for reducing what is a small grant in so far as the department is concerned but a very important one so far as the college is concerned?


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend said it was approved by Ontario. That is not exactly

the case. If this grant was made available it would be made by the federal government on an application sent to us by the Ontario government. They are only the channel in that sense; they do not contribute anything.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I grant the minister's remarks. I had not intended to imply it was a 50-50 arrangement, but is it not true that the provinces ask for approval of these grants?


Paul Joseph James Martin: They are passed on to us. We took the position that it was mainly a social work grant. We had given assistance before. It was a grant for work that had some element of mental health in it but it was basically for social work. We felt in fairness to other similar applications where there was a greater emphasis-I do not say a greater work but a greater emphasis-in this field we would have to give the matter consideration, as we did.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I hope the minister will reconsider, because as I understand it this will have a disrupting effect on the continuity of the service.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am very familiar with the situation.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I am sure the minister must be, but it has just come to my notice.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I thank my hon. friend for mentioning it.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: The minister will continue to consider the matter, will he?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I would just like to make a brief comment on the topic raised by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George. On February 14 last I received an interesting return on the subject of mental health in Canada which indicates it is a problem, as was pointed out by the hon. member, that is of growing significance in Canada. For example, in the period from 1950 to 1954 there has been an increase in the total number of admissions of mentally ill patients to hospitals. In 1950 the figure was 16,411 and in 1954 the equivalent figure was 29,351.
It is very important, of course, that we provide institutional care for this type of illness, but coming to the next heading I think it brings us to an even more important approach to the solution of this problem. There is an active movement on the part of the laity to do something about this increasing problem. For example, the White Cross appreciate that the best solution to the difficulty is not necessarily within institutions, but rather it lies in trying to rehabilitate our mentally ill and emotionally ill within the framework of society itself.
Supply-Health and Welfare
Considerable progress has been made in encouraging volunteer interest in this important aspect of the problem. It seems to me, however, Mr. Chairman, that the laity needs some professional guidance, and that guidance must come mainly through the phychiatric social workers.
According to the information I received in this return it would appear we are somewhat deficient in the number of trained psychiatric social workers available in this country. In the year 1954, the last year for which figures are available, the total number of psychiatric social workers employed on a full-time basis right across Canada was 37. If one looks at the provinces one finds that Newfoundland has one, Prince Edward Island none, Nova Scotia two, New Brunswick four, Quebec 15, Ontario 10, Manitoba one, Saskatchewan two, Alberta two and British Columbia none.
That obviously is a very inadequate number to deal comprehensively with this volunteer approach to the subject. Could the minister inform the committee what steps are being taken to make available a greater supply of trained psychiatric social workers?
Before I resume my seat I should like to say to the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George that I hope he will repeat his motion next year, so we may have a chance early in the session to have a comprehensive discussion of this matter.


Murdo William Martin: Last year we trained 236. I want to say to the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George that I am well aware, as I am sure the committee is, of his great interest in this matter long before he came here. I want to thank him for the great work he has done as a layman in connection with the Montreal mental health association. I can only say to him that the problem on which he has focussed our attention is an important one.
It is true that mental illness is one of our serious major problems, but not any more serious than it is in the United States and other countries. I would not want to make odious comparisons, but it is a fact that the number of people who are going into institutions is on the increase. That should not be taken necessarily as an indication of the deterioration of the human body in this country; it is largely an indication of the new techniques of diagnosis, the greater skills which are available and the type of institutional care that is provided.
I should like to emphasize that in seeking to do what we can do with the moneys provided by the federal government we must recognize that these are problems which engage the attention of the provincial departments of health, which have the primary

Supply-Health and Welfare responsibility. Our role is one of co-ordination and supplementary assistance.
We have sought to give emphasis to two things in this field. First is prevention and treatment. We now have in existence some 105 mental health clinics, whereas when this program began eight years ago there were only 15. The purpose of these clinics is to reach the mentally ill person before his illness takes on a maturity which justifies confinement. These clinics, together with the child guidance clinics we have established on a pilot basis in a number of centres, are proving most valuable in our program of prevention.
The second aspect to which we are seeking to give emphasis is in the field of research. My hon. friend has mentioned the Allan Memorial institute in Montreal, which is carrying on most important research work. We are giving grants to other places for this purpose as well. My hon. friend may be assured, as indeed the committee may be assured, of our great interest in this problem. I have always felt, and I feel and say now, that one of the ways in which we of the western world can demonstrate our capacity to provide a desirable form of society is by the interest we take not only in this particular matter but in all matters having to do with health.
I want to pay tribute to the voluntary organizations in this country for the work they have done in the field of mental health, and I want to pay a special tribute to the Salvation Army. I know some of the work they do, as does the hon. member for Bran-don-Souris, particularly in the city of Toronto. I repeat my tribute to them as well as to all religious bodies for the work that is being done.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Grants to health organizations-
265. Canadian mental health association, $10,000.
Mr. Zaplitny:: What procedure is followed in deciding whether a grant shall be made under this item? Is application made to the federal government, or does the province in which the organization is located make an application on its behalf?


Paul Joseph James Martin: There is a variety of methods. Most of them come to see us personally, and where it is said to be a national organization we seek to establish whether in fact it is such. An organization may have a name which suggests it is national in scope when actually it is regional or even community in scope.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: What criteria are used to decide whether an organization is national in character?


Paul Joseph James Martin: If they carry on operations in all provinces or in a greater number of provinces.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
266. Health league of Canada, $10,000.
Stanley Howard Knowles: During the sittings of the committee on estimates several hon. members asked the minister if consideration was being given to increasing the grant to the Health League of Canada. I have not the record before me, but my recollection is that the minister gave one of those kindly answers in which he paid tribute to those carrying on this work. Has his kindliness reached the point where he will recommend an increase in this grant?


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend will appreciate that we get many requests and have only so much money. I can only say in regard to these grants, some of which are shown here and some of which are still under consideration, that they are matters that are considered in the department. When we come to prepare our estimates next year I shall be in a better position to give my hon. friend an answer. I can assure him of my great sympathy with the work of the Health League of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Welfare branch-
Family allowances and old age security-[DOT]
278. Administration, $2,693,059.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, it is not my intention to repeat at length the points I made when I spoke yesterday on the first item with respect to the amount paid to our old age pensioners. Neither is it my intention to get involved in the arguments which developed this morning when the supplementary payments made in the various provinces were being discussed. Rather I rise simply to remind the minister that in the view of an increasing number of Canadians it is the responsibility of the federal government to see to it that our Canadian senior citizens have a decent standard of living.
As far as I am concerned, it does not help the case of our senior citizens when hon. members suggest that part of this responsibility should be borne by the provinces. As I said yesterday, when you put any portion of this responsibility on the provinces you are calling for a reinstatement of the means test, at least to a certain extent. The only jurisdiction with sufficient resources to provide old age pensions on a universal basis for all Canadians as of right is the federal government.

Once again I urge the minister and the government to consider the needs of our people and in the light of the increased resources of this country do something at an early date to raise these pensions.
I suggest to the minister that it is not the part of wisdom for him to criticize and speak against those of us who urge an increase in the old age pension, because if he stays in his present position I am sure, as he is, that it will not be much longer until even he and even the government of which he is a member will have to do something about this important problem. There are rumours about a certain event in the political life of Canada which may take place on October 29 of this year or June 17 of next year or somewhere in between. 1


Paul Joseph James Martin: Do you want me to tell you when?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I do not suppose that the Minister of National Health and Welfare really knows, any more than I do, the precise date for the election. These are the suggested dates: October 29, 1956, June 17, 1957, or some date in between, say in April or May of next year.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We are bound to have an election within the next two years.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And the chances are that it will be on Monday, since that is what is provided under the Canada Elections Act. I suggest that with a surplus developing in the federal treasury, with an increased gross national product, which means that at the present tax rate still more money will come in, and in view of the fact that with the easing of world tensions there is likely to be quite a substantial reduction in the national defence budget next year, there is quite a possibility that the Minister of National Health and Welfare will make headway with his colleague the Minister of Finance and get out of him money not only for health insurance but for an increase in the old age pension.
I suggest, therefore, that instead of criticizing those of us who advocate that an increase be made, he should take these appeals to heart and realize, as I am sure he must, that this government does not dare face the people of this country without doing something about this issue on which there is growing feeling. I urge with the least possible delay an increase in the old age pension.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend and many
others have spoken on this subject all through my estimates, and this is the first chance I have to make a reply which I think should be made from this side. My hon. friend referred to the Minister of Finance. He need not 67509-417
Supply-Health and Welfare seek to select one member of the government as against any other, because the fact is that every member of this government is as interested in these problems as any other member of this house, and the Minister of Finance is certainly as interested as is the hon. member.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is good.


Murdo William Martin: With regard to old age security, we on this side of the house need not apologize for what we have done and are doing for the aged citizens of this country. We are now spending more for old age security than any other country in the world on a comparative basis. We are the only country that hqs a non-means test system. The other day the hon. member for Broadview mentioned the United States system, and I am sure the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre would agree with me that he would not want to compare the project that came out of the old age security committee a few years ago with the kind of suggestion which was made by the hon. member for Broadview, when in fact the committee recommended against the particular suggestion the latter made.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In principle the minister's statement is correct, but not with respect to the amounts that are paid.


Murdo William Martin: It should not be forgotten that this year alone we have increased our total commitments to the aged by some $11 to $12 million. Ninety-five per cent of the moneys that are paid for old age security and old age assistance in this country comes from the taxpayers of Canada, under policies proposed by this government in this house. That is the fact. I think the hon. member for Prince Albert pointed out this morning the desirability of making sure that we should recognize that the provinces have their responsibility in this particular as well as the federal government, and I think that is true. I recognize the validity of what my hon. friend said about trying to maintain the non-means test character; but at the same time, whilst we are giving consideration to these problems-I wish to say that the government's policy will be announced when the government is in a position to do so-I may say that nevertheless we should not overlook the fact that the federal government is not in any way dragging its feet in the provision it is making for the aged citizens of this country.
In Newfoundland the federal government provides $7,599,405; in Prince Edward Island, $3,313,000; Nova Scotia, $18,411,000; New Brunswick, $13,246,000; Quebec, $77,110,000; Ontario, $134,644,000; Manitoba, $21,953,000; Saskatchewan, $22,331,000; British Columbia,

Industrial Relations
$44,657,000; Alberta, $22,681,000. The whole cost of old age pensions three years ago in Canada was only $10 million more than the $77 million we are now paying to the province of Quebec, and it was not as great as what we are paying to the province of Ontario, $134 million. So anyone who says this government is not doing its duty to the aged is stating something not in harmony with the facts.
We have no reason to be ashamed on federal account of what we are doing for our senior citizens. I could not help feeling that it was unfair this morning-and I am sure the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre will agree-when one of the hon. members sitting behind him referred to myself, heartless man that I was, because I would not recommend any increase for the aged of our country. I want to say to the hon. member, who is not in his seat, that I take second place to no man in this house for what I have sought to do for the aged of our country. Since I have been a member of the government we have made important modifications in the old age security program. We have increased the amount. We liberalized the income ceilings before we had the nonmeans test program, and we have conducted ourselves in a way that 1 think justifies my saying, with all those who sit to Mr. Speaker's right, that we do not need to hesitate at any time to face the people of this country for what we have done for the aged and for other sections of the people.
My hon. friend keeps mentioning elections. I assure him that in this particular matter we can hold our heads high, because no government anywhere in any part of the world has done so much as this government has done for the senior citizens of our country.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Five o'clock.
Progress reported.



INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, June 15, consideration of the motion of Mr. Knowles for the second reading of Bill No. 211, to provide for annual holidays with pay for employees.
Elmore Philpott: Mr. Speaker, I think I had the honour of adjourning the debate the last time this matter was before the house. May I say I also have to be very careful because I remember that at one time earlier in the session when one of the hon. members opposite had two items standing in his name on the order

paper, I spoke on the wrong item. There was one on which I intended to support him and another on which I intended to oppose him, and as the house will remember I spoke on the wrong one.
I am in somewhat the same spot today, because with respect to one of the items standing in the name of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) having to do with holidays I intend to oppose him, but as far as this particular bill is concerned, although I was taken by surprise last time and only entered the debate under the exhortation of my friend the hon. member for-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Comox-Alberni.


Elmore Philpott: -Comox-Alberni	(Mr. Barnett), I have had some time to think about it in the meantime and I have decided that this bill is worthy of all the support I can give it.
I may say I have come to that conclusion after thinking over carefully not only both sides of the question but all sides of the question. Quite often I find my heart on the same side as a good many of the hon. gentlemen opposite but I often find my head on the other side, or perhaps I should say my pocketbook. Quite often I am thoroughly in agreement with a good many of the things they suggest, and we on this side are presenting them to our own cabinet ministers. We have to press for them both in public and in private and the argument we have to meet is well, where is the money going to come from? I think some of my hon. friends on the other side do not always have to meet that argument as we do.
Therefore we have to watch our step as to what we support, but I do think that in this case that consideration does not enter into the picture, because the question of public finances is not involved in Bill No. 211. I will state frankly, Mr. Speaker, that one of the things that would incline me to oppose the bill at first glance would be that it seems to me that this parliament or any other lawmaking body should never pass a law where what is to be covered has already been covered by the people in the ordinary course of their own actions.
I submit that if we examine the general situation with respect to holidays with pay in Canada we will find that by and large the people of Canada have solved their own problems very satisfactorily with regard to this matter. We also know that the bill applies only to the minority of workers in Canada who can be covered under our constitution by federal legislation, and that the vast majority of workers are covered by provincial legislation.

I find that six provinces already have legislation similar to that proposed here. They are Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia. British Columbia and Saskatchewan have the best laws. Modesty prevents me from saying which is the absolute best, but Saskatchewan is not so very far behind.
I find that only 400,000 of Canada's total working force of more than 5 million could be affected in any way, even theoretically, by the bill proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I also find that of the 400,000 workers who could be theoretically affected by the bill, 93 per cent of them are, by and large, already covered fairly satisfactorily one way or another by arrangements which they have worked out themselves, either as the result of collective bargaining or through the ordinary business processes involved in the relationship between employer and employee.
The matter boils down to this, that only about 7 per cent of the workers who could theoretically be covered by federal legislation might get some real and immediate benefit under Bill No. 211, advanced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. Therefore it seems to me that we have to ask ourselves what is the advantage of passing such a law if only a minority can be effected in any event and only a small fraction of that minority are already outside the limits of the benefits proposed in the bill.
After careful reflection I have come down on the side of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre with respect to this matter, because it does seem to me that the parliament of the Dominion of Canada has a moral obligation to set a good pace in all measures for human betterment, and I certainly do not think that in any matter involving wages, working conditions or that sort of thing it should ever be left to the national government of Canada to fall behind any of the provinces, even the most progressive provinces of Canada such as we have in the far west.
Therefore I have decided to lend whatever support I can to the passage of the bill. While I have no doubt that if the bill gets to the industrial relations committee we will be able to improve some of its details, by and large I think it is a good bill worthy of support, and I commend it to the consideration of the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a question?


Elmore Philpott: Before we come to the hon. member's question, let me state something quite openly and in so doing continue the
Industrial Relations
bad habit I started in the first part of my speech two or three weeks ago when, as I said, 1 was thinking out loud. There is one real objection in my mind, and that is the one I mentioned the last time although I did not pick a very good illustration of it because I referred to the floor price on butter. I suggested offhand that the floor price on butter tends to become the ceiling price on butter, and some of my city friends have pointed out that is not necessarily so, that in Canada the commercial price of butter is often quite a lot higher than the floor price, as we all know.
But I do believe the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and all of us should think about this aspect of the problem, too. Is it a fact that if you enact a law establishing a floor under working conditions, that floor tends to become the ceiling? I know that in the old days the old fashioned trade union leader very familiar to my good friend the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis), never wanted the government to do anything for him except to keep their hands off his business and let him run his show in his own way. The old fashioned trade union leader always considered that a minimum wage became the maximum wage, and therefore in the earlier years it was their tendency by and large to oppose all such things as minimum wages and provisions of a similar type. But I have noticed in later years, as the organized trade movement in Canada has got bigger, stronger and broader-maybe it is better, though I do not know; I do not think it is better in all ways but certainly it has become more powerful- it has swung around more and more to the idea of legislative action when legislative action might tend to assist general working conditions.
The final thing which has influenced my judgment that the bill deserves support and that we should send it to the industrial relations committee to see if we cannot improve some of the details is that it seems to me that all laws having to do with working conditions and labour are tending to reduce disagreements over those things that some call the fringes, those things on the fringes that tend to cause disputes or that sometimes lead to injustices even if it is to a small minority of the workers.
I am not one of those who believe it is better to leave all these things to collective bargaining or fringe benefits which may be offset against increases in pay and working hours. It seems to me it is much better, where legislation fits the case, to make as fair a basis as you can for the general problem you have to meet, and leave the ordinary

Industrial Relations
process of collective bargaining to deal with the really tough things which are always working conditions and wages.
Has the hon. member a question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes. I wonder if I might ask the hon. member this question. When he gives the figure of 93 per cent as the percentage of employees under federal labour jurisdiction who already have substantial holiday benefits, does he not feel he should make it clear that the 93 per cent includes those who get two weeks' holiday with pay only after as long as three years service, and that only 47 per cent get what this bill provides, namely two weeks' holidays after one year's service? In other words, is it not correct to say that instead of just 7 per cent of the employees gaining by the passing of this bill, something over 50 per cent of them would gain by the passing of this legislation.


Elmore Philpott: I think that is true. I believe the table which the minister put on Hansard at page 3837 sets the whole thing out very clearly. It is obviously true, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre says, that a lot of them would get their two weeks' holidays with pay who would have to work for longer than is provided in this bill. As against that I think there is a very real argument that We would have to consider, and that is whether or not, in fact, the floor does tend to become the ceiling. As I say, on balance I certainly think this bill is one that deserves the support of all the progressive members in the house, at least to the extent of sending it to the industrial relations committee and discussing it there to see what we can get out of it.


Clarence Gillis: I should like to say a few words in support of this bill. In his remarks the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Philpott) suggested that the old type of labour leader wanted a hands off policy. Well, I think the reason for that attitude in that period was that he did not have very many friends in parliament or the legislatures of the country. They were mystical bodies that he looked upon with a great deal of suspicion. Since that time employers, governments and labour leaders have grown up, and today they try to do their business on a business basis.
Now, I should like to say that while this bill only applies to organizations under the federal government, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre pointed out, about 50 per cent of those who would come under this particular bill would benefit by its passage. In my judgment the important thing to remember is this. The federal government,

as an employer, should set an example to other employers in the country. While the idea that these matters should be ironed out by collective agreement is a very good one, we must remember that in our labour force in this country today, some 5 [DOT] 5 million approximately, there is a very small organized percentage who have the right to make collective agreements. There are only about a million and a half out of that 5-5 million. It is the example that would be set by the federal government in this matter to other employers in the country that would be of benefit.
With the great bulk of the labouring force in Canada unorganized and having no opportunity to bargain in matters of this kind, there is a need for this legislation. There are only two provinces in Canada that have legislation similar to this on their statute books, and they are British Columbia and Saskatchewan. In those provinces, whether or not you are organized and sign a collective agreement, the employers are bound to live up to the laws with respect to holidays with pay. Other provinces have not that kind of legislation.
I suggest to the minister that in view of the benefits that would accrue to those who come under federal jurisdiction, and in view of the example the federal government would be to other employers across the country and to the provincial governments which have not similar legislation, he should accept this bill. He should concede that, perhaps after working 365 days in any industry in this country, the workers in that industry should be entitled to a holiday with pay. It is all right to depend on the generosity of the employer, but there are many of them who have employees who do not get any holidays. In my judgment this is one of the best examples the federal government could set at this time to either the provincial governments or to employers across this country.


Mr. Gregg:: My hon. friend should have said 260 days instead of 365.


Clarence Gillis: Yes, but a lot of them work Sundays, too.


Charles Edward Johnston: I should like to add a word regarding this bill. First of all I should say that we agree with the principle of it, but I do think the bill should be sent to the committee on industrial relations so it could receive a full clause by clause study. It does seem to me that the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) was correct when he said there should be no question in anyone's mind, either inside this house or outside, that after a person has

Industrial Relations
worked for 52 weeks he is entitled to a week's holiday with pay. I think that is a general principle that is accepted by almost everyone across the country. If we cannot so arrange our industrial or any other type of development as to allow our workers at least two weeks' holidays with pay, it does seem to me there is something wrong.
It is true that it can be said this should be the subject of negotiation between employers and employees, but I am of the opinion that it would not do any harm to have legislation on the matter, because it is only a humane act to start with. It is something that should be taken care of by legislation rather than by negotiation. I do believe, too, that many of the provinces apply all these conditions, but the federal government is the one that should take the lead and set the example to the rest of the provinces. If the federal government took that lead, I think a great many of the provinces would follow. Of course, that does not offset the fact that we should have this principle implemented so far as the federal field is concerned.
I do not think there is anything more I could usefully say that would not be a repetition of what has been said. There are some clauses in the bill about which I am not too sure. The hon. member for New Westminster and myself have gone over the bill rather carefully, and I think it would be of advantage to the house-I cannot see any disadvantage to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre-if the bill were sent to a committee for thorough study. I believe there are places that can be improved, but I want to state here and now that we agree with the general principle of the bill.


Mr. C. W. Carter (Burin-Burgeo):: When I first read this resolution my first reaction was one of a faint sort of hope, born no doubt of wishful thinking, that its scope might be broad enough to include members of parliament. But after I got down to a serious study of the bill, and read particularly the explanatory note as to its purpose, I could not help but think what a great pity it is that such legislation is even necessary, because we are all our brothers' keepers whether we are employers or employees, and certainly annual holidays are in the interests of both.
In the world in which we live today, annual holidays are a necessity for health and for efficiency, and because of that they are in the national interest. Furthermore, the economic cost of annual holidays to employees is more than recovered in the gains to industry through less absenteeism
on account of ill health and greater production on account of better efficiency. Not only that, but we are living in an age when our way of life is challenged, and we are proponents of a way of life which is primarily based on the importance of the individual.
All our democratic system and all our democratic institutions have been built up on that principle, and certainly in an age of ideological conflict we cannot afford to forget that even for one minute. But on the other hand, Mr. Speaker, as I reflect more deeply on the bill, I must come to the conclusion that in one sense it hurts our democratic system, because of necessity it removes responsibility from the individual and we cannot remove responsibility without at the same time removing freedom of choice. These two factors are absolutely essential for the preservation and the development of our democratic way of life.
The explanatory note says that the purpose of this bill is to provide that all employees in Canada who come under federal labour jurisdiction be granted at least two weeks' holidays with pay after one year of employment. Certainly the stipulation of paid holidays is also a necessity because in our high cost society that we have built up here in Canada few employees can afford holidays without pay, and few can save up enough to enjoy a really good vacation out of their savings.
I think the important thing to remember about this legislation is that the key to this problem is not the number of employees affected but the number of employers, because it rests with every employer to grant these concessions to his employees whether they ask for them or not. I know it is pretty well admitted that the majority of our employers throughout Canada have already granted holidays with pay and that, as has been pointed out by the hon. member for Vancouver South, only a small percentage of employees of the total working force of Canada will benefit from this legislation, but I think proportionately the number of employers will be smaller still.
The point I wish to make, Mr. Speaker, is that this very small group of employers, by shirking their responsibility to care for their employees, are doing a great disservice to the cause of democracy, because it is their irresponsibility that has made this legislation necessary. I have always been grateful that I had the opportunity of taking my university training in the field of science, because an understanding of the great laws that govern the forces of nature help very much to understand the human forces that control society. One great natural law is the

Industrial Relations
balance of forces. All the great forces of nature are very neatly balanced, and I think the greatness of Shakespeare as a dramatist lies in the fact that he understood, perhaps more than any other writer of his day, how the internal forces inside of people are also very nicely balanced, and when that balance happens to be upset by a chance happening, or by some flaw in the human character, then these forces have to work themselves out until a new balance has been established. The working out of these forces can often lead to tragedy. It perhaps leads to tragedy more often than to the happy ending which we call comedy.
If a very small number of employers do not treat their employees properly the question naturally arises, why not? What forces are at work preventing their doing it? Are they forces of greed for more gain; are they forces of fear that industry cannot stand the extra cost; or are they purely economic forces which prevent their doing so? I think it is necessary to know, because the great challenge which the free world faces today has arisen from these human forces borne of a sense of injustice and a sense of neglect, which have come about primarily because capitalism failed to realize it is not enough for enterprise to be free. Besides being free enterprise must also be responsible.
I would like to see more emphasis on scientific training in our schools and particularly in our business colleges, because if employers had a better knowledge of the forces of nature I think they would also have a better understanding of how human forces work and of the consequences that would result from their actions.
I have made these observations, Mr. Speaker, because I find myself in a peculiar position with respect to this bill. As far as the principle is concerned no one can disagree with it at all, and I certainly give it my hearty support. On the other hand there is some doubt in my mind as to whether this is the best solution to this problem. As a parliament of Canada our aim should be to build up through the country a system of free and responsible enterprise. How can we ever develop responsible enterprise if government is continually going to intervene and take upon itself responsibility that more properly belongs to the individual? How much better it would be if every employer did the right thing, not because there is a law which compels him to do it but because it is the right thing to do. In those circumstances this type of legislation would not be necessary.
I would hope that the Minister of Labour might consider setting up somewhere in his department-perhaps he already has the

machinery with which to do it-some machinery to survey problems like this so we would know exactly how many employers are not treating their employees responsibly, and not only that but also the reasons they are not doing so. We should also have machinery established to assist them to do the right thing. If it is clearly a matter of management or efficiency, then it would be much more positive for us to have someone go into that business and give the necessary assistance in order to enable them to do the right thing merely because it is right.
It seems to me this age is labouring under two misconceptions. One of these is that human nature cannot change. There are hundreds of thousands of people in the world today who can prove that this conception is contrary to the fact. There is abundant evidence in every part of the world to prove that human nature can change and will change voluntarily much more quickly than under legislative compulsion.
The second great misconception is that present social evils will be cured by increased social justice, more education and a greater sharing of wealth even if it is done through compulsion. I am convinced the cure will not come in that way. We cannot obey all the laws we have now, and the only way this problem is really going to be solved is by finding the answer to our human weaknesses. Unless we do find the answer to our human weaknesses humanity will go from crisis to crisis until lawless dictatorship takes over.
Therefore I would suggest that whenever we deal with any social problem of this kind we should know exactly what it is with which we are dealing and all the pertinent information should be obtained. In this case we should know how many employers and employees are involved, and the reasons for their not employing methods which we consider today to be simple elementary social justice. I would like to see this legislation deferred until the Department of Labour has had an opportunity to make this survey and obtain this information, and until it has been able to give more thought to the question of finding a better solution than that presented by passing more legislation.
It seems to me that this type of legislation, which little by little encroaches on the freedom of the individual and limits more and more the freedom of choice, is in the end going to defeat its own purpose because as I see it the answer is responsible enterprise. This represents democracy applied to industry and to economics, and I fail to see how we will ever preserve democracy by curtailing freedom.

Industrial Relations


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre speaks now he will conclude the debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, if my counting is correct I believe that nine members of the house have spoken to the second reading of this bill. I am encouraged as I check over the positions taken by these nine members, in that seven have indicated they are in favour of the bill or at least that they support its principle. The eighth member, the hon. member who has just taken his seat, seems to find it difficult to believe laws have a place in establishing rights for people, but nevertheless even he is in favour of the principle set out in this bill, namely that workers should have two weeks' holidays with pay after one year's service.
That accounts for eight of the hon. members who have spoken. There is only one other, and of course he is a rather important person. I refer to the Minister of Labour. He did not indicate that he could support the bill. He did not say he was against it nor that he was going to vote against it, but he said that at the moment at any rate he could not bring himself to support it. If the house will vote in accordance with the views which have been expressed by the nine members who have spoken there is no doubt as to the result. I certainly hope that will be the case.
I am most grateful, not only to those on this side of the house in the three opposition parties who have spoken in support of the bill but for the attention given to it by the Minister of Labour. I am of course pleased with the support which has been indicated by the hon. member for Vancouver South.
In summing up, since it is hardly necessary to do anything by way of reply in view of the fact that most of the speeches have been favourable to the bill, I might repeat just one or two facts which were given earlier in the debate. It is correct to say that there is legislation regarding annual vacations with pay on the statute books of six provinces, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia. Incidentally, using the formula we have had occasion to discuss yesterday and today under another heading, those six provinces represent a majority of the provinces and also a majority of the Canadian people. It seems to be pretty well indicated that this principle is accepted in this country.
However, as far as those six provinces are concerned, only two of them have legislation which provides that there shall be two weeks'
vacation with pay after one year's service, those two being British Columbia and Saskatchewan. The other four provinces provide for one week's holidays with pay after one year's service. Some of them provide for a greater length of holidays after more years of service. These provincial laws relate to employees who come under provincial labour legislation, ancf do not touch the 400,000 who come under federal jurisdiction. This bill would deal with that group of 400,000 workers who come under federal labour jurisdiction.
Nevertheless, I think the point should be made that there is a tendency on the part of the provinces, particularly in the labour field, to pay attention to what the other provinces are doing and to what the federal government is doing. I think if a lead could be given by the federal parliament in this matter it would hasten the day when we would have legislation of this kind throughout Canada, so that all the workers of this country would have vacations with pay as a matter of right. This is a principle which the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo accepts; and I think even he will have to agree that that can be brought about only if we use the rule of law to establish the rights to which we believe our people are entitled. After all, laws are not just the negative things that he seems to think they are; laws are not just restrictive, laws are also positive in that they establish certain rights. That is what this law is. It is similar to the laws in some of the provinces which do establish the right of working people in this country to enjoy two weeks' holidays with pay after one year's service.
May I say to the hon. member for Bow River that I indicated on May 11 when I moved second reading that I would be happy to have this bill go to the committee on industrial relations. If it is given second reading I would move that that be done, rather than the usual motion of reference to committee of the whole house.
I should like to say just a brief word further with respect to the number of employees who would be affected by this bill, following along the exchange between the hon. member for Vancouver South and myself. I think we got it clear, basing our statements on the table put on the record on May 11 by the Minister of Labour, that approximately 47 per cent of the employees who come under federal labour jurisdiction now have, by virtue of collective agreements or for other reasons, two weeks' holidays with pay after one year's service. That leaves some 53 per cent who would gain if this bill became law.

Industrial Relations
It is true that in addition to the 47 per cent who have two weeks' holidays with pay after one year's service there is roughly another 2 per cent who have two weeks' holidays with pay after two years' service and there is another 44 per cent who get two weeks' holidays with pay after three years' service. If you add those three groups together you arrive at the 93 per cent indicated a few minutes ago by the hon. member for Vancouver South.
However, I think cognizance should be taken of the fact that even the 47 per cent of the employees under federal labour jurisdiction who enjoy two weeks' holidays with pay after one year's service includes three groups of workers who I think it would be fair to say are in preferred categories. Those three groups are air transport employees, bank employees including employees of the Bank of Canada, and employees in government enterprises not included in the preceding classifications. The employees in those three groups, as will be seen from the table on page 3837 of Hansard, enjoy two weeks' holidays with pay after one year's service to the extent of 100 per cent. When you deduct those employees from the total and consider the rest, that is all employees under federal labour jurisdiction except those in preferred occupations who enjoy this privilege 100 per cent, you find that so far as the rest of them are concerned -in other words, averaging those in railways, shipping, motor and all other transport, mining, manufacturing and so on-it works out to about 35 per cent of all the rest who enjoy the privilege of two weeks' holidays with pay after one year's service.
I believe the principle is gaining ground, t believe it is pretty well accepted in Canada that people should have reasonable holidays vith pay as a result of their contribution to the economy of this country. Nevertheless it is true that there are still a great many people who come under federal labour jurisdiction who need the improved benefits and protection provided by legislation such as this. So I hope the house will give approval to this bill so it can be sent to the industrial relations committee.
As I say, seven of the nine of those who have spoken say they are for it and the eighth member says he is in favour of the principle although not in favour of doing it by law. If the eight of us can just get the Minister of Labour on our side we will have won the day.


Chesley William Carter: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege; I did not want to interrupt the
TMr. Knowles.]
hon. member while he was speaking but I am sure he would not want to leave an improper interpretation of what I said. He will remember that I started out by referring to the fact that we are our brothers' keepers. I recognize therefore that every man has a moral right to be cared for and when a man has a moral right o r mething there is a moral responsibility r somebody else to supply it. When a ma: already has a moral right, in recognition of a moral law, I do not see that legislation is necessary to establish it as a legal righ'.
That is what I said. I do not think the hon. member would wrnt to imply that I did not think legislation was necessary to establish rights. I sai this is a moral right, and I think a moral law should take precedence over a man-m, de law.


Mr. Deputy Speake ;: I declare the motion lost.


Clarence Gillis: I was paired with the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin). Had I voted I would have voted for the bill.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE

[Stage Direction]
Family allowances and old age security-
278. Administration, $2,693,059.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.

AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. Stewart (Winnipeg North):: There is a question I should like to direct to the minister. One of his senior officials was in Winnipeg at the beginning of June, and apparently he made a speech there which was reported or misreported in one of the Winnipeg newspapers. His remarks were to the effect that a third world war was certain. I just wonder if the minister can give me the facts of the situation.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Well, Mr. Chairman, all I can say is that I presume my hon. friend is talking about one of the officials in our family allowances division, for whom we have the highest admiration. I am sure he would not be guilty of any deliberate indiscretion. 1 am quite sure that if he was reported as having said that, there must have been some inaccuracy in the report.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Can the
minister ascertain the facts for me?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I will be glad to.
Supply-Health and Welfare


Howard Charles Green: This vote is the administration item in connection with family allowances and old age security. Since the house last met, one or two weaknesses in the regulations have come to my attention, and I should like to place them before the minister tonight.
The first has to do with family allowances. We have in Vancouver a boys' band known as the Kitsilano boys' band, which has been conducted for quite a few years by Mr. Arthur Delamont. It is a very famous band and has played here in front of the parliament buildings on different occasions. Mr. Delamont has taken these boys to Great Britain and the continent on several different occasions. Apparently the minister's department has ruled that when one of these lads is away for more than three months, then the family allowance must be repaid. I have actually had one of those cases come to my attention.
I do not believe that is proper under the terms of the Family Allowances Act itself. The act provides in section 4, subsection (2) (b) that the allowance shall cease if the child ceases to be a resident in Canada. I think if the regulations are such that the allowances are cancelled in cases such as the one I have mentioned, then those regulations go farther than is permitted by the act. The condition should be the residence of the family in a case like that, and there certainly has been no change of residence. These boys have gone on these trips as members of the band, and I think the minister's department is making a mistake in cancelling the allowances under those conditions.
Then the next case has to do with the Old Age Security Act regulations. This old age security to Canadians over 70 is paid entirely by the dominion, so there can be no argument that the provinces have to be consulted about the regulations. This is purely a federal payment, and it is made on a contributory basis. The government itself has asserted time and time again that our old age security payments are contributory. The people are contributing by way of additional taxation imposed for the purpose of providing old age security. In view of these facts I think that there should be some change made to cover cases such as the following.
In the first place, Canadians employed abroad by Canadian firms should be covered. For example, take a man who represents one of our great newspaper firms in London. I know of a case of that kind. This man represented Canadian newspapers in London for quite a few years. When he retired he came back to Canada, but he cannot get the pension because of the time he was in the
6678	HOUSE OF
Supply-Health and Welfare old country. I believe anybody in that position should be counted as a Canadian and should be able to get the payment.
Another group of cases concerns people who have been away within the last 20 years. There is a provision in the act to the effect that unless they were in Canada during the period before the 20 years started to run for twice the time they were away in the last 20 years, then they cannot qualify. That is in section 3, subsection 1, paragraph (b) (i) of the act. It reads:
(i) has been present in Canada prior to those 20 years for an aggregate period at least equal to twice the aggregate periods of absence from Canada during those 20 years.
I believe the time has come to take a second look at that provision. Instead of requiring double the length of time prior to the commencement of the 20-year period, surely that should be made an equal length of time, or having resided in Canada for a total period of 30 years even though part of the last 20 years was spent out of the country. I know of several cases where this ruling has come into effect, and I think it is very unfair.
Another case concerns those who have resided in Canada for the necessary length of time and qualified for the old age security payments, and then wish to retire in the United Kingdom. That person has made his or her contributions and surely should be entitled to the old age security payment. Under the present legislation he loses out; he cannot get the payment.
Why is it not possible for Canada, if she will not make the payments direct to these people who go to the United Kingdom or any other part of the commonwealth, to negotiate an agreement with the United Kingdom under which the payments would be made. There is an agreement of that kind, I believe, between the United Kingdom and Australia and another one between the United Kingdom and New Zealand. My facts may not be accurate, but that is what I am told, that there are agreements between these nations of the commonwealth under which if the old age security recipient moves to the other country he or she will still be eligible for the payment.
I think, too, there should be a change made so that a person who has reached 70, and who has to go south for health reasons, can still qualify for these payments. There are not a great many of these cases, but every so often you run into one where it is a matter of life and death. If the person is to survive at all he has to go to a milder climate. I do suggest consideration should be given to making a person in that category eligible for the payment.


These regulations are too rigid. For example, on the west coast we have the boundary in one place running across a peninsula which is called Point Roberts. The tip of that peninsula is in the United States and the rest of it is in Canada. We have a large group of people from Vancouver with small homes just over the boundary on the United States side of Point Roberts. They buy all their groceries in a store on the Canadian side. Their money is all spent in Canada, but they live in the United States a few feet over the border. Some of them have spent all their lives in Canada, yet they are disqualified for old age security. That is a ridiculous state of affairs, and I do not think it was ever the intention of this parliament that people in that position should be disqualified. I am sure if the minister himself will look into that situation he will be able to find some way out of the difficulty.
Then, finally, the minister's department has the responsibility for people on old age security. I should like to know what the views of his department are with regard to having housing schemes which are to be used by old age security recipients exclusively, or to a large degree. I ask that for this reason. Another department of government is saying that if there are, I think it is, over 30 per cent of the occupants in a scheme of this kind who are on old age security, then the dominion government will not permit the scheme to go ahead.
We have had a case of that kind in Vancouver where the city has suggested a scheme, I think it is under section 36 of the National Housing Act-I may have the wrong section-under the section which calls for co-operation among the city, the province and the federal government. I believe the city and the province are willing to go ahead with a scheme for housing which will be for old age security recipients exclusively, but the dominion government, under the Minister of Public Works, is refusing. It says it is not right to let senior citizens occupy a housing scheme exclusively. This other department of government wants them mixed up with a whole lot of younger people.
I would like to know whether the Minister of National Health and Welfare thinks that is a sound policy from the point of view of those senior citizens? In Vancouver we do not think it makes any sense at all. The result of the refusal of the Department of Public Works to authorize a scheme of this kind has been that there is not any scheme at all. I should like to hear from the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether his department has objections to a scheme such as has been proposed by the city and apparently approved by the province.


Mr. Harrison:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take a little of the time of the committee to discuss a matter which I think lends itself as a subject of some interest to members in all parts of the house; a subject, too, that, when they find what is being done in some parts of Canada, may cause them a little surprise and some of them may be a little appalled.
In the central part of my riding I have an area that was settled in the early days of the settlement of the west, and I am not talking of the settlement that occurred with the advent of the railways, but with the advent of the fur trade and the settlement from Hudson Bay. The Churchill river system, which is a tremendous system of large lakes, occupies the central part of my riding, and it is about that area that I wish to speak for the next few minutes. The area was settled mostly by people of Scots descent, brought in by the Hudson Bay Company, and a little later by French people who were employees of Revilon Freres, a fur-trading firm in that area at that time.
Those people mixed with the native population to give us what is known as our Metis population, or our half-breeds. The mentality of those people has not changed much with the admixture of British and French blood. Their mentality is still the Indian mentality. About 15 months ago family allowances began to be cut off from these people, and they have been progressively cut off since that time. A few people were affected initially. Later more and more were affected, and pretty well the whole area now is cut off from family allowances.
Hon. members will be surprised, I think, even as members of parliament, to learn that in the Family Allowances Act we have a means test, and it is a means test of this kind. You must provide for your child amenities of one kind or another to the amount of $5 a month or you do not get family allowances. Well, of course, that is no difficulty as far as people are concerned whose children are at home. It is taken for granted by the department that the $5 is paid as long as the child is at home, but the difficulty begins the moment the child is sent either to a boarding school or to some institution. Ordinarily it is not necessary to do that, but in this area the vocation of the people demands that this be done practically 100 per cent.
What is their vocation? Well, their vocation is trapping and fishing. It must be recalled that their mentality is still that of the Indian, and therefore they are naturally nomadic, anyway. It was only with the advent of family allowances that any great
67509-118J
27, 1956	6573
Supply-Health and Welfare interest was taken in education there by the Indians themselves, although with the coming of the missions-and the Oblate order came into that area about 160 years ago and settled mainly in places like lies a la Crosse and Portage la Loche and others-there has been, some interest in education. They have done a marvellous job but they ran into the natural resistance of those Indians or half-breeds to education.
Family allowances changed that a great deal. It gave them an incentive to go to school, and the missions were able to persuade them to go to school and get some education. Family allowances and the health department that our minister so ably heads have done other things for that country that had quite an impact on it. Over a period of years we have got rid of the scourge of tuberculosis amongst the Indian population, and now instead of a vanishing race we have a great multiplying race.
This brings problems, mainly the problem that the old life of fishing and hunting will not fill the bill. It will not provide sustenance for the increasing number of people in that area. Therefore we have to seek new channels of employment for those people up there. They must assimilate more with the white race and follow the white man's pursuits. The first step in that is education. And so this matter of the cutting off of family allowances, though it is not education itself, is an adjunct that is necessary, and has proved beneficial.
For the first four or five years that we had family allowances in this country these people were paid. You would naturally wonder why they are not paid today. During the period when they were paid we had this very beneficial effect. The missions were increasingly able to get those people to go to school. The heads of those missions tell that sometimes it took four or five years of pleading and argu>-ment on the part of the priests, who for &. period of, as I say, over 160 years have tried; to bring this situation about, to get them togo to school. I wish to pay a tribute to those missionaries who have spent their lives; ini that country in order to help the half-breeds and the Indian population. They have been willing to spend their lives there, and I thmfr-we should be willing to spend the family allowances and make them payable to all our people.
I brought up the question as to why they were being discontinued. They were discontinued on the retirement of the regional director of family allowances a year and a half or so ago, when a new one was brought in. I made inquiries about this gentleman, and the minister has been kind enough to have him come down and talk with me. I have also talked with other officials in this

Supply-Health and Welfare department over the past few months, but all with the same result. They tell us it has to be fixed here in this place, and that is what I contended from the outset. They were cut off by the new administrator, who hewed to the letter of the act as far as these people who send their children to boarding school are concerned,, and those who send their children to places where they can board and go to a day school.
As I have told you, that is a necessity in that part of the country because the people are nomadic. They live anywhere from 50 to 150 miles away from schools, and it is essential for their children to be in a central spot or they will receive no education at all. Family allowance was cut off, on the basis that the parents are not paying $5 a month to the institution concerned, and therefore they are not qualified for family allowance.


Clarence Gillis: How many were affected?


John Hornby Harrison: In lie a la Crosse about 130 were affected at that school. I inquired at Easter when I went through and learned that 20 of them had left school in order to get the family allowance. That may seem a rather od4 thing, particularly when we remember the spirit in which the Family Allowances Act was passed. I was not a member of this house in the days of Mackenzie King when this legislation was framed, but if I correctly understood the intent of Mr. King it was to bring a better standard of living, particularly an terms of education, to people in the lower income group. If I am wrong in that I would like to be corrected. In practice the opposite is the case. The new administrator wishes to hew to the letter of the act, and he wrote to the parents of some children as follows:
. ; . as soon as your child returns home let us Jknow so we can reinstate him . . .
-on the family allowance. Instead of insisting as we always have that children go to school in order to obtain the family allowance, in this area they are insisting that the children stay away in order to obtain it.
I checked with Father Bourbonnais, the priest who is the principal at the mission at He a la Crosse and I learned that 20 children had already left school in order to obtain the family allowance. Father Bourbonnais contemplates that more will be leaving. In the mimeographed booklet which is published there, by the children, about three or four times a year, Father Bourbonnais makes a plea to the parents to send the children back after the summer recess. I would like to read a portion of this to you:
After holidays well spent come back in September. Come numerous to prepare your future. "Education is key to the Indian problem" declared

some Indian chiefs to the Honourable Jack Pickers-gill, federal Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. The Metis and Indians have the same problem. The population is increasing in the north and is going to keep on increasing. Only a small number of the native population in the next generation will make their living by hunting, trapping and fishing. The others will have to learn new ways to earn their living, such as mining, lumbering, working in mills and doing office work; or become nurses or teachers. All this means preparation-by attending school regularly and learning as much as possible.
Presently there is the problem about taking pupils in residence, on account of the family allowances regulations.
The parents are responsible for their children and must contribute for their education. Unfortunately some misunderstanding has been going on for some time, and children who should be at school are not attending presently.
Our Right Reverend Bishop Paul Dumouchel. O.M.I.,-
-who has been in Ottawa, I might say, on three or four occasions in connection with this matter-
__along with the provincial and federal government officials, are doing their best to solve the problem, and we hope their efforts will be crowned with success.
I hope they will, too, because some of these people have been without the family allowance for 15 months on the ground that the institution charges only $2.50 a month and they are ordered to pay $5 per pupil. I think the people at the mission know more about what the people in that area can pay than the officials of the department of my hon. friend the minister. The Oblate fathers have been there for 160 years, and if they do not know the situation which obtains there I would venture to suggest that no one knows. I know this area intimately myself, and I know a great many of these people personally. I go in there once or twice a year and meet the people and listen to their problems. There is not the remotest possibility of their being able to pay that sum.
Many hon. members have been talking about the possibility of increasing the family allowances. Before we begin to do that I think we should first pay it on the basis we now have it, because an increase is not going to mean anything to the people up there. Even an increase of 50 per cent would be of no value, because an increase of 50 per cent of nothing still equals nothing. Even if you triple it, it is still nothing.
One runs into some extremely difficult situations and it is interesting to review some of them, though I do not want to bore hon. members by speaking at too great length.


John Horne Blackmore: You will not bore us; go ahead.


John Hornby Harrison: I want to place some cases on the record because a desperate situation

exists in that area. Granted it is not a very large area and it does not contain a great many people, but it has already affected at least 130 children and before long, it will have affected a great many more.
I believe this is important. I do not know why any Canadian child should be barred from the family allowance, particularly when its parents are at the very bottom of the economic scale.
I have no objection to a means test for family allowances providing it is put in the right place. For instance, I would have no objection if it applied to persons in receipt of an income of $50,000 a year, and if they had to fulfil certain stipulations; but to impose it on this group of people is something I cannot tolerate, particularly when one hears hon. members saying from time to time that we should give more money to Burma or other countries under the various plans we have. When we do give away money it is without strings attached. We do not say that someone has to provide $5 before we will give them $25 million. I think we should do something about seeing that our own people in this country are protected, particularly those who are in severe need.
I spoke about children who had to go home from school, according to the new regional director. I spoke to this young man, and he is a very decent fellow. He told me he has to adhere to the act as it is written, and I agreed that he does. The only reason family allowances were paid before was because the regional director winked at some of the regulations. One of them was that the family allowances cheque must be paid directly to the parents.
In effect the mission in that area is the guardian of the children for at least 10 months of the year and frequently for longer periods of time. The result is that, in order to make this thing work, the money has to be paid direct to the mission. As a matter of fact the same gentleman went out and was going to have the former head priest Father Gagnon thrown into jail because he was collecting the cheques at the post office at lie a la Crosse, despite the fact that the parents would be required to travel many miles to get the cheques and could not read them when they were received, because most of them are quite illiterate.
These things are not taken into account by the officials. Their thinking and the act itself is based on the assumption that in its administration one would be dealing with people of normal intelligence and education. The directives they have issued are useless, because they have no foundation in fact.
Supply-Health and Welfare
I said a minute ago that I would give the details of a few of these cases so the committee will have some idea of the impact this has had upon these people. Here is a letter from a person who has enough education to write a letter:
Please if you going any time to Regina and please ask for me to Mr. G. P. Allen, regional director family allowances, ask him what for didn't send family allowance to my kids since seven months. Now ask him please to send all that to my wife Vitalin Gardiner.
And later:
I got a big family; I got seven kids keeping at my home and very pleasure to you if you can get that for my wife please.
That is from one who knows how to write. To insist that these people sign their cheques is to insist on something impossible because they just cannot do it. They just mark them. They have authorized the priest at the mission to get their family allowance cheques from the post office. That has always worked. The mission books are open to inspection by anybody, and the provincial inspector of schools tells me that he inspects the books regularly and has found them to be in first class order. They keep an account for each child, and if clothing has to be bought it is bought out of the family allowance.	'o-'t
What must be taken into account is that these people do not have banks, they cannot read or write, and an act passed for other parts of Canada just will not work in that part of the country. You are making these people break the law, and they have different ideas about what breaking the law is than have people in other parts of the country. They do not think they are breaking the law by turning in their cheques and having their families go to school. I shall just read excerpts from what another lady writes:	;
I am a poor widow and often I go to the post office looking for my family allowance cheque which has not come for many months, and all I get is questionnaires and objections and overpayments, etc. It really looks as if it was a crime to put a child in an orphanage or a boarding school and that I have to be punished for it. I shall do my best once more to answer your questions and that I may finally receive some of the money I need so much.
This is what she had in mind. The regional director sent out this questionnaire to these people. I told him when he was here that it was a waste of time, because they could not read it when they got it. How could they fill it out? The first question is "Name of school or institution" and the next one "List of payments made to school or institution since admission". Those would be made largely by the priest at the mission. Then the next, "Show travelling costs paid

Supply-Health and. Welfare to or from school." That might be ascertainable. "Show the cost of clothing bought since admission." Most of them do not keep any accounts under their birch bark bookkeeping system, and there would not be much you could find out about that. Then the next question, "Show details as to dental, medical, optical costs since admission." If that work was done at the school they would have those details. Then, "Books, toys, etc. purchased since admission". If there were any provided they would probably know what they were.
These questions are asked of the priest at the mission. These people bring them in to the priest, because they cannot read or write. I asked Mr. Allen what was the point in asking that kind of question, because the only point in asking a question is to get an accurate answer. If you cannot get an accurate answer there is no use in asking a question. That is what this lady was perturbed about when she said:
Darlene was admitted at Holy Family school at He a la Crosse in September, 1953, and has now been back with me for the summer holidays.
Then she goes through her whole family giving the details of where the children are. She gives that information because she has not had any family allowance cheques for several months.
I dropped in at Buffalo Narrows during Easter. There are many white people there, some of them not too well educated but sufficiently so to answer letters. One of them has 12 children, six of them being at home as they are under school age. His wife told me that they were getting $20 a month in allowances. Another man had five children, with three of them at the lie a la Crosse school and two at home. It just happens that I saw a letter from this man in the files of Father Gagnon when I dropped in at lie de la Crosse, and it was a pathetic thing. He was saying how sorry he was that he could not bring the children home at Christmas time because he had caught only 27 boxes of fish since October, and his mink would not be ready for sale for some time. He had sent $3 so that each child would have a dollar at Christmas, and he said he would try to bring them home the next Christmas.
These are the kind of people we are shutting out. I think some consideration should be given to removing this means test and seeing that these people are paid. I do not care whether it is in Ethiopia or wherever else you may find underprivileged children, they are no more underprivileged than the people in this area. If any hon. member is interested I would be glad to have him come with me

to visit those people. If he finds that conditions are not as I have stated I will be ready to apologize for anything I have said tonight. These people are at the absolute bottom of the Canadian economic scale. The minister's department is trying to improve the health of these people, and I think the results are indicated by the increase in population, but this work should be coordinated with family allowances.
I have no doubt that the minister will tell me what he told Bishop Dumouchel, that education is a provincial problem. I should like to quote from Bishop Dumouchel's last letter, where he says:
Mr. Martin comes back with the argument that education is the sole responsibility of the provincial government. This we all know and state that the provincial department takes up this responsibility quite adequately. Teachers' salaries, school supplies and tuition grants are top. But what Mr. Martin overlooks is that the organization at lie a la Crosse is not a school but a residence which makes it possible for the children to attend school there.
In concluding it might be well to indicate what some of the officials in the department think as to the coverage of the act in this respect. I quote from a letter written by George Carty, executive assistant to the minister, as follows:
However, I now find that section 18 (c) presupposes that the basic maintenance required by the act is satisfactorily met. In other words, before any special arrangements can be made for the disposition of the allowance cheque, the basic conditions of eligibility must be complied with.
Then on the next page the basis of eligibility is set out as follows:
That is to say the parent must pay to the school basic maintenance of $5 a month plus the family allowances received on behalf of the particular child concerned.
I can assure you that that cannot be done in that area because these people have not got it. In other words they would have to pay $5 a month plus the family allowance cheque for each particular child. That was the approach taken by the officials of the department in the absence last year of the minister when he was doing such an admirable job in foreign relations in New York. I can assure him that his own work up in this area suffered because we could not get a statement of policy on this matter from his officials. They took the proposition up with the provincial administration, to see if they would increase the allowances at that end, and came to the conclusion that the proposition would be met and these objections in the act overcome if the provincial grant, instead of being given to the school, was given to the individuals themselves, and they in turn would bring it back to the school, and that would satisfy the act.


Clarence Gillis: There is nothing wrong with the act, it is just stupid administration.


John Hornby Harrison: That, of course, completely ignores the mentality of people of the Indian race. The moment they get a dollar in their hands they want to spend it. Even if they could read a letter, or if someone interpreted it for them, the fact that they received a letter saying that this money does not belong to them but they must take it to the school, that it belongs to the school, would mean nothing to them. They live for today and let tomorrow take care of itself.


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


An hon. Member:: Go ahead.


William Alfred Robinson: Has the hon. member unanimous consent to proceed?


John Hornby Harrison: I shall finish very quickly.


Some hon. Members:: Go ahead.


John Hornby Harrison: That kind of thinking amazes me. It may be because the civil servants in charge are not familiar with that area. One of the things that was told to me about the qualifications of the present regional director in Regina was that he had better qualifications than any other regional director in Canada. On the basis of the yardstick they use, I think that is right. He is the only graduate in social services.


Clarence Gillis: That is what is wrong with him.


John Hornby Harrison: I think my hon. friend is correct. I agree with that. I should like to set the examination for a regional director for Saskatchewan, particularly one who has to administer that northern area if he does not know anything about it. This particular gentleman was sent in, I understand, from Halifax. He is a graduate in social services. If I were setting an examination for that position, I would take him on a trip up to my riding-I have very rugged country in the northern part of Saskatchewan-and I would drop him by parachute in the wildest part of that country with a rifle and 20 rounds of ammunition. If I came back one year later and he was still alive he would be a good man to put in as a regional director, because he would certainly know that country and its problems. He would not be writing to the people, even if he thought they could read, and telling them to go 150 miles on snowshoes to pick up their cheque, sign it and take it to Father Gagnon or Father Bourbonnais, whoever happened to be there, and in that way fulfil the letter of this act before they could get their family allowances.
Supply-Health and Welfare
As will be seen from the concern shown by Father Bourbonnais in this little pamphlet, the net result is that 110 children who have been kept all this year by the mission without any family allowances are not going to come back, because of the example of the 20 pupils who stayed home to get their allowances. I think I have said enough, and I have taken advantage of the indulgence of the members of the committee, for which I thank them, and also of the minister. I have no doubt he will make some rebuttal to this. I hope that by the time he gets through something will be done, and that he will not merely say that we have nothing to do with education in the province. We have a responsibility to pay family allowances, in my opinion, to every child in Canada, no holds barred, and particularly to those people about whom I am speaking.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I am not sure if I am correct in my opinion that this is the first time a minister has had such expert advice on the floor of the house. I should like to compliment him-and it is not often I compliment a minister-on the very high calibre of the advice he has. I am sure that under the circumstances the opposition can make very little headway.


Clarence Gillis: I should like to say a few words on this item, administration of welfare. I am not going to elaborate on old age security. This group likes to expedite the work of the house, so it organizes itself in order to do that. We have one chief spokesman on each department's estimates, and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has aired the views of all members of this group on the question of old age security. I should like to say that we agree with him, and there is no need to repeat what he said.
I should like to supplement what the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra had to say on the qualification clause in the Old Age Security Act. It is even worse than he painted it. I run into cases in trying to establish old age security-or old age pension, as it was known before the act was changed-of men who spent five years out of the country in the armed services fighting a war, and find that time was disallowed for pension purposes. The present minister will find records in his files where I have taken up at least one case during the past five years in regard to that particular question, and as far as I am concerned I never got it straightened out. I just want to make sure that men who served during the last war and in Korea for several years-

Supply-Health and Welfare


Paul Joseph James Martin: I assure my hon. friend that time spent in the armed services is not calculated against-


Clarence Gillis: It was.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I shall look into it. If the hon. member will meet me tomorrow, we shall settle that in one minute.


Clarence Gillis: I just want to make sure that time spent out of the country is now not held against those who were in the services.
The other point the member for Vancouver -Quadra has raised is one that has been raised a good many times. That is the need, at least in the commonwealth countries, to make our social security legislation reciprocal. I believe that should be done. There are many people in Canada from England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales. When they reach 70 years of age most of them have nothing else to fall back on except the pension. However, if they leave the country that $40 per month is discontinued. Plenty of these people would like to go back to the old country. The place where you finally like to rest is where you were born. That $40 per month in purchasing power in the old country would mean much more than it would if spent in Canada by such a person in the last years of his life. I believe that some consideration should be given to bringing that pension to people in that category.
I certainly think it is time that the countries of Canada and the United States, which are so closely interlocked and are becoming closer and closer all the time economically, Socially and in every other way, should permit people on old age security pensions to have their pensions when they take a trip down south and stay down there for holiday purposes or any other purposes. It is time they got around to doing something on a reciprocal basis between Canada and the United States. I should just like to say this with respect to the matter raised by the hon. member for Meadow Lake. It is a rather amazing story. The test of any legislation is in its administration. The hon. member endeavoured to relieve the director from any blame and tried to make it appear that the act was at fault* but I think what is happening there is a direct violation of the act. Any child of school age who is not in school cannot receive the family allowance.


John Hornby Harrison: That does not apply if no school is available in the immediate area.
1 Mr. Gillis: That does not make any difference. There are no ifs, ands or buts in the legislation. Under the circumstances described

by the hon. member I do not think it is necessary to change the act. One director administered the act over a number of years in the only way it can be administered, and then a new man comes in with all the book training but with no practical experience of life that would acquaint him with the kind of situation the hon. member has described.
Do you know what I think is necessary? All that is necessary is for the minister to issue a directive re-establishing the system in force previously, and tell the new man to get ready to find himself a job up in the bush until he becomes acquainted with the facts of life.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Or back in Halifax.


Clarence Gillis: I think if you trace his ancestors you will find he is not a Nova Scotian. I think you will find he comes from some other part of the world. It is a matter of having people in an administrative capacity who know something about the facts of life.
I suggest to the minister that before his estimates are completed he get up and tell the hon. member who raised this question that it is too bad, but that he was at the United Nations doing an important job, that he cannot be every place, which is understandable that while he is away there are far-flung corners in this country of ours that are liable to get out of joint, and that as soon as the estimates are completed he is going to exercise his authority to correct the situation that exists in that particular area.
The money should be paid retroactively. There are 15 months involved. I am looking forward with a great deal of interest to the minister making that kind of statement to the house in his very direct, sympathetic and efficient manner. He should say that this kind of situation cannot exist, and that he is going to clean it up. You know, Mr. Chairman, we have co-operated 100 per cent. We have sat here and just held on to ourselves day after day waiting to get to the minister's estimates.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend co-operates in everything.


Clarence Gillis: There is another angle to the matter of family allowances, the question of the boy or girl going to school after reaching the age of 16. That is the time when in many families it becomes very expensive to get the boy or girl through high school or possibly university. Under the present regulations the family allowance is not payable to any boy or girl over 16, and I believe the time has come when the allowance should be made applicable to any boy or girl continuing his

or her education beyond the age prescribed by the act for the payment of the family allowance.
These are the points I wanted to make with respect to family allowances, and also the question of the residence clause in the case of old age security payments. We will have something to say later about other angles of the problem.


Mr. Patterson:: Mr. Chairman, one of the
disadvantages of sitting in this corner-


An hon. Member:: There are a lot of them.


Alexander Bell Patterson: -is that it seems as though we are more or less beyond the range of vision. I am placed in the position now that, since the first time I rose this afternoon, other hon. members have stolen my thunder.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Nevertheless I am going to take two or three moments to refer to several matters in connection with the estimates. I was under the impression that the Minister of National Health and Welfare was very anxious to get these estimates through as quickly as possible.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That was yesterday.


Alexander Bell Patterson: However, I thought when he spoke in the debate this afternoon he invited an extension of the discussion, because certainly some of the remarks he made were not calculated to soothe the feelings of some of us over here and get us into a very happy frame of mind.
One of the statements he made was that he had no apologies whatsoever to make relative to the provisions that are at present made for the senior citizens of Canada. 1 do not think we are asking for any apologies, because I believe all of us are perfectly prepared to acknowledge the worth and value of the provisions as far as they go, and we do not want to minimize that fact in the least. He referred as well to the fact that we in Canada-I believe that was the content of the statement-are treating our senior citizens better than any other nation in the world.
I do not think that is the proper way to assess the situation. I do not think we should gauge it by what others are doing. I think the question should be, is it the best that we can do in Canada? With the wealth we have, with our productive capacity, with all the good things we enjoy, is this the best we can do for the senior citizens of our country?
I think if we were to look at it from that viewpoint we would be forced to say that we ought to be able to do better than that, whether or not any other nation is prepared
Supply-Health and Welfare to do so. As I have said, we are not asking for apologies but for recognition of the continuing responsibility of the government with reference to the treatment accorded our senior citizens. We are reminded, of course, that the value of our dollar today is far less than it was a few years ago; therefore I think we would be justified in suggesting to the minister, the department and the government that old age pensions be raised at least to the level of the value of money when they were first instituted.
The other thought I have in connection with the old age security payments has been mentioned by one or two other speakers this evening. I refer to the eligibility of recipients of security payments to receive the money even though they may reside outside of Canada. I placed on the record some time ago a letter received from a senior citizen who had lived in Canada for 40 years or more. He had made his contribution to this country.. He had lived here and spent his money here. Now in the declining years of his life, and with not very many more left because he was quite an elderly gentleman, he wanted to return to England to spend his last few years with relatives over there. But because of the regulations as they now exist he could not enjoy the fellowship of his family in the closing years of his life. I suggest that this matter be again given consideration, or perhaps it is under consideration. If it is, I hope the decision will be favourable.
While I am on my feet I will just refer very briefly to the question of our blind friends. Like some of the other members of the house, perhaps most of them, I have received a great number of communications asking for support for the request that some provision be made for our blind friends with regard to guiding allowances. We are all aware, of course, of the additional expense incurred by the blind in this regard, and I think all that should be required is to bring it to the attention of the minister and ask that favourable consideration be given the request. It would be of great assistance to them and it would be an indication of the fact that we are concerned about these people and want to do the very best we can on their behalf.
As the minister said, every member in the house is concerned and interested in the well-being of all these people who are presently the recipients of allowances of various kinds. I believe that, in spite of what the minister said this afternoon, he would still like to do a little bit more for them. So we will just commend these matters to his attention and request that they be given serious, favourable consideration.

Supply-Health and Welfare


Ellen Louks Fairclough: There is a matter, Mr. Chairman, that I should like to bring to the attention o f the minister. It is really a three-cornered problem; that is, it concerns his department, the Department of National Revenue and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. I refer to those people who come into this country with children and who eventually qualify for family allowances. I have had cases brought to my attention where people came into the country and were given little or no information with reference to their status for income tax purposes with regard to their children. Subsequently they found out that by reason of one or two months' family allowance payments which they received, they were placed in an unfavourable classification in so far as their statutory exemptions were concerned.
One such case which came to my notice recently concerned a very intelligent individual who recognized the problem and who said that had he been given the information which he understood was now available to new entrants to this country, he would have been in a position to make a more intelligent survey of his income for the year. Once having filed a return, he was no longer in a position to benefit by reason of the deductions which would otherwise have been available to him.
I realize that in so far as the minister's department is concerned, they merely pay the allowances. However, since this matter does concern the three departments, will the minister consult with his colleagues and make sure that those persons who come into the country with children, with the obvious intention of staying in this country, are given all the information that is available with reference to their statutory exemptions for the purpose of taxable income, and the advantages which will accrue to them if they handle these allowances in a certain way. The minister knows what I mean; that is, turning them back to the department.


Mr. Van Horne:: I have recently been in communication with the manager of a group of hospitals in the province of Quebec for a religious institution. Apparently in one hospital there are 90 children of unknown parents who are being denied the family allowance merely because their parents are not known. I feel sure the minister would be prepared to recognize that these children are just as much entitled to family allowances as any other children in Canada, and that he would be pleased to take the necessary steps to make sure these children get their family allowances. In many cases these hospitals, these convents or orphanages, care for


these children of unknown parents at a tremendous sacrifice to themselves because they have no other means of help apart from the charitable donations that are made to them. For these reasons I think it is most unjust that these children, through no fault of their own, are denied the family allowance.
While I am on my feet I should like to reiterate what I have often said before. If the cost of living in 1945 was taken as the basis for determining the amount of family allowances, then since the cost of living has almost doubled should not family allowances be increased accordingly? This applies not only to family allowances but to old age pensions and all the other pensions as well. When old age pensions came into effect at $20 per month they were sufficient for that time. This principle was recognized in that case, because the pensions were increased to $40, but they should now be over $60 a month and that principle should be carried into effect all along the line. We have failed to recognize the tremendous burden under which our families, especially those in the poorer areas of this country, are attempting to carry on. I assure you that northern New Brunswick is no exception. We have families with numerous children, and the family allowances that are paid go a long way toward helping these families care for and educate their children.
In 1945 and 1946, when family allowances were first introduced, the amount paid went a long way further than it does today, because the cost of living had doubled in the meantime. I feel sure the minister will recognize this. I think he has indicated on previous occasions in the past his willingness and his determination to do everything possible in this regard. However, the fact still remains that nothing is being done, and there is no indication of anything being done along that line at this session.
There is another factor I should like to bring out in regard to the invalids' pension. My stand on that is well known to the minister as well as other members in this house. One fact emerges now which may not have been made clear before. Invalids' pensions are being paid to people who are, as I have often said, completely and permanently disabled or so near dead that nothing else matters. In my riding in particular we have people who are temporarily crippled. We have people with both legs severed. We have other people who are paralysed but who can still use their hands or can talk. In some cases these invalids are fathers with numerous children, and they are being denied the invalids' pension because they do not come within this stupid definition

that has been incorporated in the act. I am sure that as time goes on the minister will change these things, but the point is this. Here we are in 1956 at this session of parliament which is about to close-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: -with no indication from the government that any steps will be taken to bring about these desirable and needed changes. I feel the minister may wish to comment on this.


Mr. Mclvor:: I do not think there is one of us in this house who would not like to see old age pensions, family allowances, and blind pensions increased as well as the pensions to handicapped persons. I rise to ask the minister what taxes he would increase in order to raise those pensions? The sales tax hits everybody. I wonder how many in the house would stand for an increase in sales tax; that is the thing that bothers me. I know we would like to have more. I should like to have more for the veterans and for the civil service pensioners, but the Minister of Finance and the minister in charge of this department must have some way of raising the money. That is my question; what taxes would he suggest increasing?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I desire to say a word or two in connection with the Disabled Persons Act. I know that is the next item-


Paul Joseph James Martin: I just want to say that my hon. friend is quite right, but several other members have already discussed this. I would suggest that we might consider all the remaining items together if that would be the wish of hon. members, with the idea of closing the discussion as quickly as we can.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: That suits me fine.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: The remainder of the items of the department will be lumped for the purposes of discussion. They will have to be put individually.


Tom Goode: But not so far as civil defence is concerned.


Howard Charles Green: Am I to understand that
that includes item 281, civil defence?


Edward Turney Applewhaite: No; the remaining items of the department. You notice that the items are marked, "A, department", except 281, which is marked, "B, civil defence".


Howard Charles Green: Then the items we are now considering are 278, 279 and 280?


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Yes.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Mr. Chairman, I have been waiting for quite some time to make some
67509-419i
Supply-Health and Welfare comments on the administration of the Disabled Persons Act. The hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska has already raised the question but I would point out that it is not particularly in the act itself that the real difficulty lies but, in my opinion, it is in the regulations drawn up under the act. While I would like to approach this question objectively, I find it very difficult to approach objectively a measure of this kind. In my opinion it is a tight-fisted, penurious, miserable, mean kind of act. I do not know of anything on our statute books that is quite so mean as the regulations drawn up under the authority of this act. In order that it may be well known just what the regulations are with respect to determining disability,
1	should read them into the record. Section
2	(2) of the regulations reads as follows:
For the purpose of the act and these regulations, a person shall be deemed to be totally and permanently disabled only when-
I ask hon. members to note the word "only". I continue:
(a)	the person is suffering from a major physiological, anatomical or psychological impairment, verified by objective medical findings:
That, of course, must have been drawn up by a Rhodes scholar. I do not think anyone else would have used such words as these. The regulations continue:
(b)	the impairment is likely to continue without substantial improvement during the lifetime of the person and is one to which the concept of cure cannot be applied; and
(c)	as a result of such impairment, the person is severely limited in activities pertaining to selfcare and normal living, such as being
(i)	bedridden or chairfast,
(ii)	unable to leave home without being accompanied by another person,
(iii)	normally in need of care and supervision for one or more of such self-care activities as dressing, body hygiene or eating,
(iv)	unable to perform such routine activities as climbing a short stairway or walking a limited distance on a level surface, or
(v)	certified by a qualified physician to be under medical instructions to forbear from activities of the kind mentioned in subparagraph (iv).
Just to make sure, as if that were not enough, subsection 3 continues:
Notwithstanding subsection (2), a person shall be deemed not to be totally and permanently disabled where, in respect of that person, a favourable rehabilitation prognosis is obtained, or approved therapeutic measures are recommended, by the provincial authority, and the requisite rehabilitation services or therapeutic measures are available.
Well, now, applying that section-


Stanley Howard Knowles: How can you be alive and meet that?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: That is what the subsection says. When conditions such as these obtain

Supply-Health and Welfare you may as well apply the mirror test. In case the minister does not know what I mean by the mirror test, may I say it is a well-known trick of physicians. A mirror is placed at a person's mouth, and if it does not fog up the person is dead. They could just as well apply that test, because nothing short of that will let him in under this act.
I see these words, and I do not say this with any thought of malice to the doctors or to anyone in particular, but I say the time has certainly come when some action has to be taken. I could bring a whole file of letters, and no doubt many other members on both sides of the house could duplicate that effort. I' could read from those letters of tales of woe until the minister would be crying for help before I could finish all the cases that are still hanging fire and those that have been turned down. That is not the kind of thing I want to do. I do not want to raise the question just for the purpose of talking about it.
The minister knows, and hon. members know, that I have raised this matter on a number of occasions, and so have other hon. members. We have been told that the matter is being given sympathetic consideration, or various degrees of consideration, but I say the time has come when something concrete and definite has to be done.
In my opinion, regulations that are as stiff and inflexible as the subsections I have referred to are not expressive of the spirit of the act that was passed by this house. Those of us who were anxious to get the legislation-and some of us raised this question 10 years ago in this house-certainly felt when this act was put through that we had reached the moment when we were going to be able to do something for the thousands of disabled persons in this country, jt has been a terrible let-down; it has been a major disappointment to all concerned to find the regulations drawn up in such a way as if the authorities deliberately set out to exclude as many persons as possible, rather than to include as many as possible.
I know there are always marginal cases Under any kind of an act and regulations. There is going to be a line drawn somewhere; but if we are going to have a line drawn, let us include inside the act as many of the doubtful or borderline cases as possible, and not exclude them from the provisions of the act. I think the time has come when the officials of the federal department should get in touch with the officials of the provincial governments concerned, because this is one of those fifty-fifty acts, and if not during this session-that is quite unlikely now-certainly at the very beginning of the

next session of parliament the minister should be prepared to recommend changes to the house, or if it can be done by changing the regulations alone without changing the act, then have the regulations changed so the people who have been waiting-and many of them are pitiable cases-can be brought in.
I will not take the time of the committee to describe them; they are well known to all. They are really pitiable cases and certainly this committee, this parliament and this nation should hang their heads in shame if we cannot do a better job for our disabled persons than we have done up to this time. I hope this will be the last time it will be necessary to bring this matter up in the house.


Mr. Small:: This has to do not with the various cases mentioned this afternoon and tonight; it has to do with the permissible income and regulations that govern most of them. I shall mention one case, but my remarks apply to them all. I appeal to the minister to see if something cannot be done about overhauling the regulations. This is the case of a constituent in my riding who is blind. It arises out of a review of his case by the Ontario department of public welfare, which administers the federal act. He was notified that his allowance was suspended as of January 1, 1956.
He is married and living with his sighted wife, and is permitted an income of $1,560 a year, including his allowance. His wife owns the house they live in through inheritance. She is also employed part-time and works to augment their income, and receives $20 a week when she works. Their assets are her home, as I previously stated, a bank account of $108.15 and bonds valued at $1,700. His income is $40 a month, or $480 a year blind persons allowance. Her income, as I stated, is $20 a week or $1,040 a year, if she is able to work a full year. The government insists that the assets be computed on an immediate government annuity rate, calculated at 5 per cent of the assessed value of the real property and charged against the income of the family.
This amounted to $226.50. The department informed him that his total annual income was $1,512.52, which would permit him a monthly allowance of $3.85. The department also notified him that they had overpaid him by $108.15, and that the $3.85 a month would be suspended and applied against his account of $108.15 until the debt was discharged or until he could refund the $108.15 and be reinstated.
The explanation for their action in assessing the value of their home was that a person who does not own property is required

to pay rental, and this equalizes those who own their homes. In other words, those living in rented houses have to pay a certain amount of rent but the man who is living in his own home does not have to pay anything.
This is a means test, and I am sure it does not appeal to the house. I wish to point out that the person who owns a home has to keep that house up and pay taxes, which are probably more expensive than a rental would be. I think that should not be brought into this question of what is called putting on a means test. This individual's wife was assessed on the basis of having worked a whole year which she did not do, but that was not taken into account. Therefore the assessment was not a proper one.
I appeal to the minister to consider this question of the means test. I am not asking for an increase in the allowance, which has been touched on frequently here; but I do think the matter of the means test and permissible income should be re-examined and overhauled, because it does not give a fair deal in the situation I have described. I shall leave this matter with the minister and hope he will give it some attention.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman-


Edward Turney Applewhaite: The hon. member for Kootenay West.


Mr. Herridge:: Is the minister going to speak?


Paul Joseph James Martin: A great many hon. members have asked questions, but I want to be fair to everybody.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I have a question which
would mean just one more for the minister to answer. Mr. Chairman, I have been mute on these estimates so far for three reasons. The first is that other hon. members of this group have given expression to my feelings and opinions, and I do not believe in repeating things too often. Second, I have a certain amount of sympathy for the minister; and third, I have been absent.


Mr. Fulton:: Why did you come back?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I must say I have been
absent on very important business. I have been attending a committee that has been considering the health and welfare of the hon. members of this house. We spent a great deal of time this afternoon making* sure that next session they will get ample fruit and vegetables and so on in the parliamentary restaurant.
I must say that most hon. members appreciate that I am a somewhat timid soul, and I have always found myself a bit flustered
Supply-Health and Welfare on these estimates though I do not know why. However, I am going to try to contain myself and prevent myself from panicking by keeping an eye on the minister and my future needs.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Are you afraid you will get an old age pension before you finish?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I rise, Mr. Chairman, to bring one matter to the attention of the minister. I have in my constituency a number of unfortunate disabled persons who have, to use orthopedic appliances, and because Spokane is the nearest point where they can, obtain the appliances or have them repaired they frequently obtain them there. I want to bring this matter to the minister's attention as I have been requested to do by the manufacturers of these appliances in Spokane and area, and by a number of representative organizations in my district.
Another reason for my mentioning the matter at this time is that I was absent in another committee when the estimates of the Department of National Revenue were under discussion, but these matters are related so I think I am justified in doing it at this point.
The people who wear these orthopedic appliances in some cases are not required to pay customs duty when they purchase them in Spokane or area and bring them into this country. In the case of corrective shoes and that sort of thing they have to be sent across the line in order to be repaired, and when they are returned in a repaired condition they are required to pay a duty on them. I also understand they are required to pay a sales tax on certain of these very necessary artificial aids. Generally speaking these people are in the low income brackets, and I am going to ask the minister if he will use his charm and ability and discuss this matter with the Minister of National Revenue, to see if we cannot avoid charging these people sales tax and customs duty on these very-necessary articles.


William Gourlay Blair: Mr. Chairman, I wish to say a few words on the question of the disability pension. I was very glad when this pension was written into law of this country, but I find that the difficulty lies in the interpretation of the words "permanently and totally disabled". I realize there must be a dividing line somewhere, which was set forth in the terms one hon. member discussed a short time ago and those terms are necessarily in some form of legal parlance to describe the disability.
1 find that the trouble stems from two sources, and one is in making out the papers. The board that is looking over the papers

Supply-Health and Welfare should have an accurate picture of the condition of the patient. I have had some of these people come to me and I have examined their papers. I found they were answered simply "yes" or "no", and questions such as "Is he totally disabled" were answered with a bare "yes" and no reason was mentioned. In many cases the blame rests with members of my own profession. Simply because a doctor says an individual is disabled is no reason why the board should accept that bald statement.
This gives rise to a great deal of trouble. The forms are filled out with "yes" and "no" all the way down, and usually at the bottom of the form the words "totally disabled" are written in and then someone signs it. The board has to judge an applicant on the basis of the form, which I have already referred to as a penned picture produced by the applicant for the benefit of the board in order that they may pass judgment upon it.
I now come to the other point. The legislation is not very well understood with regard to the two terms "totally and permanently disabled". I am concerned about cases which perhaps could be called borderline. If you called this a helplessness allowance you could speak of these people as being those who are not able to dress themselves, go to the bathroom and up and down stairs and generally take care of themselves. They are absolutely helpless. There is the other type of case where people are totally *and permanently disabled, yet they are able to do all those things.
Possibly I could tell the committee about one case I investigated out in the country, where a young man with a wife and one child had suffered a very serious heart condition. He is unable to do any gardening in the little garden they have because he can not hold a garden instrument for any length of time. He is unable to do any work at all. That man is totally and permanently disabled. Despite the fact that he made two applications he did not qualify for helplessness allowance because he was able to dress himself and go to his meals and that sort *of thing. Nevertheless that man by any standard is totally and permanently disabled.
I appreciate that it is difficult to try to establish some form of examination or standard whereby these cases can be judged in order to arrive at a proper formula for a person who is totally and permanently disabled, but I have two suggestions to make. I would suggest that greater care should be taken in making out the application papers in order not to make it difficult for the board administering the act, and there should be


a little more leeway given in the interpretation of the act. I do not think you should rewrite the qualifications. I thought this over for quite a long time, and I think the only way to remedy the situation is to give more leeway to take in that type of borderline case who cannot qualify for the helplessness allowance but who is totally and permanently disabled.
I would not abuse the act, because I think it is an excellent provision which has done a great deal of good, but that situation seems to be destroying its usefulness. I have no suggestion to make as to what should be written in as to the degree of helplessness necessary in a person. I think the only thing that can be done is to give a little more leeway to the board which considers applications. Where you have a set of papers of the "Yes" and "No" variety-sometimes I blame the doctors, because they are not good writers anyway-there should be a bit more leeway given. We should do the same as we do with the veterans and give the benefit of the doubt. Let the board go back for further information on the case. Possibly the person looking after old age pensions in the county could make a confidential report. You could get a confidential report from the reeve or mayor of the municipality, or you could get a letter from the clergyman or some well known person. The board could get further information in that way.
I know that at the present time there is a lot of trouble in connection with people who are totally disabled but who do not seem to come within the act as it is written at the present time. I suggest that there be further investigation in such cases, and that the board be given power to investigate and also be given a little more leeway to bring in those cases which are really totally and permanently disabled but who do not qualify by reason of being helpless.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I shall attempt to deal with all the questions that have been asked. I want to thank my hon. friend very much for the helpful contribution he has just made. He has put his finger directly and precisely on the difficulty we have had. I suppose he was able to do that because as a physician he knows the difficulty of arriving at a definition in the particular situation that confronts us. Other countries having this type of legislation have had the same difficulties.
My hon. friend will recall that during the winter we had a meeting of the medical examining boards which was most fruitful. As a result there has been some relaxation in the constant and continuous feature, and as a result since that time there has been an

increase of almost 25 per cent in the number of applications granted. All the provinces without exception felt that the first year's experience was important, and we are now assessing the results since the wider interpretation with which all medical counsellors agree.
We are having a meeting of the board in the fall, when we will take a further look at it. I do not know whether my hon. friend has been talking to my deputy minister, but he likely has, and he will realize that their ideas on this matter are very close, and mine also are very strong. This is particularly true in the case of mentally deficient people. Of these cases now being covered I would say that of the 25 per cent perhaps 12 per cent are mentally deficient cases, which I thought would be included from the beginning but which now represent the bulk of those who are enjoying the benefits of the liberalizing policy or the new interpretation which is being given.
I am sure that all hon. members will be interested in learning that since I spoke in this house we have put another 2800 persons on the disability allowance roll, which represents about 800 more than I anticipated would be the case when the act was first discussed. I think the discussion tonight on this particular subject has been most useful, and I am sure it will help those in the provinces and here who have to administer what the hon. member from Lanark has referred to as a very good act and one which we are all anxious to see work out with great satisfaction.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra raised a number of questions. If I did not rise earlier it was not out of disrespect but because I was hoping to deal with all these things collectively. The hon. member raised the question of three months' absence in the case of family allowances and three months' absence in the case of old age security. With regard to three months' absence in the case of family allowances, and having in mind the particular example he mentioned of the Kitsilano boys' band, I must say I was struck with what he said. When we come to look at the regulations I shall certainly keep that in mind. It does seem to me that a child who goes on a journey like that is temporarily absent, and in spirit should not be regarded as being absent. I do not want to make any final commitment, but I shall look at the matter closely.
With regard to the three months' absence in the case of old age security I must say that I do not share my hon. friend's views. However, I am prepared to look at that again, as I have indicated elsewhere I would do.
Supply-Health and Welfare The reason I am prepared to do that is because of the situation the hon. member mentioned of the peninsula adjacent to Vancouver on which people reside. That may create a special situation. All I would want to say now is that these cases should be looked into, and I assure my hon. friend that I will do that.
The three months' rule is an important rule, as I am sure my hon. friend would realize if he were administering the act. The possibility of abuse is very great, but one ought to take into account the fact that in part this is a contributory scheme. I shall be glad, as I am always, to look into these things, particularly at the present time.
My hon. friend referred to the fact that old age pensioners could not qualify under the National Housing Act. Of course that is something that would come under that act, but I am a little surprised that that is the situation. I know of several projects which have been built under the National Housing Act which are occupied by older people.


Howard Charles Green: They were built by limited dividend corporations.


Murdo William Martin: That may be. I shall note carefully what my hon. friend has said and check with my colleague the Minister of Public Works.
The hon. member for Cape Breton South gave me some pretty good advice, which he always does. I want to assure him that notwithstanding the fact I have gone into the situation and notwithstanding my absences elsewhere-with him, by the way-I am going to take a big brush and I assure him that one of the first things I will do tomorrow is to get the hon. member and see whether or not there is some way to deal with this situation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No wonder there was trouble, with both of you out of the country at the same time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member for Kootenay West asked me a question which involves collaboration with the Minister of National Revenue. I assure him that I shall see that this is done forthwith.
The hon. member for Hamilton West asked me a question that involves consultation with the Minister of National Revenue, and that I shall certainly take up with him, in respect of family allowance recipients who, not having the benefit of the family allowance for the first year, find themselves affected under certain sections of the Income Tax Act. I want to thank the hon. member for Hamilton West particularly for the reference she made to the two distinguished

Supply-Health and Welfare servants of my department, the two ladies who sit in front of me tonight, who are the first female jewels of the government service to sit on the floor at the same time.
The hon. member for Danforth has brought up a question involving income ceilings. I wonder whether he and I could have a talk about that either tonight or tomorrow and see if there is not some way out of this situation. I think I can say that tonight's discussion has been of very great value, and I am sure it has produced some very good results.


Howard Charles Green: Could I ask one question arising out of the minister's answer? Has an attempt ever been made to negotiate a reciprocal treaty with the United Kingdom concerning payments to the senior citizens who move from one country to the other?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I forgot that. I apologize to my hon. friend. I do not think I forgot many things in my roving picture. We have thought of that a good deal and we have had discussions with the authorities in the United Kingdom. One of our officials was there quite recently at a conference when this matter was discussed. There are great difficulties because of the difference between the various schemes, but I can assure my hon. friend that the matter is receiving our attention. As a matter of fact one of our officials is going next week to a conference in the United States to see whether or not any possibility exists there. In any event, the matter is being canvassed and studiously pursued.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: At the suggestion of the minister I agreed last night to defer bringing forward for a few minutes a matter which I had made a pledge to myself that I would bring up some time during this current session. I refer to bringing forward for consideration the need for the guiding allowance without a means test for the blind persons of Canada. I have not previously raised this question during the session except on one occasion on the orders of the day, when I asked whether the minister intended at this session to bring in legislation to provide for this measure. The minister at that time said, in one of his characteristic replies, as recorded on page 4550 of Hansard:
My hon. friend knows these matters are always under consideration. Much will depend upon the progress of debate here and further consideration.
I do not know what the minister's views are about the progress of debate since that time, or exactly what was involved in that further consideration. However, I recognize that as a result of statements made by the Prime Minister when questions have been asked as to the intentions of the government


with regard to bringing forward further legislation this session, it is evident that it is not likely that the minister will have the opportunity of bringing in this legislation, which I am sure he would really like to be doing.
As most members may perhaps be aware from some publicity that has been circulated, the Canadian National Institute for the Blind and the Canadian Council of the Blind have launched a joint appeal for this one specific improvement in the blind persons legislation in Canada. One of the reasons I in particular wanted to say a few words on this was that I had an opportunity and privilege last fall, on that particular occasion at least, that was enjoyed by no other member of this house, and that was to be able for a few hours one evening to sit in on the national convention of the Canadian Council of the Blind and hear the proceedings at that convention which was being held in Victoria, which is no great distance from my own home.
I should like to say that if on other occasions that convention is being held in some other parts of the country, any hon. member of this house would find it well worth his while to sit in for a time on that convention. I found it rather an inspiring experience to see a convention being conducted by people who are not able to enjoy the privilege of being able to see one another. The chairman appeared to recognize every delegate by his voice, and the convention was being conducted in an orderly and, in fact, in a very ordinary manner. I must say that I was tremendously impressed by the courage of those people who were there. Yet at the same time it was brought home to me, in a manner in which it had not been before, what a disability people who have not the benefit of sight are facing in all the ordinary things that most of us take for granted as we go about our daily business.
For that reason, as I said at the outset of my remarks, I made a pledge to myself-I certainly did not make it to anyone there- that at some time during this session I would make some reference to the need for this particular legislation.
Our discussion during the course of this evening, and particularly since we have had several items under joint discussion, has ranged over rather a wide field, to the need for various forms of pensions and help to those who are partially or completely unable to help themselves, but I feel that this discussion certainly would not have been complete without some reference having been made to what I consider to be a very important case of needed legislation which, in

terms of some of the legislation we have had under discussion, would not be very expensive.


George Hugh Castleden: I should like to ask the minister a question with regard to the disability pensions. In recent weeks I ran across a case in my constituency of a lady who was confined to a wheel chair, badly crippled and unable to do even her housework. She had a son about 14 going to school; her husband was working. She was denied the disability pension. Her neighbour, receiving the disability pension, is able to do her housework, does her garden work and comes and visits her quite frequently. My question is, to whom should I appeal for a review of the case? This is a 50-50 proposition between the provincial and federal governments.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If my hon. friend will let me have the case I shall see that it is reviewed at once.


George Hugh Castleden: I shall be glad to let him have it. I did not investigate it fully, but is there any board to which such people can appeal for a review of the case? Is it provincial or federal?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The case is examined by a panel of doctors, one representing the provincial and one representing the federal government. Where there is a difference of opinion, a third doctor not in the government service is asked for his opinion. If my hon. friend will let me have the case I shall see that it is expedited and dealt with as quickly as possible.


George Hugh Castleden: I thank the minister for that assurance. Should that appeal be made to the provincial authorities?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, to the provincial authorities.


George Hugh Castleden: But ordinarily that is where a person should go in order to draw the attention of the officers to what is going on?


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall the item carry?


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Chairman, it grieves me to spoil the minister's plans for tonight by rising at this late hour, but I have endeavoured to give all other hon. members an opportunity to express their views and offer their suggestions before I undertook to deal with the very important question of old age pensions. We had a good deal of talk about the difficulties with which the old age pensioners are confronted, and then the hon. member for Fort William rose and with a sort of sweep of his hand just wiped out
Supply-Health and Welfare all possibilities of doing anything for these unhappy people by asking what particular tax we would levy in order to raise the money to give old age pensioners the kind of provision to which they surely are entitled.
I should like to refer to the document to which the hon. member for Mackenzie referred last night in what I considered to be a good speech facing facts and plenty of them. I should like to recall to the house that the hon. member referred to the findings of the welfare council of greater Winnipeg. That is not an organization that can be laughed off too easily. The welfare council of greater Winnipeg is a responsible organization of intelligent Canadians facing facts. This is what the hon. member for Mackenzie told us, based upon what we find on page 16 of a work prepared by this same welfare council of greater Winnipeg called "Age and Opportunity." He gave us the following requirements, according to that organization, for an old age pensioner: rent, $20 a month; food, $30 a month; clothing, $10 a month; church, $2 a month; medical, $3 a month; memberships, hobbies, $5 a month; transportation, $4.50 a month; incidentals, $5 a month; laundry, $2 a month, making a total of $83.50, where that person is today getting the magnificent sum of $40 a month.
There is a set of conditions there, Mr. Chairman, which I do not think this house can afford to neglect on this occasion. The minister has told us that what would be required would be a tremendous additional amount of money, and we will agree. But the thing we persist in overlooking in nearly every case is that the goods necessary to provide these needs are right here in Canada. The means of producing them are all right here in Canada, but these goods are not being produced because they are not being bought or they are going without being sold because people have not the money to buy them. That is going on from coast to coast in this nation. We do not seem to be impressed by that fact.
The last time I spoke in this house I pointed out the fact that if the Indians ranging our plains 150 years ago had plenty of buffalo, fish, firewood, fruit on the hills and a few other things, then all Indians were able to get all they needed of those things. It took the white man to come along and find out that the more of these things you produced the poorer you were; the more buffalo you had, the more fish you had, the more wood you had, the more fruit you had, the less you were able to enjoy.
I know that to a great many members this sounds very unrealistic, but why that should be the case is beyond my comprehension.

Supply-Health and Welfare Surely it ought to be evident that for any nation which is producing $28 billion worth of goods to say that we cannot provide the old age pensioners with $83.50 a month worth of these goods is for us to acknowledge absolute intellectual bankruptcy.
The question is, what can we do about it? I am not prepared to grant there is nothing we can do about this matter. I am not prepared to grant that the money we use to provide these goods must be ground out of an overtaxed people, not by any manner of means. All I wish to do in the minute or two remaining is to point out a bit of information appearing on page 8 of a document prepared by the Bank of Canada entitled "The Story of Canada's Currency", which was printed for the Bank of Canada in 1955. On page 8 of the document the writer tells us about the Hudson's Bay Company tokens. These Hudson's Bay tokens were shaped like coins and made of some sort of compound, of the nature of which I am not just sure. I should like to refer to these particular words:
These Hudson's Bay Company tokens represented the unit of currency used in the fur trade for many decades. The largest-one "made-beaver"- was equal in value to the skin of an adult male beaver in prime condition. Smaller sizes represented one half, one quarter and one eighth made-beaver. Before these brass tokens came into use, a made-beaver was represented by a stick, a porcupine quill, an ivory disc, a musket ball or anything else agreed upon by trader and trapper.
Note these words particularly.
The trapper would be handed a number of the units agreed upon, representing the value of his catch, and with these would make his purchases from the store. The tokens were designed by George Simpson McTavish of Albany Fort in 1854.
In the area where I grew up as a small boy the merchants used to use a local currency which they called scrip. Units of scrip were used by them to pay people for produce like butter, eggs and other things of that kind. Then the scrip circulated in the communities, sometimes for months, helping to buy and sell goods. I will not say anything more along this line at the present time, but I think what I have already said indicates how with good will and a determination to do something the provinces and the dominion and the municipalities of the dominion can get together and work out a system whereby our elderly people can buy the goods they need to live on, at least to the extent of $83.50 a month.


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall the item carry?


John Horne Blackmore: No. I thought I made that quite clear. I want to go on with this talk tomorrow.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I wonder whether my hon. friend would do me the honour of letting me have a copy of a publication from which he read, which interested me very greatly. It was not the Bank of Canada one, but the other one. If my hon. friend could go on for a few more minutes we might conclude the item. I want him to know that I have followed what he has said with great interest. I know he is very sincere, and I want him to know that what he says is being received by me with the care with which he would want me to receive it.


John Horne Blackmore: The important thing, of course, is not that "it will be considered with care" but that something shall be done. There are just thousands and thousands of old age pensioners in Canada today, who cannot live on the pension. They have to go out and beg for the needs of life in addition to the $40 on which they are trying to live.
I move the adjournment of the debate.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman, accepting the motion to adjourn, may I suggest another course of action for the moment. Some hon. members in the house would like to make their remarks on the C.B.C. tonight if that were at all possible. I wonder if the committee would agree to sit while the minister makes his statement and one other member speaks after that. The hon. member cannot be here tomorrow. Then tomorrow we shall continue with this particular debate.


John Horne Blackmore: We will adjourn the C.B.C. discussion also, so that first of all we will call this discussion and finish it and then go on with the discussion of the C.B.C.?


Walter Edward Harris: Quite so.


John Horne Blackmore: So far as I am concerned that is thoroughly satisfactory.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Is it agreed then, that resolution 278 stands, by agreement?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Could we pass the other ones and let that one stand?


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Resolution No. 54, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.


Walter Edward Harris: I think it was understood that we had passed resolutions Nos. 278 and 279 and we had stopped at 280.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, we were letting 279 and 280 carry.


Howard Charles Green: Perhaps the minister did not understand that we were considering three of these items at one time, 278, 279 and 280.


John Horne Blackmore: And those three are being stood?


Murdo William Martin: No, the old age security one stands, 278.
The Depuly Chairman: If the committee will permit me, I think I have the picture. Resolution No. 278 which is now before the committee and upon which the discussion of these other items has taken place, is to stand. The remaining resolutions under this department, except civil defence, are to be called now and passed.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Item 278 stands.
Items 279 and 280 agreed to.
The Depuly Chairman: May I point out to the committee that we have still before us items 278 and 281, and we are now calling resolution 54, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
DEPARTMENT OP NATIONAL REVENUE Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-
54. To provide for the requirements of the sound broadcasting service (to amount formerly authorized by Chap. 32, R.S.), $6,250,000.


James Joseph McCann: Some few days ago, Mr. Chairman, I tabled the annual report of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for the year ending March 31, 1956. In the discussion of these estimates I thought it would be of advantage to the house to have that report before hon. members so they might have the operations of the C.B.C. reviewed up to that time. We all understand very well that there is presently in existence, and has been for some time, a commission known as the Fowler commission. Its terms of reference were to review the activities of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, both as to sound radio and television. I think under the circumstances, since that commission has not held all its sittings nor has it a report ready, but that report will be made some time before the next session of parliament, perhaps it might be only fair if we were to refrain from discussing many of the briefs and representations which have been made to the commission so far.
I propose at the beginning of this debate to give a short review with reference to the annual report for the year ended March, 1956, in order that we may have on Hansard a record of the activities of this organization. In its annual report the C.B.C. points out that the continued extension of television coverage and development of the national program service have put an increasingly heavy load on the corporation. The report estimates that for the year which ended last March 31, more than 2 million homes were equipped with television receivers and that television service had been brought within
Supply-C.B.C.
the reach of 80 per cent of the population. By that date the English language service on 6 C.B.C. and 22 privately owned stations was available to 9 million English speaking people. The French service, on two C.B.C. and three private stations, has been available to some 4 million French speaking people.
The wide development both of programs and coverage in the course of the year meant that the rate of operation and expenditures was much higher at the end of the period than at the beginning. The report notes that seven new stations began operations in 1955-56. They were St. John's, Newfoundland; Jonquiere, Quebec; Ottawa; Wingham, Ontario; Barrie, Ontario; North Bay, Ontario; and Lethbridge, Alberta. This brought to 33, 8 C.B.C. and 25 privately owned, the number of television stations operating and affiliated with C.B.C. networks. At the same time, service to the 17 stations which began operation in 1954-55 was maintained for the first full year.
The C.B.C.'s national program service, amounting to between 40 and 45 hours per week in English and between 35 and 40 hours a week in French, was developed for distribution to areas served by C.B.C. stations and to other communities through the co-operation of privately owned affiliates. As of March, 1956, over 55 per cent of the English service and more than 85 per cent of the French was Canadian-produced. At the same time, the report says, the work of the sound broadcasting system was undiminished on the three radio networks, trans-Canada, French and dominion, which broadcast a combined total of 22,356 hours. Some indication of the success of these efforts revealed itself at the annual exhibition of radio and television at Columbus, Ohio, where the C.B.C. again won and shared more awards than any other network.
In television, the 25 privately owned affiliated stations operating at the end of the fiscal year were taking a large proportion of the national television program service. This meant that C.B.C. was making available to each of the English language stations about 100,000 feet of filmed programs each week, and 85,000 feet to the French language stations. The average cost of making these programs available to each private station is approximately $100,000 per year, according to the estimate in the report.
In the realm of programming, C.B.C. reports that once again it was successful at the annual American exhibition of educational radio and television programs, where programs produced by the corporation won six first awards and five honourable mentions. The report also notes that a broadcast

Supply-C.B.C.
called "Birds of the Forest" won the Italian press association prize for documentary radio programs at an exhibition festival in Europe. Several programs are mentioned that are examples of one of C.B.C.'s important functions, the development and recognition of talent. In television "The Concert Hour", as it appears on the English television network, provided an example of what one program can mean in terms of employment. During the 1955-56 season the program provided 1,405 individual engagements or jobs. The greater part of this, 1,004 engagements, represents the engagements required to provide an orchestra for the season. The orchestral performers were all Canadian residents, as well as 22 of the 27 conductors, 61 of the 74 singers, and 26 of the 38 instrumental soloists who appeared during the season.
The C.B.C.'s annual report begins its section on variety programs with the statement that variety continued to come into its own on Canadian television, and that the new opportunities opened up by the medium for this type of entertainment had begun to produce stars of national stature. This is followed by a comment to the effect that the fact some Canadian stars have left to accept work with networks in other countries is welcomed as an indication of this country's maturity in this field.
Later in the report on the variety programming the C.B.C. notes that "Music Hall" on the French television network, an hour-long Sunday night show, succeeded in enlarging its considerable audience despite the fact that it was on at the same time as another famous show, the Ed Sullivan show, on the English network.
The section of the report on drama pointed out the peculiar Canadian institution known as "The Plouffe Family". This is a television extension of the original radio series, written by that well-known author Roger Lemelin. The same cast presents the program on both the C.B.C.'s French and English television networks.
Drama contributed to the success of the Sunday evening series called "Folio", which won an award at the radio and television exhibition at Columbus for its "intelligent and skilful integration of education and entertainment values".
The parallel series in terms of drama on the French television network was "Teletheatre" which presented a season made up of such classical plays as "Le Barbier de Seville" by Beaumarchais and "La Double Incons-tance" by Marivaux, mixed with outstanding contemporary works.
The C.B.C. reports that during 1955-56 it paid out approximately $10,600,000 for

talent, more than 70 per cent of it in direct fees to artists, musicians, singers and actors and nearly $3,000,000 for scripts, performing rights, music and musical arrangements. Of the total of $10,600,000 paid out for talent by C.B.C. in 1955-56, about $6,350,000 was for television talent, while radio talent cost about $4,250,000, including some $98,000 spent by the international service.
These figures do not include a wide range of other talented personnel on the C.B.C.'s regular staff, a range which takes in such creative workers as announcers, producers, program research editors, scenic, graphic and costume designers, news writers, film editors, cameramen and commentators.
Throughout the year a total of 11,135 performers of all types other than those employed regularly on the C.B.C. staff participated in the corporation's programming. Apart from the regular C.B.C. musical groups, the corporation paid more than $150,000 to major Canadian symphony orchestras for broadcasting rights.
The C.B.C. explains that the script department, organized last year, devotes its efforts to the development of improved and continu>
ing relationships with writers. Its section of the report points out that while just over 30 per cent of the C.B.C., produced television plays were written by Canadians in 1955, the situation has improved to the point where it seems likely that in 1956 well over 50 per cent of television dramas will be written by Canadians.
The script bureau of the French network, although it was organized only three months before the end of the fiscal year, reports that it analysed 56 scripts by Canadian authors, nearly all of them newcomers to the field, and drew the attention of producers to ten unpublished works scheduled for performance on television in future months. The French network script organization is receiving manuscripts at the rate of eight or ten a week.
Reporting on the Wednesday night series, one of the examples the report gives is "Architects of Modern Thought," which discussed the influence and ideas of men prominent among world thinkers. Response to this feature was such that C.B.C. published a booklet containing all the talks to fulfil requests from listeners. The report also notes a presentation on the life and times of Joseph Howe presented in two one-and-one-half hour broadcasts on consecutive Wednesday nights. A similar presentation about Sir John A. Macdonald was repeated from a previous season.
Under the heading "Special Programs", the report notes "Christmas Almanac", a five-and-three-quarter hours presentation on Christmas day of a type never before attempted. It

was designed to use radio as a means of communication that can bring an entire country together on a special occasion. The mail response showed that many people were impressed by the sense of unity that emerged.
In this same section C.B.C. reports that special coverage of the International boy scout jamboree at Niagara-on-the-Lake was provided by C.B.C. radio and television, and by the C.B.C. international service. Television coverage included production of three inserts for such American series as N.B.C.'s 'Wide, Wide World" and the C.B.S. series, "Let's Take a Trip". During the 1955-56 fiscal year there was also the production of last year's Shakespearean festival at Stratford for "Wide, Wide World".
On the subject of news, the C.B.C. reports that on January 1, 1956, the C.B.C. news service put out its 5,579th national news bulletin in both English and French, marking its 15th anniversary. In radio, the news service prepares 70 newscasts each day from newsrooms in St. John's, Halifax, Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg and Vancouver.
During the year television news continued to expand. Now in its fourth year, it produces 13 newscasts each day based on the world-wide collection facilities of the Canadian Press, British United Press, Reuters, Associated Press, United Press and Agence France Presse. C.B.C. reports progress this past year in the development of a nation-wide collection and exchange of spot news-film with seven private stations participating along with the C.B.C. Walter Blackburn, of CFPL and CFPL-TV in London was the first chairman of the Canadian television news film cooperative. Under this arrangement stations cover events in their own areas and, in return, receive 10 minutes of film daily, including C.B.C.'s foreign coverage, for use in their own newscasts.
In widening coverage abroad, negotiations for exchange arrangements were opened with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, which is scheduled to start T.V. this fall, and an exchange has already started with the Independent television news in England. These supplement agreements with the British Broadcasting Corporation, and with the National Broadcasting Company and the Columbia Broadcasting System in the United States. Free-lance cameramen gave increasingly better service on Canadian events, which continued to occupy about half of television newscasts.
C.B.C. reports that the talks associated with radio's national news bulletin and news roundup have built up a loyal and appreciative audience. In this section it notes that talks are the simplest and most direct method
Supply-C.B.C.
of communicating the ideas and experiences of individuals, and also of bringing about an exchange of opinion between people many miles apart.
The talks and public affairs section of the report is the longest in the section devoted to programs, and it is in this area that the report notes the greatest number of individual program contributions to the networks from all production points across the country. It is in the area of public affairs that the report mentions two weekly series prepared by the national film board in French, "Regards sur le Canada" and "Passe-partout", and two in English, "Perspective" and "Window on Canada".
In the area described as women's interests, the C.B.C. reports the inauguration of a parallel to radio's "Trans-Canada Matinee" on television. It is a daily program called "Open House". On the French television network the type of viewing provided by "Open House" was presented on several weekly telecasts:	"Reve, reality," "La
Cuisine de la bonne humeur", "Pour elle" and "Michelle Tysseyre".
The report says radio school broadcasts attracted larger audiences than ever before. There was a larger demand for the school broadcast manual for teachers, with 72,000 being distributed for the 1955-56 school year. C.B.C. says that the provincial departments of education also report an increase in the size of the school broadcast audience. C.B.C. explains that the national advisory council on school broadcasting has been actively exploring the classroom potential of television. As a result of encouraging response from teachers as the result of previous experimental series, C.B.C.'s school broadcast department was busy at the end of the fiscal year preparing a further experimental classroom television series to go on the air very shortly.
C.B.C. reported that during its 15th season "Radio-College", which was awarded the Henry Marshall Tory trophy for 1955, maintained its reputation as a university of the air. Four new chronicles on music, famous art institutions throughout the world and religion were added to the previous six. The series on art institutions was produced by the B.B.C. and the French and Italian broadcasting system.
On December 8, 1955 the oldest of the radio farm families associated with the regional farm broadcasts presented each day celebrated their four thousandth broadcast, with the original cast still intact. This was the Craigs of the Ontario farm broadcast. Similar radio families are associated with the regional farm programs in British Columbia, the prairies, and the maritimes.

Supply-C.B.C.
C.B.C. reports that 1955-56 saw the extension of farm television to all regions. At the beginning of the year the Ontario region of the C.B.C. had its weekly edition of "Country Calendar" and the Vancouver and prairie editions had just got on the air. Since then the Winnipeg show has been extended to a non-connected network of five television affiliates across the prairies; maritime and Newfoundland editions have been initiated in Halifax, and "Les Travaux et les Jours", the French language version, has been started from Montreal.
The section of the report on children's programs states that careful attention is being given to programming for television because of the particular impact which television has on very young people. It reports a large extension in the provision of programming for children, and lists programs covering a variety of interests for youngsters of all ages, scheduled for the most part between 4.30 and 6.00 in the afternoon.
In the area of religious broadcasting the C.B.C. reports attempts to try out new forms of programming for those who cannot be reached through the broadcasting of church services. One example in radio was "The Question Box", on which a panel of clergymen and lay people discussed questions submitted by listeners.
On television, plays were commissioned to mark Thanksgiving, Christmas and holy week.
On the French networks Sunday high mass was televised every Sunday instead of once a month as was done previously. And on radio, French speaking audiences were able to hear sermons or talks of a topical nature including some speeches by His Holiness the Pope, a talk by Cardinal Feltin, Archbishop of Paris, several addresses by Cardinal Leger and addresses given in the diocese by Abbe Pierre.
The section of the C.B.C. report dealing with sports broadcasts refers to coverage of regular events such as the national hockey league, football games in the western conferences and the big four and annual tournaments in golf, track and field, sculling, and so on. There were also such individual events as coverage of Marilyn Bell's English channel swim and Cliff Lumsden's victory in the marathon at the Canadian National Exhibition, radio and television coverage of the Davis cup elimination rounds, and the winter Olympics at Cortina D'Ampezzo in Italy.
The engineering section of the report says that during the year an appreciable amount of work was done to improve existing facilities and provide new equipment. At Halifax
[Mr. McCann.1
the television transmitter building was completed on Geizer hill and a new four-storey television studio building neared completion. New television and sound studios were built in Toronto. The second C.B.C.-T.V. French language transmitter went into operation in Ottawa as station CBOFT, to serve the French speaking population in the Ottawa valley, and the combined studio-transmitter building in Ottawa went into service. The English language transmitter for CBOT went over to the permanent antenna at the same time.
In Montreal an audience-participation studio was provided, and a sound studio was converted to a two-camera television studio to cope with the increase in the number of live French language productions originating in Montreal.
The report notes that construction was started in both Toronto and Montreal of new buildings which will house large television and associated service areas. Meanwhile plans were completed to raise both CBFT, Montreal and CBLT, Toronto, to maximum power. New equipment was provided at various locations. A second film camera chain and a third mobile unit camera chain were added at Vancouver, and a second film camera chain was added at Winnipeg. In radio, improved transmitters replaced obsolete equipment at St. John's, Newfoundland, Sydney, Nova Scotia, Quebec city and Ottawa. The fifty-fourth of the C.B.C.'s low-power relay transmitters-unattended installations bringing radio service economically to remote areas-went into operation at Grand Falls.
The report explains that with the tremendous expansion in television more stress was placed on personnel training. The corporation has full-time technical instructors on the establishment at Toronto, Montreal and Halifax whose function is to instruct new staff in television operations and the more experienced staff in improved techniques. C.B.C. experts have visited a number of privately owned stations at such points as Edmonton, Lethbridge, North Bay, Barrie and Moncton, instructing both technical and program staffs in the various phases of television operations.
The corporation has also made available technical bulletins and manuals to these stations. In addition, courses have been held both in Toronto and Montreal which were attended by members of the staffs of Canadian National Telegraphs, Canadian Pacific Communications, and the Bell Telephone Company, as well as by C.B.C. personnel.
Mr. Chairman, I wanted to put on the record a brief summary of the activities of

the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for the year ending March, 1956. In doing so I feel it will make a basis for discussion. Later on the debate it is my intention, with reference to the appropriations which we wish to have passed on by parliament, to give in some detail the amount of money that is to be spent and the purposes for which it is to be spent.
However, the hon. member for Eglinton, who has usually acted in the capacity of critic of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's activities is, I think, probably eager to go to his native city tonight, and for that reason I am very happy to give him the opportunity to enter the debate and I shall defer what I have to say further until a later time.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I thank the minister. There are eight items before the committee in relation to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. It has been our practice in other years to take the group of items pertaining to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in order that there might be an ample discussion of general policy in relation to the corporation, and I presume that would meet with the approval of the committee now.
The first of the items is No. 54, a grant of $6,250,000. The second is a statutory item estimated at $17 million, the proceeds of the excise tax both on radio receiving sets and tubes and on television receiving sets and tubes. Items 55 and 56 are for the shortwave broadcasting. Item No. 605 of the supplementary estimates is an item of $12 million, a grant to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Items 606 and 607 are supplementary items in relation to the international short wave service. Those seven items total $37,263,976.
There is an eighth item providing for a supplementary grant to the Fowler royal commission on broadcasting of $170,920. Of those eight items those pertaining to the domestic operations of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation alone total $35J million.
This year we have had no committee of the house reviewing the operations and the report of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Early in the session I asked that these particular items of the estimates should be referred to the committee on estimates. That request was refused. I then asked the Prime Minister if the government would agree to the setting up of a special committee on radio broadcasting and television similar to that which was set up during the 1955 session. The Prime Minister rejected that request because the royal commission was sitting. Those requests and answers are to be found at page 2128 of Hansard for March 14 of this session.
Supply-C.B.C.
I regret that we have not had a committee where these matters could be reviewed in greater detail. It is an important responsibility that parliament takes in voting these large sums of money for any purpose, not the least of all in relation to such important matters as radio broadcasting and television. Whether or not the royal commission is sitting, parliament is still called upon to vote substantial sums of money. For my part I regret that the government denied the opportunity for the detailed type of scrutiny which is possible in committee, arid which in my opinion is necessary in the public interest. The direct contact between parliamentary committees and the officials of the corporation is, I think, good for both.
It was on July 26, 1955, a year ago, that in response to repeated requests from the opposition the Minister of National Revenue announced that the government intended to appoint a royal commission to review policy in general in relation to radio broadcasting and television. The commission was not actually appointed and set up by the government until December 2 and did not commence its public hearings until April last. I have expressed regret before at the delay in the appointment of the commission and the commencement of its very important work. I do not intend to comment upon the hearings as such, but shall content myself with observing that we look forward with great interest to receiving the report of this royal commission. The minister has indicated in his remarks that it is expected the report will be available at the next session for review here, and I trust that the house will have a fruitful discussion upon it and its recommendations at that time.
In the meantime let me state-I am putting it briefly under the circumstances-that we of Her Majesty's loyal opposition assert the views that we have set forth in the house on previous occasions in regard to the appointment of an independent regulatory tribunal in the public interest to regulate all forms of radio broadcasting in Canada. I do not need to repeat but I reassert the views which were expressed by us in the debate on July 26, 1955, as found at page 6842 of Hansard.
Similarly the views that we have expressed in regard to government policy in relation to the licensing of stations for television remain as we set them forth a year ago on the same date, to be found at page 6844 of Hansard. We deplore this policy of local monopoly in television broadcasting. We think it has delayed the development of Canadian television and has denied alike to C.B.C. television stations and privately owned stations the benefits and stimulation of Canadian competition. We all know that



$602 HOUSE OF COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Supply-C.B.C.
before the house protests that reach the ears of members from time to time in regard to various programs. When these are put before the house it is not with any thought of censoring. In a year when the radio committee is not meeting how otherwise can members discharge their duty of bringing protests of the Canadian people to the forum to which the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is responsible, namely this Canadian parliament?
In the short time that remains I do wish to mention one thing for which the C.B.C. is responsible. I hold in my hand what is commonly referred to as the house publication of the corporation, the C.B.C. Times for the week of April 29 to May 5. This is the organ that is issued by the corporation itself, and if I recall correctly the evidence given to the committee a year ago by Mr. Dunton its cost is about $75,000 per annum. On page 6 of the issue to which I have referred a letter is printed containing the following statement:
C.B.C. television, through its shows of the journalistic type, is doing a great deal to deflate the exaggerated respect in which our public figures, businessmen, politicians, publicists and experts of all kinds, have been hitherto held: and this is all to the good.
Now, sir, I do not hold any brief that public men should be held in any higher esteem than they deserve to be held, but I just wonder whether it is a proper use of public funds to publish letters in which C.B.C. television is commended, rightly or wrongly, because it does a great deal to deflate the exaggerated respect in which our public figures of all kinds have hitherto been held.
James Joseph McCann: I could not agree with you more.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think it is well that this should be brought to the attention of the corporation, because that kind of publicity is being issued by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation at public expense.
The news service is a very important matter in the programming of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. It subscribes to three services, Canadian Press, British United Press and Reuters, and the television and radio coverage of news is a very important feature of C3.C. programs. There are rumours floating about that the C.B.C., having developed this news service, is now proposing to sell the service to those who may be interested in purchasing that news service from it. I think the house should be told whether there is any foundation for these rumours in any respect, because if there were any measure of truth in the rumours it would mean that a public subsidy is being provided under which the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation will be competing with

news agencies in the provision of news services, and it seems to me that is not fair to the press. It would be an unfair form of competition.
As to the propriety of such an enterprise on the part of the C.B.C., I should just like to quote what the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar had to say in the 1942 committee on radio broadcasting, at page 730. After a review by Major Murray, then general manager of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar is reported as saying:
I have a comment to make on this. I am In agreement with Major Murray. It may surprise some of you to know that. I think there are certain fields in which the government ought not to be the subsidizing agency or a controlling influence. I think the publication of news, the gathering of news and the publication of newspapers is something that ought to be preserved to co-operative organizations that are not in any way controlled by the government, so that we may have an absolutely free press and free public opinion. The moment government steps in to subsidize the gathering of news, suspicion is immediately aroused as to colouring the news, and undoubtedly that might happen any time. I think the co-operative system of gathering news today by the Canadian Press is quite excellent.
Let me say in conclusion that there are two questions I hope the minister will answer in the course of his further statement. The first one obviously is when it is expected that colour television will be available. There was an earlier estimate that was widely publicized that it would become available in the autumn of 1956. I would ask the minister to make an informative statement as to the progress that is being made, and the cost.
The other point is the matter of advertising policy. There has been a good deal of criticism, not least of all before the royal commission, in regard to the advertising policies followed by the corporation, and there has been expression of a great deal of dissatisfaction in some quarters about the way in which the C.B.C. has been handling commercial advertising. I ask the minister to give a report on that subject, indicating what revenues are being received, and to tell the house whether the commercial sponsorships are fully sold and if the rates the C.B.C. is proposing to charge are remaining uniform.
My final observation is this, that I consider the relationship between the corporation and parliament a very important relationship, so important to both parliament and the corporation that it should be kept vital and contact should be kept close. That is why I think the committee sitting annually or almost annually is so necessary and so important.
It is one reason also, sir, why I have argued in the past that the C.B.C. should be required to come to parliament each year for its grants. I do not think it is a sound thing to

make grants available to the corporation over a period of years so that it will not have to come back each year to parliament. When the corporation in its brief to the royal commission seems to express the view that it wants to be relieved of the annual grants and to have grants assured to it over a period, I do not think that is a sound point of view for the corporation to be taking. I would deplore and oppose anything that is likely to weaken parliamentary control or make any less clear and vital and strong the contact between the corporation and this house.
I thank the committee.


James Joseph McCann: Mr. Chairman, I just want to assure the hon. gentleman that the question he has asked with reference to colour television will be answered, and when the debate continues I wish to put on the record a statement with reference to finances. When he sees it he may say that it might have been
Supply-C.B.C.
better to put it on the record before he made his speech, but I did not want to take more than half of the time during which he and I were expected to speak tonight. I shall put that on the record, and then there will be an opportunity for people who are interested to compare what the C.B.C.'s appraisal of the financial position is with that of the critic.
Item stands.
Progress reported.
Resolutions adopted in committee this day reported and concurred in.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: Tomorrow, as agreed, we shall take the remaining items of national health and welfare; then C.B.C., and then justice.


[Stage Direction]
It being three minutes after eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Question

[Stage Direction]
The following answer, deposited with the Clerk of the house, is printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:

Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo): 1.	What quantity of eggs has been imported into Canada in each of the following years: 1950, 1951, 1952, 1953, 1954 and 1955?
2.	From what countries were eggs imported?
3.	What limitations or restrictions are placed on the importation of eggs?
4.	Are the same grading and marketing regulations which apply to domestic eggs applied also to imported eggs?
Answer by:	Mr. Dickey, Parliamentary
Assistant, for the Minister of Trade and Commerce:
1 and 2. Quantity of eggs imported into Canada by countries, years 1950 to 1955.
1950	1951	1952	1953	1954	1955Country	Doz.	Doz.	Doz.	Doz.	Doz.	Doz.United Kingdom ....	... 725	781	1,691	1,924	210	670Hong Kong 	... 15,675	28,542	24,536	31,699	34,805	36,095Ireland 	15,000	-	-	-	-Netherlands 	. . . 	1,226,700	-	57,000	90Alaska 	-	240	750	-	300United States 	... 44,382	1,767,615	204,853	220,396	460,112	1,058,561Totals 	... 60,977	3,038,638	231,320	311,769	495,157	1,095,716
3 and 4. Eggs can move into Canada providing they are up to the Canadian equivalent of the grade marked on the eggs and providing the necessary duty is paid.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE

[Stage Direction]
A-Department-
244.	Departmental administration, $1,222,800.
National health branch-
Health services-
245.	National health branch - administration, $155,250.
246.	Administration of the Quarantine and Leprosy acts, $443,850.
247.	Immigration medical services, $1,103,214.
248.	Sick mariners treatment services, $967,575.
Laboratory of hygiene-
249.	Operation and maintenance, $725,958.
250.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $40,000.
251.	Public health engineering, $230,335.
252.	Occupational health, $332,373.
253.	Civil service health, $322,807.
254.	Epidemiology, $66,361.
255.	Administration of the Food and Drugs and the Proprietary or Patent Medicine acts, $1,389,761.
256.	Administration of the Opium and Narcotic Drugs Act, $188,171.
Indians and Eskimos health services-
257.	Operation and maintenance, $15,983,621.
258.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $1,272,200.
259.	Grants to hospitals which care for Indians and Eskimos, $64,000.
Northern health services-
260.	Operation and maintenance, $89,530.
261.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $1,130,000.
262.	Special technical services, $617,676.
263.	Health insurance studies and administration of the general health grants, $108,355.
General health grants-
264.	To authorize and provide for general health grants to the provinces, the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory upon the terms and in the amounts detailed in the estimates and under terms and conditions approved by the governor in council including authority, notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act, to make commitments for the current year not to exceed a total amount of $48,460,401, $33,750,000.
Grants to health organizations-
265.	Canadian mental health association, $10,000.
266.	Health league of Canada, $10,000.
267.	Canadian public health association, $5,000.
268.	Canadian national institute for the blind, $45,000.
269.	L'Association Canadienne frangaise des aveugles, $6,000.
270.	L'institut Nazareth de Montreal, $4,050.
271.	Montreal association for the blind, $4,050.
272.	Canadian tuberculosis association, $20,250.
273.	Victorian order of nurses, $13,100.
274.	St. John ambulance association, $10,000.
275.	Canadian red cross, $10,000.
276.	Canadian paraplegic association, $15,000.
Welfare branch-
277.	Welfare branch administration, $53,360.
279.	Administration, $116,338.
B-Civil defence-
280.	Grant to Canadian welfare council, $28,000. National health branch-
Health services-
654.	Indians and Eskimos health services-operation and maintenance-further amount required, $75,000.
General health grants-
655.	To authorize and provide for general health grants to the provinces, the Northwest Territories

and the Yukon Territory upon the terms and In the amounts detailed in the estimates-further amount required including authority, notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act, to make additional commitments for the current year not to exceed $4,991,799, $3,000,000.
Welfare branch-
656.	To provide in respect of the fiscal year 1956-57 a reduction in the amount owing by the old age security fund pursuant to section 11 of the Old Age Security Act, representing the amount of
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Items Passed temporary loans made by the Minister of Finance to the fund during the fiscal year 1955-56 estimated at, $50,020,000.
Special-
657.	To provide for a grant to the Canadian highway safety conference, $20,000.
658.	To provide a grant to the estate of the late Dr. Stephen Kucher, former employee of the department, in an amount equal to the supplementary death benefit that would have been paid if he had been a participant under part II of the Public Service Superannuation Act, $4,500.


[Stage Direction]
Friday, June 29, 1956