1957-04-10

[Stage Direction]
Nineteenth report of standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.-Mr. Henderson.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as I previously informed the house, this government has already protested formally and strongly to the United States government in the only way open to this government with regard to the action of certain members of the United States Senate subcommittee on security in making public again, years after their first appearance, slanderous insinuations against the loyalty of a high Canadian official, which helped to bring about the tragic results that have so shocked and saddened us.
The note of protest to which I have referred was dated March 18. It was from our ambassador in Washington to the Secretary of State, and it reads as follows:
Sir:
I am instructed by my government to bring to the attention of the United States government the allegations of disloyalty which have been made in the United States against Mr. E. H. Norman, the Canadian ambassador to Egypt, a high and trusted representative of the Canadian government. The irresponsible allegations to which I refer, and which in any event would concern matters to be dealt with by the Canadian government and not by a subcommittee of the United States Senate, were contained in the textual record of the internal security subcommittee of the Senate committee on the judiciary, which was officially released by that body to the press in Washington, D.C., at 4.30 p.m., on March 14.
I am instructed to protest in the strongest terms the action taken by an official body of the legislative branch of the United States government in making and publishing allegations about a Canadian official. This procedure is both surprising and disturbing because it was done without the United States government consulting or even informing the Canadian government and without taking account of relevant public statements made earlier by the Canadian government.
The Canadian government examined similar allegations as long ago as 1951, and as a result of an exhaustive security inquiry the full confidence of the Canadian government in Mr. Norman's loyalty and integrity has been confirmed in all respects. The conclusions of the Canadian government were made public at that time and must have been 82715-212
known to the subcommittee particularly as the State Department was requested at the time and again on December 11, 1952 to draw them to their attention. I am attaching the texts of two statements made by the Canadian government on this matter in 1951.
The repetition of such irresponsible allegations in the subcommittee and the publication on the authority of this official body of a record containing such allegations is the kind of action which is inconsistent with the long standing and friendly co-operation characterizing relations between our two countries.
Accept, sir, the renewed assurance of my highest consideration.
A. D. P. Heeney.
Today, Mr. Speaker, I have received from the acting secretary of state of the United States a reply to the communication which I have just read. It reads as follows:
Excellency:
I have the honour to refer to your note 155 of March 18, 1957 protesting, on behalf of the Canadian government, against certain references to Mr. E. H. Norman, the late Canadian ambassador to Egypt, which were made during hearings of the Senate internal security subcommittee and which were later made public.
I should like, at the outset, to express to the Canadian government and to Mrs. Norman my sincere condolences and those of my colleagues over the death of Ambassador Norman in Cairo.
As for the substance of your note, I wish to assure you that any derogatory information developed during hearings of the subcommittee was introduced into the record by the subcommittee on its own responsibility. As you are aware under our system of government the executive branch has no jurisdiction over views or opinions expressed by members or committees of the United States congress. The investigation being undertaken by the subcommittee lies entirely within the control of the subcommittee.
It is the earnest desire of my government to continue to maintain friendliest relations with the government of Canada, and it deplores any development from any sources, either American or Canadian, which might adversely affect those relations.
Accept, Excellency, the renewed assurances of my highest consideration.
We followed up, Mr. Speaker, the first note to the United States government, the one I have just read and pending a reply to it which has now been received, by oral communications through our embassy in Washington and through the United States embassy here. Our views on this matter have reached the very highest authorities in the government of the United States, who have understood our feelings and our position and have tried to be helpful in this matter.
In making this statement, Mr. Speaker, I venture to express the hope that the action in question about which we complain, and

External Affairs
which has aroused resentment and even bitterness in Canada, can be kept in proportion in so far as our relations with the United States generally are concerned. This action was taken by only one or two members of a legislative subcommittee, and by one of its employees. It has been attacked by other Americans and deeply regretted by more. May I mention, for instance, the sincere letter sent to our ambassador in Washington by the chairman of the Senate foreign relations committee, and which included the following words; this is from Senator Green:
It was with the deepest sorrow that I learned of the death of Mr. E. Herbert Norman, your ambassador to Egypt. Indication that his death may have been attributable to unfortunate publicity arising from activities in connection with the work of the Senate leads me to express my deep regret to the Canadian government and to the Norman family. Please convey this message to them.
I have, myself, received a great number of communications from, and read many articles by, Americans which express the same kind of indignation which we feel. Perhaps I might be permitted to quote one paragraph from a letter sent to me by a man of whom I have never heard, in a small town in Maryland. He writes:
I sincerely believe that the vast majority of the people of the United States have the warmest regard and admiration for your great country and its people and regret exceedingly the action of the subcommittee.
Please don't direct your ire at the people of our country or our government for I truly believe that in this case a handful of men have cast a bad reflection on over 160 million people.
I hope, therefore, that we will not permit our strong feelings in this matter to be directed against the people of the United States or the government as a whole. They remain our close friends, and we must do everything possible to maintain and strengthen a friendship which has meant so much to both countries in the past and may mean more in the trying and dangerous days ahead. To indict the whole United States because of our just resentment regarding the acts of two or three individuals, even though in high legislative positions, would be indulging in that guilt by association which we so rightly condemn in others as a dangerous and disintegrating threat to the freedom and order in our society today.
The issue before us, however, is not only the tragedy of one man, victimized by slanderous procedures in another country and unable to defend himself against them. There is a broader question of principle involved, the right, to say nothing of the propriety, of an agency of a foreign government to intervene in our affairs in such a way as to harass

one of our citizens who held a responsible and important position in the service of our government.
Such intervention, I am sure the house will agree, is intolerable and should not take place. It is this government's, this Canadian government's, own responsibility to deal with accusations against its citizens within its own jurisdiction in matters concerning security, as in other matters. It is not the responsibility of any subcommittee of the legislature of another country. We try to accept our responsibility as a government in this regard, and we will discharge it to the best of our ability, having regard not only to the security of our own country but also to that of a friendly neighbour, and to the danger to free institutions generally from the international communist conspiracy.
I hope we will also act in these matters, Mr. Speaker, in accordance with principles of justice and fair play, which do not include the making public of charges made in secret session of a committee, which concern officials of a friendly foreign state. If we fail in the discharge of our security responsibilities as a government, we are answerable to our own people and not to a subcommittee of any foreign legislature. While of course this government cannot control in any way, and has no desire to control, the practices of any governmental agency of another country, we have also a duty to refrain from any action which might assist or facilitate those practices to the prejudice of our own citizens.
We have, therefore, with this purpose in mind, examined our procedures regarding exchange of security information with the United States. I recognize, Mr. Speaker, that nothing we could have done would have prevented the action taken against Mr. Norman by the United States Senate subcommittee on security because the information they gave out, covering allegations going back years and dealt with by this government years ago, was secured from other than Canadian sources. Nevertheless, this experience has emphasized that we should now take steps to ensure that information received from us on these matters could not possibly be used for wrong purposes against Canadians in the future.
With this end in view, our ambassador in Washington today delivered the following communication to the United States acting secretary of state, and I will put this communication on the record:
Sir,
I am instructed by my government to take up, as a matter of urgency with the United States government, the question of the procedures which have been followed intermittently by the internal security subcommittee of the Senate committee

on the judiciary in releasing the names of Canadians who have been mentioned in the proceedings of that subcommittee particularly in its executive sessions.
The Canadian government has more than once complained of the methods employed by that subcommittee in releasing the names of Canadians and has stated that if the names of Canadian officials appear in evidence before investigating committees in Washington, those names should be sent in confidence to the Canadian government so that the allegations can be investigated and dealt with in Canada.
In our view it is essential that this procedure, requested by the Canadian government, should be followed, and that references made in proceedings of the subcommittee to individual Canadians should not first be made known to the Canadian government through the press.
As the United States government knows, the Canadian government finds the procedures actually adopted by the subcommittee with respect to Canadians difficult to understand, unfair and indeed intolerable. The Canadian government therefore requests again that these procedures be altered in so far as Canadians are concerned along the lines indicated above.
The Canadian government has a duty to protect Canadian citizens by all means legally at its disposal from unwarranted interference by any foreign government. There is little that the Canadian government can do, however, to make this protection effective for those Canadian citizens, whose names are made public by congressional committees, unless it is able to secure the co-operation of the United States government.
The United States government is aware that the appropriate security agencies of the two governments have in the past exchanged security information on a reciprocal basis when such information formed part of an investigation important to the security of either country. This reciprocal exchange of information has assisted substantially in maintaining the security of our two countries, and the Canadian government is not suggesting that it has been improperly used by the security agencies in the United States with which this exchange takes place.
Nevertheless the Canadian government must take every precaution which lies within its power to protect Canadian citizens from the danger of this information falling into the hands of persons who might use it without any sense of responsibility or fairness, or regard for the rights of Canadian citizens, within the jurisdiction of Canada. In view of the conduct of congressional investigations affecting Canadians, and because of its responsibility for taking every precaution in its power to protect Canadian citizens, the Canadian government requests that, in the reciprocal exchange of security information, the United States government give its assurance that none of its agencies or departments will pass such information to any committee, body or organization in the United States over which the executive branch of the United States government has no executive control, without the express consent of the Canadian government in each case. The Canadian government for its part assures the United States government that any security information on United States citizens supplied by United States agencies to the security agency of the Canadian government will be given similar protection in Canada to that now requested with respect to security information about Canadians from the United States government.
Unless such an assurance can be given, I am instructed by my government to inform you that the Canadian government must reserve the right in future not to supply security information concerning Canadian citizens to any United States government agency.
82715-212i
External Affairs
That, Mr. Speaker, is the end of the note which was delivered today. I can only hope that very shortly a satisfactory reply will be received to that note, that the assurances we have asked for will be given, and that the rights I mentioned will not have to be exercised.


Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposiiion):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say no more at this time than that without regard to party considerations Canadians believe that the sovereign rights and independence of Canadians must be preserved and maintained. As I look back over the history of the investigation in question I can but say that if a similarly strong attitude had been taken in 1952 when this practice was first indulged in, it would not have been necessary today to have spoken in such clear and definite language.
Now that the position of Canada has been made clear, I think the incident will serve once more to underline that our relationships with the United States are of paramount importance to the preservation of freedom, and that the common dedication to freedom on the part of our two countries shall not be diminished as a result of this unfortunate occurrence.


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roseiown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, may I say immediately that I agree with what the Leader of the Opposition has said in regard to this matter. I want to say to the Secretary of State for External Affairs that I appreciate the very direct language which he used in that note, and I hope we shall never again have a recurrence of the persecution of any individual Canadian, highly placed or lowly placed, as was the case in connection with our late ambassador to Egypt.
Mr. Speaker, I think the Canadian people will be thoroughly in accord with the sentiments expressed in the note sent to the United States, and I hope it will have a salutary effect upon the administration of that great country with which we wish to maintain the closest of friendships.


Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, this group joins with the leaders of the opposition parties in expressing their views with respect to the minister's statement. In fact I think we could go a little further. I think we should say that the minister's statement is most commendable, because if there is one thing we do desire it is the protection of our own citizens. I do believe there should be a free exchange of information for security purposes between the appropriate agencies

External Affairs
of the United States and Canada, which I fancy would be the federal bureau of investigation and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
I also want to commend the statement of the minister to the effect that the government in Canada is taking full responsibility for security measures in this country, and I think he also said the government is willing to exchange the various findings between the two agencies. In doing so they are demanding the protection of our Canadian citizens, and will likewise give protection to United States citizens if they come into the picture in respect of investigations here.
I think, Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet I would like to make this further comment. I thought the other day, immediately after the tragic death of Mr. Norman, that perhaps the less said about these things the better.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Ernest George Hansell: This was an event which we, of course, all regretted particularly in view of the extremely unfortunate circumstances involved. The minister made a statement, I believe on March 15 last, that our government had complete confidence in our own security agency which had cleared Mr. Norman of such charges as had been levelled against him. I am sure we all accepted that statement at its face value, and in my opinion this matter might reasonably have been left there. The R.C.M.P. are doing a terrific job. Therefore, since the government has accepted this responsibility and in view of the effectiveness of our security agency, it would be well to say as little as possible with regard to this matter.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. Alistair Stewart (Winnipeg North):: May
I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs arising out of the statement he made. Will he convey to the United States state department the belief of a number of members of parliament that if the United States administration had answered the protest of the Canadian government promptly and generously the life of Mr. Norman would have been saved?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I think the views of this parliament on this matter are very well known in the state department and in other parts of the United States.


SUEZ CANAL
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: May I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Now that the work of clearing the Suez canal has been completed by the United Nations, can the minister tell the house whether or not the canal is being operated in accordance with conditions laid down by Nasser on March 18, or what the situation is at the moment?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Discussions are continuing, particularly between the United States government and the government of Egypt, as to the regulation of the canal now it is open. Pending conclusion of those discussions, ships are going through the canal and, so far as I know, they are paying their tolls to the Egyptian canal authorities.


Howard Charles Green: Dispatches this morning indicated that negotiations between the United States and Egypt have broken down. Is that not the case?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Our information is that discussions have not broken down.


John George Diefenbaker: I should like to direct a question arising out of the question asked by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra. Is Canada going to be represented, by a watching brief, at the conference of Suez canal users which I understand is to be convened at Geneva? I ask the minister that because the contribution made by Canadian troops towards the preservation of peace in the Middle East is as great as it is.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The report that a conference is about to be convened in Geneva of users of the canal is not accurate. I saw it in the newspapers myself and I made inquiries and was informed no such conference had been called. The discussion is still proceeding on behalf of the users, principally through the United States government which is keeping in touch with other interested governments, including the Canadian government, on this matter.



UNITED NATIONS EMERGENCY FORCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: I should like to ask the minister whether he has made any representations to the United Nations to the effect that, unless satisfactory arrangements on the functions

of the United Nations emergency force are agreed upon, the Canadians are going to be withdrawn from the force?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, we have more than once, as I have said already in this house, informed the appropriate committee of the United Nations assembly that if the lack of co-operation on the part of any government, particularly on the part of the government of Egypt on whose territory the force is functioning, made it impossible for the United Nations emergency force to discharge the functions laid down for it by the assembly, the Canadian government could not recommend the continued participation of the Canadian elements in that force. I added to the United Nations committee that if we had to take that course it would be a matter of great regret, because we are still hoping the force will be able to function as it should function.


John George Diefenbaker: Does the minister consider that force is now functioning as it should function?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The general commanding the force is satisfied at the present time with the arrangements that have been made with the government of Egypt as to the functioning of the force. There has, however, been no reply yet from the government of Israel as to whether the force should operate on the Israel side of the armistice line as well as on the Egyptian side. It is to be hoped that matter will soon be cleared up.



STARRED QUESTIONS


[Stage Direction]
Question No. 21
Mr. Lafoniaine:: 1.	Under the agreement concerning assistance to vocational schools, what annual amount has been allocated to the province of Quebec as assistance to vocational schools without university status?
2.	During the period from April 1, 1945 to date, what amount did the province of Quebec receive from the federal government as assistance to the various types of vocational schools?


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of of the question is as follows. Under the authority of the Vocational Training Coordination Act and order in council P.C. 1957-23/357 of March 21, 1957, subject to the annual appropriation of funds for this purpose by parliament, a total amount of $40 million will be provided for the federal government contribution to the provinces over the next five years under the provisions of agreements to be entered into between the federal and provincial governments to assist in the expenditures made by the provinces for expansion of vocational and technical
Questions
school facilities and for expenditures for vocational and technical school training. Of this amount $25 million is to be provided to the provinces over the five-year period for capital expenditures for expansion of vocational and technical school facilities, and $15 million over the five-year period for expenditures for vocational and technical school training.
Under the provisions of this order in council the amount to be allocated for contribution to the province of Quebec under the provisions of the draft agreement between the government of Canada and the government of the province of Quebec is as follows:
(a)	A capital allotment of approximately $7,900,000 for the five-year period;
(b)	A training allotment of approximately $4,373,000 for the five-year period.
Annual allotments from this training total will be the following approximate amounts: $716,000 in each of the first two years of the agreement, $875,000 in the third year of the agreement, and $1,033,000 in each of the fourth and fifth years of the agreement.
Copies of the new agreement authorized by the order in council were sent out by the Minister of Labour for Canada on March 21, 1957, to the governments of all provinces, including the government of the province of Quebec, for approval and signature.
The answer to the second part of the question is as follows. During the period from April 1, 1945, to date the province of Quebec has received from the federal government under the vocational schools assistance agreement the amount of $10,375,513.80.


C. B. C.-REPRESENTATIONS BY MINISTER OF JUSTICE
Mr. Knight: 1.	Has the Minister of Justice made representations at any time, by letter, memorandum, telephone or conversation, to the C.B.C. concerning any radio or television program broadcast or proposed to be broadcast over the facilities of the corporation?
2.	If so, what was the nature of such representations, when and how were they made, and to what program or programs was reference made?


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: The answer to question No. 1 is no, and the second question is therefore inapplicable.


C. B. C.-REPRESENTATIONS BY MINISTER OF FISHERIES
Mr. Stewart (Winnipeg: North):
1. Has the Minister of Fisheries made representations at any time, by letter, memorandum, telephone or conversation, to the C.B.C. concerning any radio or television program broadcast or proposed to be broadcast over the facilities of the corporation?

Questions
2. If so, what was the nature of such representations, when and how were they made, and to what program or programs was reference made?


Hon. James Sinclair (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I have never made any written representations to any C.B.C. officials about either television or radio programs. However, the Department of Fisheries does collaborate with the C.B.C. in supplying material for the daily fishermen's broadcasts which are heard over C.B.C. stations in Halifax, St. John's and Vancouver at seven a.m. each morning. When I have visited these fishing ports I have met the producers of the programs, discussed the programs with them and conveyed to them the very warm appreciation of fishermen on both coasts for this splendid public service.


C.B.C.-REPRESENTATIONS BY MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Mr. Nicholson: 1.	Has the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration made representations at any time, by letter, memorandum, telephone or conversation, to the C.B.C. concerning any radio or television program broadcast or proposed to be broadcast over the facilities of the corporation?
2.	If so, what was the nature of such representations, when and how were they made, and to what program or programs was reference made?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has never at any time made representations to the C.B.C. in any of the manners suggested here concerning any actual or potential program. However, as many hon. members no doubt know, I have been a personal friend of the chairman of the board of the C.B.C. for 23 years, and I have always thought I lived in a free country and was perfectly free to express my opinions, good, bad or indifferent, of the broadcasts on the C.B.C., and I intend to go on doing so.


WELLAND AND SAULT STE. MARIE CANALS   IMPOSITION OF TOLLS, ETC.
Mr. Knowles: 1.	Has Canada reached agreement with the United States concerning the imposition of tolls on users of the Welland canal?
2.	Do any tolls apply with respect to the use of the United States canals at Sault Ste. Marie?
3.	Are tolls on the Welland canal to be applied (a) only to the cost of deepening the entrance and exit of the Welland canal, or (b) to Canada's share of the entire cost of the St. Lawrence seaway?
4.	Has there been any increase since 1951 in the estimated cost of improvements to the Welland canal? What is the present estimate of such cost?
Mr. Langlcis, Parliamentary Assistant, for the Minister of Transport: Mr. Speaker, the answer to parts 1 and 2 of this question is

no. As for part 3, the whole question of the toll structure for the St. Lawrence seaway is under study but no conclusions have been reached. The answer to part 4 is yes, due in part to additional improvements. The present estimate of such cost is $23,924,770.


OUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 60
Mr. Pommer:: 1.	What was the total expenditure in each province of Canada for the fiscal year 1955-56, by the federal government, including the statutory subsidy and tax rental agreement payments?
2.	What was the total expenditure, during the fiscal year 1955-56, in each province by each federal department and agency?


Mr. Harris:: Return tabled.


MOTION FOR PAPERS
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 30-Mr. Hahn:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, memoranda and other documents exchanged between the government and Union Steamships Limited, relating to the application for and receipt of a subvention as included in the estimates for the year ending March 31, 1957, item No. 496; and item No. 610 of the supplementary estimates (3) for that same year, as well as any similar information relative to item No. 495 of estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1958.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the permission of the house to drop this motion, by reason of the fact that the minister has assured me that he is carrying on correspondence with another company in the hope of reducing or doing away with this subvention completely.
Mr. Speaker:: Shall this motion be withdrawn?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Withdrawn.


ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Ellen L. Fairclough (Hamilton West):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Defence. Can the minister now say whether a decision has been reached with regard to the activities of 424 squadron?


Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister of National Defence):: No, Mr. Speaker, a final decision
has not been reached. We have been in negotiation with the Department of Transport and I think the officers of the department have also probably been in touch with the

city of Hamilton to see whether any suitable arrangement can be worked out to maintain the airport.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I should like to point
out to the minister that my question did not deal with the maintenance of the airport. The question I asked had to do with the future activities of 424 squadron, a question which I asked some months ago and to which the minister promised an answer.


Ralph Osborne Campney: The relevancy of my reply
is in the fact that I said in connection with my estimates last spring that if we are going to have to maintain the airport by ourselves the squadron will be disbanded, and these negotiations have been taking place in order to see whether any suitable arrangement can be worked out.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Do I understand the
minister to imply that the flying activities of 424 squadron are dependent upon the city of Hamilton rather than upon the Department of National Defence?


Ralph Osborne Campney: The continuance of the
squadron is dependent upon such assistance in maintaining the airport as will enable it to be used for a reserve squadron. There is no question but that the squadron will be disbanded if the department has to maintain the whole airport in order to support it. I have stated that a number of times, and that is still our intention.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: May I ask the minister
if that is the policy of the department with regard to all other installations across the country?


Ralph Osborne Campney: No, Mr. Speaker. Every
case is decided on its own merits. I do not feel that we would be justified in spending over $1 million a year to maintain that particular airport for the sole purpose of maintaining a reserve squadron.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the statement made yesterday that the Minister of Trade and Commerce would inform the Prime Minister at the appropriate time concerning Mr. Barrington's status as a fulltime, salaried official of the Polymer Corporation, can the Prime Minister say whether he now has that information?
Inquiries of the Ministry
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime
Minister): The Minister of Trade and Commerce did inform me that Mr. Barrington is a full-time employee of the Polymer Corporation, and he also added that he was going to discuss with him the matter in connection with which these questions have arisen.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the Prime Minister aware of the fact that Mr. W. J. Bennett, who is on salary as full-time president and head of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, Eldorado Mining and Refining Limited and Northern Transportation Company Limited-three crown corporations-is, according to the financial books and directories on these matters, a director of Investors Mutual of Canada Limited? Does he think it appropriate for the top man in uranium in this country to be connected with an investment firm?


Mr. St. Laurent (Quebec East):: I would wish to ascertain whether or not the information upon which the hon. gentleman bases his information is correct. I will endeavour to ascertain whether or not it is correct and to have an answer tomorrow.


Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinton):: Is the
Prime Minister aware, as a result of his conversations with the Minister of Trade and Commerce since yesterday on this matter or otherwise, that the managing director of Polymer Corporation has been listed in the directory of directors as a director of Moneta Porcupine Mines Limited, Leitch Gold Mines Limited and Buffalo Ankerite Gold Mines Limited?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, Mr. Speaker.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Does the Prime Minister not think that to be a relevant consideration that should engage the attention of the government, having regard to the fact that the official in question is referred to as a fulltime executive officer of this crown corporation?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I evidently do not read these directors' directories as closely as do some hon. members of the house. I have answered that I was not aware that that was the situation. I must confess that I do not make it my business to inquire about all members of the civil service, as to whether they have any other interests or connections. When any serious question is brought to my attention I endeavour to investigate it. That is what I will do in this case.


Mr. Rowe:: It is a good job you have an opposition.

Inquiries of the Ministry


John George Diefenbaker: Instead of dealing with hypothetical questions, possibly the Prime Minister will simply answer this question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Give us the facts.


John George Diefenbaker: Does the Prime Minister approve of a full-time servant of a crown corporation acting as a director of private corporations at the same time? Does he approve it or does he not?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, that is not a question of fact; and I am not required to express in the house opinions on hypothetical questions.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has already said it is not hypothetical, because he said the Minister of Trade and Commerce was discussing this matter with this gentleman. I say this to the Prime Minister again. As Prime Minister of this country, does he approve of that kind of thing? That is not hypothetical: that is very direct.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: When I have the facts that the Minister of Trade and Commerce is endeavouring to obtain for me I will answer the question, in the light of those facts, whether that conduct is commendable or is something which should not take place.


John George Diefenbaker: When is that expected?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I must tell the hon. gentleman that the members of the government cannot pass the whole of their time these days in trying to secure the information that other hon. gentlemen feel they ought to have.


William Earl Rowe: It is a good thing you have an opposition.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Just in order to remove any suggestion that the matter we are discussing is of a hypothetical nature, may I send over to the Prime Minister the directory of directors and direct his attention to page 22 thereof?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: If the
matters contained in that directory to which the hon. member wishes to call my attention are known to him, I shall be glad to have it as an assertion that such are the facts. But it is not my practice to rely upon newspaper records or records of such directories.


An hon. Member:: It may be a misprint.


William Earl Rowe: It is a good thing you have an opposition.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In his search for this information will the Prime Minister check Moody's 1956 banks and finance manual where Mr. Bennett is listed both as president of these crown corporations and as a director of Investors Mutual of Canada Limited.


Mr. McCann:: Are you sure it is the same Bennett?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I shall prefer to make my own inquiries from Mr. Bennett himself.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will the Prime Minister do that?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I will do that just as soon as I can find an opportunity to do it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he will also direct such inquiries concerning the managing director of the Polymer Corporation?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I think I will ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce to do that, because I know it will be easier for him to get in touch with the manager than it will be for me. To the best of my knowledge I have never met the gentleman, and I will ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce to do that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a further supplementary question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In view of the fact that there are at least 28 crown corporations, 13 of which come under the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Defence Production, will the Prime Minister, after he has obtained the information he is now seeking, consider referring this matter to the committee on banking and commerce so we can find out how extensive is the practice of appointees of that particular minister being connected with private industry?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The suggestion of the hon. gentleman will receive consideration but I doubt whether it can be implemented during the remaining days of this session.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Prime Minister will admit that it should be implemented.


Mr. J. W. Murphy (Lambton West):: I have another question for the Prime Minister. When he is making his investigation or inquiry, will he ascertain whether the president

and the general manager-being the same person-of the Polymer Corporation is getting $50,000 a year or more?


Mr. A. M. Nicholson (Mackenzie):: I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. In view of his statement that he had not met Mr. Bennett, I wonder whether he would inquire-


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, I did not
make that statement. I have met Mr. Bennett. It will be just as easy for me to communicate with Mr. Bennett as it would be to have the Minister of Trade and Commerce communicate with him. But I do not know the gentleman who is referred to as the general manager of the Polymer Corporation.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I wonder whether the Prime Minister would find out whether this is the same Mr. Bennett who was private secretary to the Minister of Trade and Commerce a few years ago.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether that is a fact which would provide useful information to the house. Perhaps my appreciation of its importance is not the same as that of the hon. gentleman, but I would imagine that having been private secretary to the Minister of Trade and Commerce would be fairly good training.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the Prime Minister mean good training for being a director of private companies?



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. James A. McBain (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Does the minister or the government intend to take any action as the result of a report tabled last November by the restrictive trade practices commission on the buying and marketing of flue-cured tobacco under the Ontario flue-cured tobacco marketing association of Simcoe; and has the association corrected any of the criticisms set out by the restrictive trade practices commission?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, when I released the report, as the hon. gentleman will recall, I stated that I had confidence that the association in question would review its affairs in the light of the observations in the report, and that the Department of Justice would review the situation within a reasonable time.
In the meantime, as I told the house on a previous occasion, I understand that the 82715-213
Inquiries of the Ministry association has been engaged in reviewing its affairs and in addition, and as an alternative to the present organization, a large number of growers have asked for a vote to be taken by the provincial authorities as to whether they will come under the provincial marketing legislation. That vote, I understand, was postponed from April 1 to some future date. That is where the matter stands at the present time. In due course we shall be making the review to which I have referred.



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. Ferguson (Simcoe Norih):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege-and indeed I consider that it is a great privilege -I wish to express to all members of the House of Commons my appreciation of the great honour it has been for me to sit here for the last 12 years. I am not running in the next election, but I wanted to tell you all how much I have appreciated being associated with one of the greatest bodies of men the world has ever known.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps hon. members will allow me to tell the hon. gentleman how pleasant it was for all of us to be associated with him.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Ralph Osborne Campney: Mr. Speaker, speaking in the house on July 18 of last year on the defence estimates, I stated that it was my intention with respect to the future to combine the annual report of the department and the defence white paper into a single publication, at a considerable saving in labour and money, and to make it available in the early spring of each year for the previous calendar year.
This new type of report on defence has now been completed for 1956 and was tabled today. Copies in English are now available for members at the distribution office, and the French version will be available shortly.



FERTILIZERS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Bona Arsenault (Bonaventure):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Owing to the almost prohibitive

Inquiries of the Ministry cost of fertilizers delivered to the farmers of eastern Quebec and the maritime provinces, a situation which is partly due to recent freight rate increases, would the minister consider a subsidy to cover the transportation costs of fertilizers purchased by farmers?
Right Hon, J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture): We have been giving consideration to the matter, Mr. Speaker, but I am afraid we are not in a position to take action before dissolution of parliament. We have not the full information with regard to the matter.


William Earl Rowe: Is the minister saying that he might be able to take action before the election if he cannot take it before dissolution?


Mr. Gardiner:: We over here will have plenty of time after the election to take care of it.


Mr. Harkness:: Don't deceive yourselves.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Joseph Warner Murphy: In the
absence of the Minister of Transport I should like to direct a question to his parliamentary assistant. Would he make a reply, perhaps tomorrow, to the question I asked on April 2 as recorded at the top of page 2961 of Hansard?


Mr. L. Langlois (Parliameniary Assistant to the Minister of Transport):: I shall look into the matter and try to satisfy the hon. member's request.



REQUEST FOR ANSWER TO QUESTION ON ORDER PAPER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. I believe he assured me that question No. 275 on the order paper would be answered, at least within the next couple of days. I gathered from his remarks that would be on Monday.


Walter Edward Harris: I corrected the answer yesterday morning and gave instructions that it should be tabled yesterday, and I rather thought it was.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Finance make a statement before this session

ends as to what the government intends to do regarding civil service salary increases?


Walter Edward Harris: I do not think I can, Mr. Speaker, but I shall make inquiries as to the work being undertaken by the civil service commission in connection with the application.



HEALTH INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, April 8, consideration of the motion of Mr. Martin for the third reading of Bill No. 320, to authorize contributions by Canada in respect of programs administered by the provinces, providing hospital insurance and laboratory and other services in aid of diagnosis, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Knowles.
Mr. Elmore Philpotf (Vancouver South):: There was no discussion, Mr. Speaker, on second reading of this extremely important measure. It is quite possible there would not have been very much discussion on third reading except for the amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
It seems to me that is a shame, for several reasons. I regard the hospital insurance measure, which is now to be passed, as one of the greatest national landmarks ever erected in this country. While I believe we are divided on the one small point raised in the amendment of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, I think we are agreed on the substance of the bill. In fact one might almost use the terms of the famous advertisement for ivory soap, 99 and 44/100 per cent pure. So far as I can judge the sense of the house, the house is agreed upon 99 and 44/100 per cent of the bill as it now stands, and only disagrees on one small fraction of 1 per cent.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this is a great landmark of social advance in Canada. It seems to me that landmarks are of two kinds. There are the great historic landmarks which grow out of events of history, like the battle of the plains of Abraham, which decided that this great country was to be a bi-cultural country, a bi-national country, if you want to call it that, with neither conquered nor conquerors but two races of equal partners joining together to make this great Canadian nation. Or events such as the war of 1812, which decided for all time to come that this nation north of the 49th parallel was to survive as a free member of the then British Empire, and now the British commonwealth, as the beginning of what became the Canadian nation.

Or we could have events growing out of, we will say, the rebellion of 1837, an unhappy event in itself but one which brought great benefit to the Canadian people in all particulars save one, because one of the unfortunate aftermaths of that particular event was that our more belligerent Conservative friends in the city of Montreal objected to one of the terms of the settlement and burned down the parliament buildings as they were throwing rocks at the then governor general. The unfortunate result we see here most Monday mornings, because if it had not been for that unfortunate event the capital of this great country would have remained in Montreal and would not have been in Ottawa, and we would not have to hurry back from our week end vacations, as so many of us now do.
But, Mr. Speaker, there is a second type of landmark which I think is a more creditable type. It is the great landmark erected by good legislation, by advanced laws; landmarks which mark the product of political wisdom, social insight and crystallized national conscience. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that we never had a more constructive example of a great forward social advance than we have in this bill to which this parliament is giving third reading today.
I would note as examples of this great constructive social advance the setting up of the principle of responsible government after that tragic uprising of 1837; the great process of confederation that joined the scattered colonies of British North America into the Dominion of Canada in 1867. Perhaps the greatest political achievement of all, Mr. Speaker, was the final winning of equal status, I think mostly fought through, or certainly started by, the great statesman Mackenzie King, but finished by another great Canadian statesman, Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, who of course crossed the t's and dotted the i's of the statute of Westminster.
I think, Mr. Speaker, a great constructive forward event perhaps not sufficiently appreciated by a sufficient number of people in this country was the rounding out of the concept of the Dominion of Canada by the admission of Newfoundland into this federation after so many years of separation. But I submit, Mr. Speaker, that no greater social landmark has ever been erected in the Dominion of Canada than we are helping to erect today in the final passing of national health insurance legislation. I am candid enough to say that all parties in the Dominion of Canada have contributed to this happy event.
On the estimates of the Minister of National Health and Welfare last year I made some remarks, and I think all hon. members will recall that the hon. member for Winnipeg 82715-213i
Health Insurance
North Centre described what I said at that time as a provocative speech. Naturally I was trying to show that Premier Frost and the Ontario government were in the key position in Canada to make or break the success of this thing. Having said that most frankly at that time-and I think I was right when I said it-I should like to say right now that I think the enlightened Conservative premier of Ontario, Hon. Leslie Frost, has rendered a great national service in helping to break the log jam that had existed in regard to hospital insurance.
I am sure my hon. friends of the Social Credit party will agree with me to this extent, but they will also agree that I am not an indiscriminate admirer of all of the acts of the Social Credit government of British Columbia. However, at this time I want to pay my tribute to Premier Bennett and the Social Credit government of British Columbia for having been the first in Canada to come under this agreement, and thereby set an example for all the rest. That applies not only to Premier Bennett but to the Social Credit premier of Alberta, Mr. Manning, and the C.C.F. premier of Saskatchewan, my good and honourable friend Tommy Douglas; and last but not least in the line-up so far is that rather remarkable statesman, that ambidextrous politician, that man of many parts, Hon. Mr. Smallwood of Newfoundland, of whom we have heard much good already and of whom much more good will be heard before we are finished.


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


Elmore Philpott: At the end of my speech. But, Mr. Speaker, in paying our tribute to those who have contributed in playing the role, shall we say, of a proper lieutenant, let us also be honest enough and candid enough to give the proper share of credit to the master builder of this social advance, the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
I am frank to admit that the Minister of National Health and Welfare was not the first man to think of the principle of health insurance. I find that as far back as 1906 another great Liberal had this to say, and I will give my authority later:
The state must increasingly and earnestly concern itself with the care of the sick and the aged, and, above all, of the children. I look forward to the universal establishment of minimum standards of life and labour, and their progressive elevation as the increasing energies of production may permit.
I do not think that Liberalism in any circumstances can cut itself off from this fertile field of social effort, and I would recommend you not to be scared in discussing any of these proposals just because some old woman comes along and tells you they are socialistic. If you take my advice, you will judge each case on its merits. Where you

Health Insurance
find that state enterprise is likely to be ineffective, then utilize private enterprises, and do not grudge them their profits.
That was uttered in 1906 by a very great Liberal who is still a great Liberal, Right Hon. Winston S. Churchill, the venerable British statesman. But, Mr. Speaker, if we want to find the true architect of the great reform which we are helping to enact today we would of course have to go to one of the greatest, and I think one of the most unappreciated, leaders of our century. I refer to our late and revered prime minister, Right Hon. Mackenzie King. I believe this country and for that matter any other country has never produced a more constructive statesman than Right Hon. Mackenzie King.
When I was trying to prepare some notes for this particular effort today I sent to the library to obtain a copy of Mr. King's book, which lays the foundation of this legislation of which we are completing one stage today, and I was forcibly struck by what an unappreciated man is this great figure whom Bruce Hutchison so aptly called "the incredible Canadian". He was not only a masterly statesman but he was a very smart politician, as people in this chamber well know; and he was a great social planner.
When I think of all the great social and political thinkers of the past two or three centuries-Adam Smith, who left such a deep mark on the thinking of the eighteenth century; others like Marx, who left such an unfortunately deep mark on the thinking of the nineteenth century; and other social thinkers of the twentieth century like John Maynard Keynes and Major Douglas-I submit that Right Hon. Mackenzie King was a deeper political thinker and a greater politician than any one of them. In substantiation of that statement, Mr. Speaker, I defy any man to read Mackenzie King's masterly work entitled "Industry and Humanity" in the light of what we are enacting today and not agree with my conclusion that Mr. Mackenzie King saw very clearly a whole generation before his time the relationship that exists between what I have called in this chamber the welfare state as against the warfare state.
Let us consider these words of Mackenzie King which appear in the prefatory note of his great work "Industry and Humanity" completed on October 3, 1918, more than one month before the end of the first great war. Mackenzie King concludes the foreword to his book with these words:
One of the aims of the book is to show that the war, in the last analysis, is but the expression upon a world scale of conflicting forces also at work in the relations of industry.
Mr. Mackenzie King in the book to which I have referred develops at some length the

thesis posed by Louis Pasteur in the year 1888. On page 5 of Mackenzie King's "Industry and Humanity" he quotes Louis Pasteur as follows:
Two contrary laws seem to be wrestling with each other nowadays: the one, a law of blood and of death, ever imagining new means of destruction, and forcing nations to be constantly ready for the battlefield-the other, a law of peace, work, and health, ever evolving new means of delivering man from the scourges which beset him. The one seeks violent conquests, the other the relief of humanity. The latter places one human life above any victory; while the former would sacrifice hundreds of thousands of lives to the ambition of one.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the master architect of the legislation which we are considering in its final stages today was our great leader Mackenzie King, who at page 345 of his book to which I have referred and in regard to the legislation we are passing today said:
Social insurance, which in reality is health insurance in one form or another, is a means employed in most industrial countries to bring about a wider measure of social justice-
I submit the following words to the consideration of my good friend the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre:
-without, on the one hand, disturbing the institution of private property and its advantages to the community, or, on the other, imperilling the thrift and industry of individuals.
It is for this reason, Mr. Speaker, that I submit it was Mr. Mackenzie King who was the great architect of all the welfare measures which have come into being over the past generation, since the time he wrote that book.
In answer to the rather shallow and somewhat unfair criticism, shall I say, which we sometimes hear from people who say, "Well, if Mackenzie King wrote it all down in a book in 1918 why have we not accomplished these things long ago", I would reply that Mackenzie King was writing a book about a system which had to have time to be built up step by step and stage by stage. As he himself said before the introduction of the national health grants, which have done so much to make possible firm foundations for the act we are passing today, those health grants were the necessary preliminary to health insurance when we were able to attain it.
The legislation we are passing today rounds out one more full circle of the admirable legislation which has been built up stage by stage in this country, complementing such measures as family allowances, which were not always approved by all parties in this house; old age pensions, which certainly were not instantly approved by all parts of this great dominion, for I believe it took 11 years before all the provinces would agree to come in even on a partnership basis; old age

security measures, crippled civilian pensions and all the other welfare measures with which we are all familiar. I submit that the greatest advance of all is the advance we are registering today in the enactment of the first stage of national hospital insurance.
I say that, Mr. Speaker, despite the fact that perhaps even in the next few months there will be sharp things said in the heat of the election. The very lifeblood of a democracy is elections, and elections are meaningless unless there are keen debates and sharp controversies. I would think everyone in this chamber would know that the last man in this country to shrink from controversies is our Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Those of us who have sat here even for the past four years and have seen day after day the sharp razor-edge questions asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and others of our genial friend the Minister of National Health and Welfare cannot help but admire the skill with which the minister has replied. I have sat here and enjoyed the expression on the face of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre as the minister has replied to his questions. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre thinks up the sharpest and most difficult questions he possibly can; and when he receives one of the masterly, politically brilliant answers from the Minister of National Health and Welfare there is no man in the entire house who enjoys it more than the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, because he is watching a master politician at work.


Mr. Blair:: Such innocence. Do you see the halo?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is that intended as a compliment or not?


Elmore Philpott: I regard it as a supreme compliment because I regard politics as the supreme science, or art, the art of good government, which is what the Minister of National Health and Welfare gives us.
Now, Mr. Speaker, there is one more point I would like to deal with before I come to the objection raised in the amendment of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I regard this plan for national hospital insurance as a superb example of good government. I believe it represents the completion of eight years of concentrated effort by as expert a staff as there is in any country of the world, a staff at all times inspired, led, and directed by the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
There are some good things in this legislation which I believe even the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and those other
Health Insurance
ringside critics of the opposition have not yet perceived. Take for instance the provision that at some appropriate time it is planned to extend the diagnostic services to people being treated in out-patient clinics. I happen to have taken a very modest part in the laying of the foundations of the Canadian arthritis and rheumatism society, of which I was the first president in British Columbia. We would never have been able to support our work but for the health grants we were able to obtain by the co-operation of this government, but we did start, I think, without a single dollar of financial resources.
That society has now extended its work so that according to the official report which I have before me, in the last year 6,784 people received direct services from the society's professional staff. The total number of patients at the end of December 1954 was 2,012. Four thousand seven hundred and seventy-two cases were opened for service during the year and 3,983 cases were closed, leaving 2,801 cases on the rolls at the close of 1955. These figures do not include patients treated by the Saskatchewan division, for which comparable statistics are not available. It goes on to say that 81.7 per cent of the cases closed during the year were classified as either being much improved, that is to say 40 per cent; or improved, 41.7 per cent, while 18.3 per cent were classified as unimproved or worse at the time of closing.
The point I want to make is that arthritis and rheumatism are diseases which cause untold damage and misery to literally hundreds of thousands of people in this country. We have demonstrated time and time again that if arthritic patients get proper diagnostic service in the first stages of their disease, its worst crippling effects can be almost entirely avoided. And I would like to stress that it is clearly implied in the bill as it stands that at the right time in the future these diagnostic services will be made available.
I come now to the small difference among the members of this house about one measure. I think even the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre will concede me at least this much, that I am just as anxious to get this legislation through soon and effectively as he is. I submit to him and to the other members who have made this objection that after the most serious contemplation of the point raised, it is my opinion that they are wrong, first on a matter of principle.
I believe our Prime Minister laid down a profoundly important principle in what I now call the St. Laurent formula, with the extension into the provincial field of federal services which have never before been given

Health Insurance
to the provinces. We who sit in this house know very well that the British North America Act was written with the conditions of 100 years ago in mind; we know that the needs of our country require constant change and progress. We know, as the hon. member for Saskatoon has so often pointed out, that there is need in so many cases for more federal participation in things which have hitherto been considered exclusively the responsibility of the provinces.
As the Prime Minister so clearly pointed out on another matter a couple of years ago, any government in Ottawa takes a very great moral responsibility when it decides to spend in one province public money raised from the taxpayers of all Canada, in a field where the jurisdiction is not clear; where there has been no change in either the letter or the spirit of the British North America Act, and where there has been no general agreement upon such steps. I submit that in the St. Laurent formula, as I call it, in which the Prime Minister insisted that we were going to make these changes in the spirit of the constitution, there must be first agreement by the parliament of Canada to go ahead, and second there must be agreement by a majority of the provinces of Canada representing populations constituting more than a majority of the people of the country.
A point was raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre which was amplified by the hon. member for Red Deer, when he said he could see no good reason for objecting to going ahead at this time when there are only five provinces signed up. I submit there is a very excellent reason and that it is the soundest of all reasons in a great federal union such as Canada. We would, in my opinion, be setting an extremely bad and extremely dangerous precedent for the future.
Since we have been considering a lot of hypothetical cases here today, let me put this hypothetical case to the hon. members of the house. I happen to believe in, as I know some other members of this house do, not only the kind of old age pensions we now have but also compulsory contributory annuities along the lines of the United States social security scheme. I might mention that all members of the all-party committee in 1950, including the hon. member for Eglinton, agreed unanimously that this dominion did not as yet have the constitutional jurisdiction to move into that field.
Now let me ask hon. members this question. Suppose we were so ill-advised as to accept this amendment which has been moved, I think without due thought, by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.

Suppose we should say that we ought to make these changes in the spirit of the constitution, if the Dominion of Canada and a certain number of provinces representing the majority of the people of Canada agreed; let me show you what a dangerous position we would be getting ourselves into. We would be getting ourselves into the position where at some future time, when a dominion government wanted to make some change, all that would be necessary would be for that government, plus the two big governments of Quebec and Ontario, to put that change through.
Therefore I suggest that the St. Laurent formula is a far superior formula, and one which will stand for all time.
I come now to the tail end of my speech. I was trying to think of some way to make this matter clear to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and I consulted some of my friends who sit around me. They said to me: "It is too bad that Stanley is not a poker player."


Mr. Churchill:: How do you know?


Elmore Philpott: I think that both the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and myself perhaps suffer from the handicap that we are not as expert at that game as some other members of the house.


An hon. Member:: Is the minister a poker player?


Elmore Philpott: One hon. member who sits very close to me and who is one of the best liked and shrewdest members of the house said to me: "If you want to explain to Stanley why he is betting on something that is so unsound tell him that he is betting on a four-card straight, a bobtailed straight and tell him that a full house beats a bobtailed straight any time."


Stanley Howard Knowles: Explain.


Elmore Philpott: I will be glad to explain. So far as the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who has brought this whole plan to the stage it has now reached, is concerned, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre should not try to tell his grandmother how to suck eggs.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the minister my grandmother?


Elmore Philpott: If anybody can tell the Minister of National Health and Welfare how to surmount obstacles, I should like to see the man. I call the Minister of National Health and Welfare-I know he will take this as a compliment-a mixture of Machiavelli and maple syrup. When there was a log jam at the United Nations and for six full years

they were not able to break the blockade and overcome the snag we all know what they did-they called in the Minister of National Health and Welfare and he put through a package deal.
What we are putting through today is a package deal. We on this side of the house certainly cannot accept the unwise amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre because he is betting on a bobtailed straight and the Minister of National Health and Welfare is out for a full house. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre can get some of his colleagues to explain to him what I mean when I say that the Minister of National Health and Welfare is out to lay down a royal flush whereby every one of the ten provinces from coast to coast will be taking part in this great scheme.
This is probably the last speech I will make in the house before dissolution.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It was nice knowing you.


Elmore Philpott: Before dissolution:	May I
say how happy I am that when I made my very first speech in the house the premier of British Columbia, Mr. Bennett, and Mr. Bonner and Mr. Gunderson were sitting in the gallery and heard me support the plea of the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) for the development of power on the Columbia. We all know what has happened in that regard.
When I was elected four years ago I made two promises. One was that I would try to get an increase in the war veterans allowance and the second was that I would do my level best to get on the statute books of Canada a national health insurance plan. I think, Mr. Speaker, that I have done my bit.


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


Elmore Philpott: Certainly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In view of the suggestion he has made as to his effectiveness with certain provincial premiers and in certain other ways, would he please stop off at Winnipeg on his way home to Vancouver and try to sell this hospital insurance idea to the Liberal premier of my province?


Mr. Martin:: You may be surprised what happens there.


Mr. Ellis:: Mr. Speaker-


Elmore Philpott: Mr. Speaker, I have been asked a direct question. I will be delighted to do so. I will be delighted to communicate not only with the premier of British Columbia on this matter-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Manitoba.
Health Insurance


Elmore Philpott: -but with several others. I must complete my answer to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in poker terms by telling him not to be too impatient, that the Minister of National Health and Welfare always has a couple of aces in the hole.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member permit one more question?


Elmore Philpott: Certainly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Was he suggesting when he referred to the St. Laurent formula that it would not be proper to introduce something that is contrary to the spirit of the constitution with five provinces agreeing to the idea but that it would be proper if six provinces agreed?


Elmore Philpott: No. My hon. friend has missed the point. I am glad he has given me a chance to explain it. I am talking entirely in terms of effectiveness. First of all, I think it would be politically unwise and constitutionally unsound on the grounds of creating a precedent, but far more important to me at this moment so far as this bill is concerned is this point. The Minister of National Health and Welfare is out to get all ten provinces into the plan. If the house were so unwise as to vote for the amendment moved by my hon. friend, the first effect would be to remove the pressure exerted on every province by great and powerful organizations like the Canadian Congress of Labour. We are against the amendment, not because we do not want to go ahead with the scheme at the moment but because we want to go ahead with all ten provinces of Canada in the plan and not just five.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Extend the coverage and you will get them all in.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is not right.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Mr. Speaker, there are a few comments I should like to make at this time with particular reference to the speech just made. It was a rather rambling speech. The hon. member started back in 1763, I believe, and also referred to the war of 1812. We also heard a discourse on poker playing and a number of other topics which I found very difficult to relate to the bill now before the house. I think the better part of his speech was given over to eulogizing various members of the government, and of course we know that the hon. member who has just spoken is a past master at licking the boots of cabinet ministers.
In my opinion the bill has been dealt with up to now in a businesslike manner. I do not think there has been any effort to deal with it in a strictly partisan manner. Yet

Health Insurance
every second sentence of the speech to which we have just listened heaped praise on this minister or that minister, on former prime ministers such as the late Mr. King, and even brought in the Right Hon. Winston Churchill. I think of previous stages of this debate when members of this group, through the imposition of a self-denying ordinance, did not participate to any great extent in the debate on second reading or on the resolution stage in order to facilitate the passage of the bill. When some of us had a few words to say on clause 1 the minister was gesticulating wildly, pointing to the clock and suggesting that we were holding up his bill. In my opinion the speech to which we have just listened certainly did not contribute anything to an intelligent appraisal of the legislation now before us.
A number of things were said by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Philpott) which I cannot let pass without comment. I gathered from his speech that he feels that the legislation we are about to pass is the ultimate. I was able to catch one or two of his sentences. He spoke of the legislation as being the first stage in national hospital insurance. I suggested on a previous occasion that the government has watered down its health insurance proposal from its original commitment to bring in a comprehensive health insurance bill to a mere hospital bill, and that has been confirmed by the remarks we have just heard.
I think we have to get this matter in the proper perspective. The hon. member spoke about the unanimity in the house regarding the legislation now before us. But I would remind him that while we give complete support to the bill before us we are anxious to see whatever benefits may accrue from the bill brought into effect at the earliest possible date.
For that reason we have moved an amendment which will enable the Canadian people, in those provinces which have governments which are anxious to go ahead, to derive benefits from this legislation at an early date. That is the whole purpose behind the amendment. Not only are we wholeheartedly in support of the legislation, we are anxious to see the legislation put into effect at the earliest possible date.
When the hon. member was speaking about the small gap, as he puts it, between those of us who believe that this amendment should be passed and those who are opposed to it, I think he was minimizing the importance of this amendment. In the reference he has made to the 99 44/100 per cent which he used to indicate the unanimity of opinion, I trust he is not trying to create the impression

that all members in this house feel about this legislation the same way as he himself does; because while we support the hospital bill as it now stands, we are bitterly disappointed that the government has not kept the promises it has made to the Canadian people and has not brought in a comprehensive health insurance bill at the present time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would my hon. friend permit me just to make a statement? He gives me a chance to do so here, and I think it is extremely important.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Yes.


Paul Joseph James Martin: When we met with the
provinces last January it was the unanimous decision of the provinces that this should be the step to proceed with.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt that the provinces are in much the same position as that in which we in this group find ourselves. Having waited for so many years to get something out of this government, I suppose they felt that when they bad a chance to get a slice of bread they had better grab for the slice. I think that is precisely the reason why some of the provinces were in agreement that this would be the first step. All I am saying now is that I will agree. My own province is certainly right behind this measure but not because they feel that this is the answer and not because they are satisfied with what this government is doing. They are behind it because from bitter experience they know that that is the best we can wring out of a reluctant government at this particular time.
I want to draw to the attention of the house, in order to get the matter into its proper perspective, the fact that in 1919-the hon. member for Vancouver South mentioned it and I am happy that he did so-when the Liberal convention, the convention which selected the late Mr. Mackenzie King as leader of the Liberal party, promised the people of Canada health insurance, they meant health insurance, not hospital insurance. They envisaged and had in mind a comprehensive health insurance scheme for Canada. The promises were repeated over the years. In the early part of the 1940's, during the war years, we know that under federal government auspices an advisory committee of this house was set up, and that in 1943 it brought down a recommendation that the federal government was to meet three-fifths of the cost of a grants-in-aid program to the provinces in order to enable them to enter into a full scale medical health service program with the federal government. Arising out of the studies made at

that time, certain proposals were made. I mention this matter because a statement was made by the minister at an earlier stage in this debate in which he made some reference to the fact that this legislation was far more generous than were the provisions made at that time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: About five and a half times.


Alfred Claude Ellis: I find it extremely difficult to understand the reasoning behind that particular statement. I have in my hand here the proposals of the government of Canada to the dominion-provincial conference on reconstruction, August, 1945. At page 31 we find what the federal government proposed to the provinces at that time. Actually there were four proposals. I am going to read proposal (b) on health insurance which is as follows:
The federal government's health insurance proposal is designed to put provincial governments in a financial position to develop and administer a comprehensive health insurance program worked out by progressive stages on an agreed basis. To this end the various health benefits which the federal government would be prepared to assist in providing have been classified (see table below) and a procedure suggested for a wide degree of flexibility in each province in introducing them.
The proposed federal government's contributions to the cost of each benefit under the health insurance plan as it is brought into effect in each province or in any area within a province is
(i)	a basic grant of one-fifth of the estimated cost of each service as shown on the table which follows (as from time to time revised by agreement), and
(ii)	one-half the additional actual cost incurred by each provincial government of providing each benefit, provided that the total federal contribution does not exceed the amount stated in the table for each service, or a maximum of $12.96 per person, when the complete program is in operation.
When that reference is made to $12.96, I assume that that figure set in 1945 was certainly not intended to remain at that fixed rate over the years, for account would have to be taken of increased costs of administering the services; and certainly this figure would have to be revised in terms of the purchasing power of the dollar at the present time. I therefore do not feel that any argument can be founded on the figure fixed on the basis of the purchasing value of the dollar in 1945. Hence we can see that under the proposals to the provinces in 1945, the federal government was offering to pay what amounts to about 60 per cent of the cost- one-fifth or 20 per cent of the initial estimated cost plus one-half of the additional actual cost-which would bring the federal contribution in line with the percentages suggested by the advisory committee in their report in 1943. But in any event I would draw that matter to the attention of the house because of the statements made by
Health Insurance
the minister-and I am sure they are statements which will be repeated by his colleagues-that the present proposals are more generous than the original proposals made by the government in 1945.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right.


Alfred Claude Ellis: I would also draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, the fact that in 1945 the proposals were based on an over-all health insurance scheme. It was not restricted to mere hospital care. I think we must bear in mind the fact that the average Canadian family spends on doctor bills and medical bills over twice as much as they spend on hospital bills.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No; just the opposite.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Oh, no. I will check that figure, but from reading the Canadian sickness survey that is my understanding. I have not the copy on my desk at the moment but I will check it afterwards. According to the Canadian sickness survey the amounts spent on medical care were roughly twice as great as the amounts spent by the average Canadian family on hospitalization.
What this scheme actually involves is a very limited contribution to the health and welfare of the Canadian people. I repeat that in so far as it gives a part of a loaf, naturally we are prepared to go along with it. But I would hesitate to have anyone believe that because there is unanimity on this particular piece of legislation we in this group are satisfied that the government has fulfilled its pledges or lived up to the commitments it has made to the Canadian people over the years. It is a far cry from the original proposals made by the government.
In dealing with the extent of the federal contribution I think reference has already been made to the fact that two extremely important items in hospital care have been left out, namely provision for those in hospitals for the mentally ill and those in our tuberculosis sanatoria. The fact that the government has seen fit to give no such assistance whatsoever to the provinces indicates that the percentage figure which they assume to be their share for hospital care is lower than the figure which they give. It seems to me that the Canadian people must keep this health insurance question in proper perspective. What we must recognize full well is that the government has only partially met the commitments made to the provinces and given over the years right since 1919.
It seems to me that those who are anxious to see this legislation put into effect should certainly give this amendment their wholehearted support. Reference has been made

Health Insurance
by my colleague the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) to the fact that if another province, such as Prince Edward Island, were added to the five provinces in agreement it would make a difference of less than 1 per cent in the overall percentage figure for Canada. What the government is, in effect, saying is that we will arbitrarily set this particular figure and even if the majority of the people of Canada want to go ahead with health insurance now we will give the right to the sixth province to veto the desires and needs of the majority of the Canadian people.
The reasons that have been advanced thus far for opposing this amendment the C.C.F. has put forward are rather difficult to understand. I note that the minister stated at page 3290 of Hansard for April 8, 1957, that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre had taken a step by his previously attempted amendment which is calculated to delay the acceptance of this bill more than anything else could do. I do not know just what the minister means by that statement. Surely, he knows that the legislation is going to get the support of all members of this house. The members of this group have stated categorically that whether this amendment is passed or defeated we are prepared to support the legislation on third reading. This amendment, therefore, will certainly not have the effect of delaying this legislation. I do not know whether the minister means opposition within his own party, but certainly it is not because of any opposition expressed by members of the opposition groups. He has his wish, in so far as whole-hearted support of this measure is concerned. I read his remarks very carefully and tried to ascertain just how he could justifiably vote against the present amendment.
The hon. member for Vancouver South suggested that this amendment might take the heat off some of these provinces. I suggest that the way in which to get all 10 provinces into the scheme is to get the scheme into operation as soon as possible. Then those provinces which have not taken part in the scheme will be at such a disadvantage their people are going to bring pressure to bear upon the respective provincial governments to get into the scheme at the earliest possible date. I say sincerely to the minister at this time that if he wants to get all 10 provinces into this scheme the thing to do is to get the scheme into operation with the five provinces that have now agreed. I will guarantee then that the people of Manitoba, if Manitoba does not take part, will bring such pressure to bear upon the Campbell government that if they do not agree they will be removed at the next election. That is the way to get all

the provinces into the scheme. If we are going to sit back and have more delay, and allow the province which has not got the initiative to get into a hospital scheme to veto the desires of our people, then those are tactics designed to delay still further the implementation of this legislation.
It is for that reason I suggest those members who are anxious not only to see this bill passed but to see this scheme put into operation at the earliest possible date should vote for the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Mr. Speaker:: I have been deeply troubled by the amendment because of my predecessor's pronouncements in 1952. One day he allowed an amendment for the reconsideration of certain payments to be made in respect of a bill, which was an act for the control and extirpation of foot-and-mouth disease, and that appears at page 23 of the Journals of 1952. He reversed his position on March 6, 1952, and he said:
Yesterday when the house was considering third reading of the bill in connection with the foot-and-mouth disease. Mr. Diefenbaker moved an amendment. The Minister of Agriculture contended that the amendment was out of order. However, I allowed it to stand. Since that time I have given further consideration to the amendment and although it may have been technically in order I am rather doubtful of the practical results which would have followed if it had carried. The committee would have reconsidered an amendment which would have necessitated an expenditure of money. But the committee could not have taken any action on the matter without a motion by a member of the government. The government had intimated that it would not propose such an amendment. Accordingly, I am doubtful if any useful purpose would have been served by referring the matter back to the committee. The purpose of this statement is to advise the house that, for the reason which I have stated and for other reasons, should a similar amendment be moved on any future occasion, I would not feel myself bound by the ruling which I made yesterday.
The amendment moved at that time by the hon. member for Prince Albert was as follows:
That bill No. 7 be not now read the third time but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole for the purpose of reconsidering an addition to section 2, subsection (1), to provide that in no case shall such compensation be less than the economic value of the animal or animals at the time the said disease was diagnosed.
The financial resolution which preceded this bill was as follows:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to authorize contributions to be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund to provinces in respect of costs incurred by them in providing insured hospital and diagnostic services pursuant to provincial law and to agreements made in accordance with the said measure, to commence when at least six provinces containing at least half the population of Canada, have entered into such agreements and qualified for the receipt of such contributions.

I have read the discussion which took place on an amendment in committee of the whole. I read the whole argument presented by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) as it appears at pages 2662 and 2663 of Hansard, which had to do with the amendment in committee, in much the same terms as that which is being proposed now. Although I did not find the reference, I am told a similar amendment was moved at the resolution stage.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The reference at page 2662 is to a further amendment that was offered by the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Blair) to qualify an earlier amendment that had been moved several hours earlier.


Mr. Speaker:: I saw the amendment that was sent to the Chair in substitution for another one, but I did not go back to the earlier one. I read the debate which took place at the time, and the citations referred to in Beauchesne's third edition and May have particular application today. What troubles me is that Mr. Speaker Macdonald confronted with a similar situation was, as I confess I was until I saw his changed opinion, inclined to allow the amendment. However the next day he felt he ought to warn the house that should a similar amendment be offered in the future, and I consider this is quite similar, he would declare it out of order.
I have been examining this thing very closely. The resolution that was introduced disclosed the fundamental terms, together with His Excellency's recommendation. A resolution preceding a money bill is part of the introduction of the bill, and it attaches to the bill throughout the various stages, which are merely various stages offered for reconsideration.
The argument of the hon. member for Eglinton in committee of the whole was that no particular money is being voted now; that it will have to be provided for by parliament later through an estimate. At page 732 of May's 15th edition May deals with that type of expenditure. He says;
The most frequent case of expenditure of this type is that of charges upon moneys to be provided by parliament for salaries and other expenses caused by the imposition of novel duties upon the executive government by the legislation of the session.
At the top of the page he says:
The effective imposition of a charge has been extended by an amendment of standing order No. 78 to include the imposition of charges upon "money to be provided by parliament" which before 1866 had been excluded, probably on the ground that it implied no immediate charge but only authorized the presentation of estimates.
I was discussing this particular matter with the Clerk because I know that in certain
Health Insurance
instances we are 100 years or 150 years behind the United Kingdom in our practice; but he tells me that although we have no standing order such as they have in the United Kingdom dealing with this very matter, we are following the practice which prevails in the United Kingdom and that a bill in which moneys are contemplated to be provided later by parliament through an estimate is considered here and has been for many years a money bill preceded by a money resolution.
The point which troubles me is a term in the money resolution which was preliminary to the introduction of this bill. The words "to commence when at least six provinces" are part of the fundamental terms of the resolution. Citation 440 of Beauchesne's third edition reads:
The fundamental terms of a money resolution submitted to the house with the Governor General's recommendation upon which a committee of the whole is set up cannot be amended. Amendments will only be in order if they fall within the terms of the resolution. The procedure in committee on those resolutions follows in principle the procedure of the committee of supply, and amendments are out of order if they are proposed with a view to substituting an alternative scheme to that proposed with the royal recommendation.
Some hon. members may claim that the way the amendment is worded it is in the abstract form. The amendment reads:
. . . that it be referred back to the committee of the whole house for the purpose of reconsidering . . .
The words "for the purpose of reconsidering" are tantamount to instructions to reconsider the requirement. What would be the use just to send it back to the committee of the whole and just say, "We do not want to do anything effectively with this; we just want to reconsider it". If, after having done so, the minister says that he does not want to make any alteration, then what? And he could not do so unless he received another recommendation from His Excellency the Governor General. Even if he did not need a new recommendation, I take it that since the amendment was moved in committee of the whole his pronouncement was to the effect, as I read it in the record, that he was opposed to changing the scheme. I have read the regrets expressed by Mr. Speaker Macdonald on Wednesday, March 5, when he allowed the amendment and warned the house that he would not feel bound by the ruling that he had given. That took place on Thursday, March 6, as it appears in the Journals of that day at page 27. I am very much impressed by the warning of Mr. Speaker Macdonald.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I express my appreciation of your deferring your ruling

Health Insurance
until one might say a word or two about the point that Your Honour has raised. First of all may I say I noted your statement that you have read in its entirety the debate on the points of order that arose in committee with regard to the amendments moved by my friends to the right. If you did so you probably noticed that although I do sometimes get into discussions on points of order, I did not take part at all in those discussions. The implication that can be drawn from that silence is correct. Though I agreed with my friends of the Progressive Conservative party as to the substance of their amendments I did feel they were out of order at that stage because they would have had an operative effect on the balance of ways and means. Since I felt their amendments were not in order there was no point in my taking part in that discussion; but I do feel there is a difference when you come to third reading and when you rely on citations 708 and 709 of Beau-chesne's third edition which permit reference back, and when in this situation all that the house has presented to it is a proposal for reconsideration by the committee.
Your Honour said a moment ago that if an amendment such as this carried and we went back into committee and the government refused to move the appropriate amendment what would be the result of that process. I suggest that reconsideration should be recognized as another form of consideration. That indeed is what the whole process of parliament is about, considering matters that are laid before us. The whole process of debate is a matter of trying to persuade the house to accept a proposal that has been made or to alter a proposal. In other words, a request for reconsideration is a request for a further opportunity in committee of the whole to try to persuade the government to take a certain course. If this amendment were to carry and we went back into committee of the whole on this clause no private member could move to change the clause reconsideration of which is suggested. It could only come about if, as a result of further consideration, if as a result of that discussion and debate, we convinced a minister of the crown that such a change should be made.
Your Honour knows that the distinction between operative motions and motions that ask for consideration runs through a great many matters that arise in terms of procedure. I remember quite well the instance in 1952 to which Your Honour referred when the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) moved an amendment on third

reading of a bill having to do with foot-and-mouth disease. I remember the pronouncement that Mr. Speaker Macdonald made the next day. But may I remind Your Honour that on March 8, 1954, the late Mr. Noseworthy moved an amendment on third reading for a reference back to committee of a bill having to do with housing. The purpose, as stated in the amendment, was to fix a limit on the rate of interest to be charged under the National Housing Act.
This is something that was beyond the scope of the royal recommendation but you, sir, allowed it despite the warning that had been given. My contention is that that was in order because it merely sought reconsideration of that point.
I have notes of a number of other such incidents but they were prior to the incident in 1952. However, perhaps I should mention them briefly. One was on February 20, 1948, at page 1560 of Hansard when Mr. Bracken moved an amendment on third reading of the Foreign Exchange Conservation Act. It dealt with a matter involving the expenditure of money which was beyond the scope of the royal recommendation. Another instance occurred on June 8, 1948, as reported at page 4890 of Hansard when I moved an amendment for reference back on the third reading of the Customs Tariff Act having to do with the proposal for cancelling the lifting of tariff on certain British goods. Here quite clearly was a matter that had financial implications but because it merely sought reconsideration of the point the motion was allowed, was considered in order, debated and voted on.
I have references to a number of other such examples that have taken place across the years. I confess I have some instances that went the other way as well but no doubt Your Honour has them and I do not have to bring them to your attention.
It seems to me that the point has been established on a number of occasions. Obviously, Mr. Speaker Macdonald was troubled about it but at least on one occasion he felt that it was proper to accept such a motion. The principle that has been established is that if a private member is merely seeking what it has always been the right of every hon. member in the house to seek- that is merely reconsideration and not something that has an operative effect-that is in order.
Despite my strong feeling that this matter is in order, in recognition of the extent to which it is troubling Your Honour I am going to make a suggestion. I know that on a number of occasions during this parliament while Your Honour has been in the

chair you have from the chair altered amendments. I also know that it has been your preference that amendments on third reading to refer a bill back merely ask for reconsideration of a particular clause or subclause without including any descriptive wording therein. To bring this to a conclusion, if it would satisfy Your Honour I would be willing for you to alter the amendment from the chair by striking out certain words- which are merely descriptive-so that the amendment would read:
That Bill No. 320 be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole house for the purpose of reconsidering . . .
Then I leave out some words-
. . . subclause (2) of clause 6 of the said bill.
As I say, I am offering a compromise even before I find out whether my previous arguments have convinced Your Honour, but I do so in good faith.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, let me confess to you at once that I was not in the house when you began your remarks and I have gathered the purport of them only from hearing the concluding remarks which you delivered and the argument addressed to you by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). May I say, however, that I do hope you will give effect to the argument that he submitted to you to the effect that his amendment in its present form is in order.
I shall not review the ground that he has already covered in his submission to you, but I would ask you to bear in mind that the only operative effect of the amendment is to refer back to the committee of the whole, which is in its nature an amendment that is in order at any time on third reading for a specific purpose. All that this amendment adds to that is a statement that the purpose of reference back is consideration or reconsideration and that type of an amendment or motion at any time in that form is not regarded as any trespass upon the rule that no private member may introduce any amendment, motion or bill involving expenditure or any interference with the balance of ways and means.
Adding these two things together, it seems to me that so far as offence against any rule is concerned we have here the equation that nothing plus nothing equals nothing. So far as invasion of the rules of the house is concerned, the reference back is in order at any time on third reading for the purpose of reconsideration of any provision of the bill. On the face of it the second part does not interfere with or invade in any respect, according to the well-established usage of this
Health Insurance
house, the prerogative that is attached to the introduction of bills, resolutions or amendments involving the expenditure of money or any interference with the balance of ways and means.
For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I hope that you will give effect to the submission of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that the amendment in its present form is in order; otherwise, I think the inevitable result will be a very serious contraction of a useful right of this house on third reading.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I
just briefly intervene. First of all, to set the record right, Your Honour referred to the amendment introduced by the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Blair) the other day. Your Honour called our attention to the page. The main reference is to be found at page 2648 of Hansard. I take it there is no quarrel now as between the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and others in this house about the character of the earlier amendment to which this one is obviously by implication so closely related.
What my hon. friend seeks to do in the amendment that is now before Your Honour is by the use of other words to bring about the same result that the hon. member for Lanark intended the other day, namely to cause this house to decide that there should be an expenditure of money by the crown at a time not intended.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The other amendment would have brought about a decision; this one seeks to bring about reconsideration.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I will admit that by the use
of different words my hon. friend does give the impression that his amendment is really different when in effect, as citation 708 in Beauchesne's third edition makes clear, it does not.
Your Honour I think stated the situation accurately when you said earlier that one only reconsiders something for a purpose. The amendment before us urges that this bill be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole house not merely for the purpose of reconsidering, as Your Honour stated, but for the purpose of doing something more than that. That is clearly implied in the very rule which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre relies on, namely citation 708 in Beauchesne's third edition, which says:
When a bill comes up for third reading a member may move that it be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole-
And these are the important words:
-for the purpose of amending it in any particular.

Health Insurance
When my hon. friend first introduced the amendment-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Read citation 709, too.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Just a moment, please. When my hon. friend introduced the amendment he did not take into account the full implications of citation 708. It was only through a later suggestion of considerable ingenuity that he suddenly realized he could possibly bring himself in order-of course this is my interpretation-if he proposed an alteration to his own amendment so as to bring it within the meaning of the words in citation 708, "For the purpose of amending it in any particular." This was the purpose of the change which he himself suggested that Your Honour might make to his original wording. It is clear that 708 is subject to 437 in Beauchesne and the pertinent section which says that no money bill can be introduced except on the initiative of a minister of the crown.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My amendment is not introducing a bill. You said it is clear and it is not.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Citation 708, I repeat, must be relative to 437 and those other pertinent decisions and sections that provide that no money bill in any form may be introduced other than by a minister of the crown. Now, if 708 meant what my hon. friend says it means the result would be that when a bill comes up for third reading a private member may move that it be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole for considering it for any kind of purpose whatsoever, to amend it in any particular the member may wish. But citation 708 is obviously limited, in that the particular amendment to which it refers may not be an amendment that violates 437 or 440 of the rules. So I say that it is clear that you cannot refer a matter back to the committee except for a particular purpose, and the only purpose that my hon. friend has in mind is that we should reconsider our decision to spend money at a time and under a contingency not covered by this bill or envisaged by the crown.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Health and Welfare seems to think that the only purpose of going back into committee would be to do something that would have an operative effect. I admit that it would be my desire that we might achieve an operative effect, but surely the minister will admit that in parliament there is a purpose in discussion and a purpose in consideration. He tries to convince us of his views. What we seek is a chance

to persuade the government that a change should be made. As a private member I cannot move an operative motion involving the expenditure of money, but as a private member I do have the right to move motions asking for consideration and I suggest to the Minister of National Health and Welfare there is all the difference in the world between 708, which talks about going back to the committee for reconsideration of a bill, and 437 which talks about the initial introduction of a bill.


Mr. Speaker:: It must be very clear to all hon. members that when I said that the amendment, if it were carried, may not serve any useful purpose, I was echoing the words and the reasoning of Mr. Speaker Macdonald; he did go along with the reasoning of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre on March 5, 1952 as it appears on page 23 of the Journals. However, on page 27, the next day, he rose and said:
Since that time I have given further consideration to the amendment and although it may have been technically in order I am rather doubtful of the practical result which would have followed if it had carried. The committee would have reconsidered an amendment which would have necessitated an expenditure of money. But the committee could not have taken any action on the matter without a motion by a member of the government. The government had intimated that it would not propose such an amendment. Accordingly I am doubtful if any useful purpose would have been served by referring the matter back to the committee. The purpose of this statement is to advise the house that, for the reason which I have stated and for other reasons, should a similar amendment be moved on any future occasion, I would not feel myself bound by the ruling which I made yesterday.
I was merely repeating this and this is the reason why I have been troubled about this amendment from the very start. If it were not for this ruling of Mr. Speaker Macdonald I would have said nothing about this amendment. However, why did Mr. Speaker Macdonald, after having made the statement which he did on an amendment of a similar nature at page 23, feel that it was his duty at page 27 on the next day to make the further remarks which I have just read to the house?
Therefore I have been examining and reexamining the point and the conclusion to which I have come is that on a matter of this kind you can just as easily go either way. I could take the reasoning of the Minister of National Health and Welfare and say that is good enough for me and make a ruling along that line. On the other hand, I could take the reasoning of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, because that would be just as good. I could find decisions both ways more or less on a half and half basis. Because of all the difficulties involved

I would like to have more time to go behind the reasons that motivated the statement of Mr. Speaker Macdonald on the very next day after making a ruling.
I would ask the house to go along with the suggestion that I have often made that the amendment be modified by unanimous consent, so that we do not have a dispute on the point of an amendment respecting third reading of the bill giving instructions to reconsider a money clause in a money bill which must necessitate a money resolution at the time of introduction and must be moved by a minister of the crown. I see no reason why the house cannot agree to have the amendment simply read that the bill be referred back for the purpose of reconsidering subclause 2, clause 6, because any member has the right to change a word, or a comma into a colon or a semicolon. So therefore I do not think if the house should agree to have the wording of the amendment changed in that manner, that the point with respect to the financial initiative of the crown would be involved in any way whatsoever. Of course that is left to the unanimous consent of the house. If the house does not wish to give unanimous consent I would not at the moment feel prepared to declare the amendment out of order. Does the house agree that the amendment be changed so as to read that this bill be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole house for the purpose of reconsidering subclause 2 of clause 6 of the said bill?


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is satisfactory to me, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, one of the pretensions of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) with respect to the present bill and the system of hospital insurance that it envisages is that the scheme is of a comprehensive nature. That is a hollow pretence. The scheme is not of a comprehensive nature. It is in fact a scheme of very limited extent.
The limitation of which I wish to speak briefly now is in my submission a most unfortunate limitation. I refer in particular to the express exclusion from this bill and from the scheme for which it provides of patients-whether in-patients or out-patients -in tuberculosis hospitals cr sanatoria and in hospitals or institutions for the mentally ill.
From the time this government proposal was first introduced these patients enjoying either in-patient or out-patient services of such institutions have been excluded from any benefit under the scheme. We as a party and as Her Majesty's loyal opposition have already expressed in the strongest terms our view that there is no justification whatever for the exclusion of these hospitals and institutions from among those that lie within the scope of the scheme of hospital insurance.
The hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Blair) in his speech on March 25 set out an unanswerable case in this respect. But from its narrow and stiff-necked position this government has never wavered in this regard. The defence which the Minister of National Health and Welfare has sought to make in this house during the course of consideration of the bill, and last year in the committee on estimates when the whole subject was reviewed by that committee, has been hollow and unconvincing. Indeed, in the case of a minister as loquacious as is the Minister of National Health and Welfare, it has been so hollow as to lead those who know him well to the inevitable conclusion that he himself has no sympathy with the exclusion of the hospitals of the kind of which I have been speaking from the scope of the scheme, and that he is simply trying to defend a compromise in order to protect some of his colleagues in the cabinet who were prepared to go this far and no further.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I assure my hon. friend that there is not the slightest foundation for that statement.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I was trying to defend the minister.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Methuen Fleming: He has never sounded more hollow and more unconvincing in anything

he has said in this house than he sounded in the shilly-shallying excuses that he has made for the exclusion of these institutions.
Does the house adequately realize that if these exclusions are permitted it means that the house is drawing a clear line of distinction between certain types of illness. It means that if patients are suffering from what are called physical ailments and go to hospitals they will fall within the scope of the scheme of this bill. However, if they are suffering from tuberculosis and go to hospitals provided for patients so suffering they will not fall within the scope of the bill. Similarly, in the case of patients suffering from mental illness, if they go to hospitals or institutions designed for the purpose of providing care for such patients then they lie outside the scope of the bill. No scheme which tries to draw a line of distinction between institutions of the kinds of which we are speaking, where the attempted distinction is based upon the type of illness, could possibly be sound.
In the next place, the minister had said, and this must have surprised those who heard him, that the reason why tuberculosis hospitals and sanatoria and hospitals or institutions for the mentally ill are to be excluded from this scheme is that this type of care is already being provided by the provinces at the expense of provincial governments, and in certain cases with contributions from municipal governments as well. He said that the federal government in this respect has no wish to assist the provinces, but only the patients.
It is quite obvious that this government has no wish to assist the provinces; that has been obvious for a long time and in many particulars. I want to make it quite clear that in this regard there is the widest difference between the approach of the government and the approach of Her Majesty's loyal opposition. We of Her Majesty's loyal opposition consider that if the provinces are assisted by the inclusion of institutions of this kind within the proper definition of "hospital" under the bill that would be all to the good. If this government did not characteristically and typically take this rigid, stiff-necked attitude, this unyielding attitude in every matter where the rights or interests of the provinces are concerned, then a great deal more progress would be made in this country in the solution of problems that require a common dominion-provincial approach. In this respect this government is standing in the way of progress and it is doing so without the slightest pretence of even blushing about it.
There is a third aspect to this matter as well. It is the size of the problem presented

by the number of patients who are today confined in tuberculosis hospitals, sanatoria and in hospitals and institutions for the mentally ill who exceed the number of all patients in general hospitals. I do not propose to retrace the ground which has been covered by the hon. member for Lanark in his speech on March 25. He gave the house the clearest possible picture of the extent of the problem, the very large number of persons in this country who are confined in institutions of the kind I have mentioned which are to be excluded from the scope of the scheme. If the house is content to pass the bill in its present form, it means the house is either closing its eyes to a major problem or deliberately denying such benefits as this bill may bring to that large number of Canadians who are confined in institutions of the type that are to be excluded from the bill.
There is yet another aspect of this matter. I do not propose at this stage to attempt to retrace the ground or review the arguments on the terms upon which the whole scheme, in its present limited form, is to be brought into effect, namely when six provinces containing more than half of the Canadian population signify their intention of participating in the scheme. This aspect of the matter is directly relevant to the point I am submitting to the house now. One of the shortcomings of the present proposal of the federal government embodied in the present bill which has had so much to do with the fact that only five provincial governments have so far indicated their adherence to the scheme is that the scheme is of such limited effect and the federal government does not propose to share hospital costs of patients who are confined in institutions of the type to which the government bill refers as tuberculosis institutions and those for the mentally ill. If those institutions were brought within the scope of the definition of a hospital in the present bill the whole proposal would be very much more attractive to provincial governments and much less forbidding to those provinces which are suffering so acutely from financial difficulties that they do not feel they can afford to come into the scheme in its present form. The minister knows very well and the whole government knows that if it were not for the exclusion of institutions providing hospital care for tubercular patients and mentally ill patients more provinces would have found the proposal much more attractive than at the present and undoubtedly a majority of the provincial governments would have indicated their adherence to the plan if it had been on a wider basis.
We say, therefore, that this measure is not a comprehensive measure. It cannot pretend to be comprehensive as long as there are
Health Insurance
excluded from the definition of hospitals under this measure those hospitals and institutions that provide care for tubercular patients and the mentally ill. When the measure was before the committee of the whole I introduced an amendment to clause 2 subclause (e), to make a simple change in the wording of line 8 on page 2. It would have changed the words which now read "but does not include" to "and does include". The purpose of the amendment was to make it very clear, by way of a direct reversal of the provisions of the bill, that the definition of the word "hospital" should include: (1) tuberculosis hospitals and sanatoria; (2), hospitals and institutions for mentally ill; (3), nursing homes and home for the aged where persons are receiving custodial care.
This amendment was ruled out of order by the chairman of the committee on the ground that in its direct form it would involve an increase in expenditure in excess of the royal recommendation preceding the introduction of this bill. Having regard to the provisions of the amendment which was introduced two evenings ago by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), and which I had hoped would have been upheld this afternoon as a proper amendment to be introduced on third reading, I had purposed to seek to give effect to the argument I am now submitting to the house by moving an amendment in the following form:
That Bill 320 be not now read the third time, but that the said bill be referred back to the committee of the whole for the purpose of reconsidering the provisions to exclude tuberculosis hospitals and sanatoria and hospitals and institutions for the mentally ill in clause 2 (e) thereof.
Within the last few minutes, Mr. Speaker, you have confessed to some doubt as to whether an amendment in that form might be in order. Therefore, having regard to the course followed by you, Mr. Speaker, with the unanimous approval of the house but a few moments ago on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, I now wish to submit my amendment in the following form:
That Bill 320 be not now read the third time, but that the said bill be referred back to the committee of the whole for the purpose of reconsidering clause 2 (e) thereof.
My purpose is to ask the house to refer the bill back to the committee of the whole in order that this same clause which contains this unjustifiably narrow definition of the word "hospital" may be reconsidered. I put before the house the ground that there can be no justification in good sense or in principle or in humanity or in the existing facts of life as applied to the financial difficulties of the provinces

Health Insurance
and municipalities of this country, for this government to try to drive a wedge between general hospitals on the one hand and tuberculosis hospitals and sanatoria and hospitals and institutions for the mentally ill on the other hand. It is only by changing the definition that the government proposes in clause 2 (e) that this unworthy distinction can be eliminated. I ask the house, therefore, to send this back in order that this clause, unworthy of the Canadian parliament, unworthy of the pretensions of the government that this is a comprehensive scheme, should be reconsidered and that its shortcomings should be remedied and that the scheme should in fact be made what the minister improperly pretends it to be, a comprehensive scheme of hospital insurance.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to rise to support very briefly the amendment which has just been placed before the house. I think it is most unfortunate that half of the people who are sick every day in the year are barred from the benefits of this so-called national health insurance plan. This matter has been discussed on a number of occasions, and the minister just has not a leg to stand on in trying to pretend that this very large number of sick people in Canada should not be covered by this scheme.
When the resolution was before us I placed on the record the cost per day for the patients in the mental hospitals of Canada in the last year for which statistics have been supplied to me. They were $2.70 per patient per day in the mental hospitals; $6.29 per day in the tuberculosis hospitals and $10.77 per day in the public hospitals. It now becomes clear why the minister is trying to get from under the responsibility of the federal government for this very large group. It would be necessary to improve the services in the mental hospitals.
I read in one of the publications put out by the mental health association that in Canada at the present time we have only five doctors for every 10 required; we have six registered nurses for every 10 we need, and four social workers for every 10 required. There are about 90 mental health clinics in the country, and many of these do not operate full time; there should be 150.
After having waited since 1919 to take this step, I think the minister could at least persuade his colleagues in the cabinet that those who are mentally ill and those who are suffering from tuberculosis should not be barred. It is not so very long ago that those who were mentally ill were housed in the jails with the criminals. I think it is most unfortunate that in the year 1957 the Minister of National

Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) is carrying on that old tradition. If you have a broken leg, or if you require an operation for appendicitis why of course you can go to a hospital and the federal government should share in the cost, but if-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Why do they not do it in
Saskatchewan?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: In Saskatchewan we do
have free and complete care for the mentally ill. We had that before we had a provincial hospital scheme.


Paul Joseph James Martin: But it is not part of the hospital insurance scheme.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: No; after the people have gone to a mental hospital you cannot tell them that they must come out and start to pay their insurance before they are eligible for the benefits.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What about those who have not gone in?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Those who have not gone in pay their hospital insurance.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No; no one is covered for hospital insurance with respect to mental illness and tuberculosis in Saskatchewan. What we are doing here is following the same practice.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Everyone in Saskatchewan is covered by provincial account whether he is suffering from mental illness, cancer, or any other illness.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: As I said, we had a program in operation in Saskatchewan before we had our province-wide hospital scheme, and surely the minister is not suggesting that when it was decided to set up a provincial hospital scheme we should discontinue our responsibility for those who are mentally ill?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Certainly not.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: All I am asking the minister to do is to support the amendment that we have before us after having heard arguments from so many. There are members in his own party who would like to have spoken in support of this proposition, but have not. If he takes this action he will demonstrate that the economy of Canada can stand the cost of seeing that those who are mentally ill, those who are suffering from tuberculosis, those who represent more than half the sick people in Canada every day in the year, are permitted to share these benefits to which they are entitled as Canadian citizens.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of considerations that I should

like to lay before the house at this time in connection with this bill and this amendment, which I think is out of order. Nevertheless, it affords me an opportunity to say that the house should not forget that under the proposal made by the federal government last January we indicated that once six provinces accepted the proposal we would take the necessary legislative authority to carry out our portion of the proposal.
As I pointed out, we have not got six provinces now, we have only five. Nevertheless the federal government has considered it desirable, notwithstanding the terms of its proposal, to bring forward legislation at this time, anticipating, as I think we have every reason to, that before too long we shall have at least one, if not two more provinces. But whether or not that eventuates, the fact is that we have taken a step which goes beyond what we told the provinces we would do; we have acted although six provinces have not come in, so that the legislation, once it receives third reading, will be on the statute books and will be our authority for paying out considerable sums of money on a sharing basis with the provinces in respect of hospital and diagnostic insurance schemes.
It should also be noted that we have been able to reach this particular proposal as a result of the co-operative effort between provincial governments, ourselves, voluntary agencies and others throughout the country during the period of the last eight years, in the steps that have been taken to improve the general public health and to improve the health facilities of the nation, to an extent that we now have facilities which justify our embarking upon the important step that now confronts us. Together with the provinces and voluntary bodies which have borne the greater brunt of the load, we have built some 70,000 hospital beds which represents a considerable achievement and in the language of the premier of Ontario it was the national health program which spearheaded this whole program.
Very little has been said about one feature of the bill which is extremely important and that is the diagnostic services feature. All provinces will not take advantage of the diagnostic services feature to the same extent. For instance, we have been told by Ontario that they propose to take advantage of the moneys made available by the federal government for diagnostic, radiological and other services of that character only in so far as they apply to in-patients, and this despite the fact that the bill provides for diagnostic services for out-patients as well. Some provinces will take advantage of that proposal
Health Insurance
and others, as I have said, will not, but it is very important to recognize the significance of that phase of the proposal covering diagnostic services concerning which there has been very little mentioned here today or throughout the debate.
The advantages of this bill are very considerable. I have not suggested in any way that as a result of the action of the federal government alone we are going to have hospital insurance. I have clearly indicated time and time again in answer to my friend the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that in a matter of this sort co-operation with the provinces was an essential prerequisite to action. Premier Frost has indicated that he cannot begin his scheme until January 1, 1959 but when the scheme does get into operation in a number of provinces the co-operative effort that has taken place will result in making available to all persons a simple method of budgeting the unpredictable costs of essential hospital care in Canada. That will be the first result.
Second, no one will be denied the benefits of the plan because of age, health or economic circumstances.
Third, no time limit will be placed on the number of days of care so the individual will be protected against the catastrophic cost of protracted illness requiring hospitalization over a long period.
Fourth, no dollar limit has been placed on the specific services in hospitals that may be required.
Fifth, because one-half of the national cost of hospitalization will be paid out of the federal treasury-indeed in the case of some provinces over 60 per cent-it will be possible for the provinces to offer premiums that will be more attractive than those charged under any existing plan in Canada.
Sixth, the individual will be free to purchase any additional protection he may require in terms of private or semi-private care or other special benefits through regular commercial or voluntary insurance plans.
Finally, in addition to insuring patients against their hospital bills this program will provide an organized system of financial support for hospitals and will thus largely eliminate the problem of hospital deficits that are now plaguing so many Canadian municipalities.
This measure which is being supported by all sides of the house and which I hope every hon. member will have an opportunity of voting for-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -is one that does represent a very significant step and is an extremely important measure affecting the health and

Health Insurance
welfare of the people of this country. I think that the discussion throughout this debate indicates the merits of this proposal, a proposal first put forward by the Prime Minister of Canada. Premier Frost in speaking of his plan said that it comes within the four corners of the proposal made by the federal government.
I recognize, of course, that some hon. members thought they found some shortcomings in the bill. Most of the discussion in this particular has concentrated on two features. The first of these was the insistence that we have at least six provinces. In this regard I can only repeat what I have said a number of times in this house, that that condition is a very necessary one if we are going to have a nation-wide system. I am satisfied that if we had not that provision we would not today have had five provinces signify their acceptance. From negotiations that are under way at this time between the federal government and at least two provincial governments, I know that this is a very important condition to retain in the bill and it is for that reason we opposed the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre which we voted down a few moments ago.
The other question raised by those who found some inadequacy in the bill related to the inclusion of tuberculosis and mental hospitals. The reason I refer to this is because I think it is unfortunate to give the impression that a line is to be drawn in the coverage provided by this bill between those who suffer from tuberculosis and mental illness and those who suffer from other illnesses and who will be covered by this bill. No attempt is being made to discriminate against tubercular patients and those who suffer from mental illness. As I have indicated, so far as the federal government is concerned we will continue under the national health program to provide the largest single grant, which is for mental health and we shall continue to do what we are now doing to assist the provinces in their work of trying to carry on programs of prevention and treatment in the matter of mental illness.
As I indicated the other night, the great development that is taking place now is to provide psychiatric units in general hospitals. Right here in the city of Ottawa two of the large general hospitals have psychiatric units. The cost of the equipment for these two units has been provided for by the federal government under the national health program in addition to the salaries of all the individuals employed in those units. That is also true of the psychiatric units that have come into being since the national health program was announced in 1948.

It is not true that little attention is being paid to those who suffer from mental illness but the reason they are excluded under this bill is that what we are seeking to do is to provide financial assistance, not to the provinces to carry on their normal accepted responsibilities but to help individuals in meeting their individual hospital costs. Any individual suffering from tuberculosis or mental illness in a general hospital where he has to pay his own costs is covered by this bill; but individuals who are in provincial institutions paid for, as the provinces admit, to the extent of about 90 per cent by them and by the municipalities, will not be covered by this bill for the simple reason that this bill is designed to assist individuals in their individual hospital problems and not to subsidize provinces which are receiving assistance in other ways from the federal government.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Very little assistance.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend says very little; the assistance provided by this measure alone amounts to some $200 million annually.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: A very small percentage.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It was not our purpose by this legislation to subsidize the provinces which are already receiving assistance from the federal government through other channels; but whether or not they are receiving other assistance there can be no justification for imposing upon a hospital insurance bill the responsibility for paying public moneys to the provinces for responsibilities which they rightly recognize.
The moment an individual has to pay for treatment in a general hospital he will be covered by this bill for any kind of illness, including tuberculosis or mental illness. The fact that we are right in this is seen in the case of Saskatchewan and in the case of British Columbia and in the case of any other country but one that I can call to mind. In Saskatchewan they have a hospital insurance scheme and they have one in British Columbia. In the case of Saskatchewan the cost of the scheme is borne in the main by premiums paid by individuals.


An hon. Member:: Half.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, a little over half. But that only covers individuals who are treated for illnesses other than tuberculosis and mental illness. Those two illnesses are adequately treated in Saskatchewan and I am not suggesting that they are not. However, they are provided for out of the consolidated fund of the province, in a separate account, being precisely what we are going to do

under this measure. We are providing for the assistance of these people in so far as they are hospitalized in general hospitals.
In further confirmation of the position we have taken is the report of the government of Nova Scotia examining this matter. It recommended that the Nova Scotia government should accept the proposal made by the federal government and there they said, as I indicated I think the other night, that in the matter of mental health and tuberculosis these illnesses should not, they thought, be included in the proposal which is embodied in this bill.
Therefore, I do not think we should go on giving the impression that we are seeking to draw a distinction between those who suffer from these two forms of illness and those who suffer from other illnesses. What we are seeking to do, let me repeat, is to help individuals in Canada in meeting their individual hospital costs. If an individual has hospital expenses as a result of mental illness or tuberculosis he will be taken care of under this bill, but if he is in a provincial institution where the province pays for it out of the consolidated fund it cannot be seriously arguable that the provision in the bill should be otherwise than it is, with the exclusions provided.


Mr. Zaplitny:: Would the Minister of National Health and Welfare permit a question at this point. I refer to the statement that to the extent an individual pays his own costs he would be provided for under this legislation. In the province of Manitoba, as the minister may know, an individual does pay part of the cost in the mental institution. Does the minister feel that that part of the cost should be covered by this legislation?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The figures in Manitoba show that about 90 per cent of the cost is borne by the province and 10 per cent, roughly, by the individual. Those are the figures given to us by the province and we had this whole thing thrashed out with the provinces a year ago. The hon. member can get these figures and he will see that they are correct. I think that in the case of tuberculosis it is higher than that but in the case of mental illness I think it is around 90 per cent, although I am speaking roughly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I would like to just be sure that the figures include the municipalities.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, my hon. friend is quite right. I think there is nothing further for me to say on this bill, except that the wide measure of discussion in this house indicates the value of this proposal. It represents a very important step in Canada for us to embark on this particular kind of program;
Health Insurance
it is a program that arises out of the efforts, not of any one group but it is the product of many people of this country. I think, for instance, at the moment, of Dr. Fred Jackson an officer in my department who at this time is very ill, and one of the great men of this country. Dr. Jackson has had so much to do with this proposal, as have many others throughout the country. It is the result of co-operation between the provinces and the federal government and it is a proposal which I think will rank as the foremost of the steps taken by this house in the field of health and welfare. I am grateful for the strong measure of support given in principle to this bill, a bill which I know will mean much to the welfare and good health of the people of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of saying but a few concluding words on behalf of this party with regard to the bill which we hope will soon be implemented and become of the law of the land. Indeed, one cannot but feel on this occasion that in the legislation now before the house we have come to the end of a long road that began in 1919 when the Liberal convention of that year promised health insurance legislation, and in successive elections Canadians have heard of the possibility of its introduction should the Liberal party be successful.
We have come now to the end of the road so far as the general skeleton of the legislation is concerned but there still remain various sectors of the community that should be included in the provisions of the legislation which are as yet untouched. Naturally we are very pleased with the legislation. I think a word of tribute is due to the premier of Ontario the Hon. Leslie Frost, who, at the last dominion-provincial conference, demanded that this subject be placed on the agenda and ever since has applied pressure in order to achieve the legislation now before us, although not being entirely satisfied that all hospitals which ought to be included are included within the ambit of the legislation.
Our desire while giving full support to the legislation as we have throughout, and in the amendment moved by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming), is to do our part even at this late hour to improve the legislation in order to make it more effective. I am

Health Insurance
going to read clause 2, subclause (e), the definition of "hospital", to which the amendment moved by the hon. member has reference. It is in these words:
"Hospital" means a hospital or other facility, prescribed by the regulations, providing in-patient or out-patient services, but does not include
(i)	a tuberculosis hospital or sanatorium,
(ii)	a hospital or institution for the mentally ill, or
(iii)	a nursing home, a home for the aged, an infirmary or other institution the purpose of which is the provision of custodial care.
The amendment moved by the hon. member would refer the bill to the committee of the whole for the purpose of considering this clause and thereby giving an opportunity, even at this late hour, of including within the ambit of the legislation sanatoria, tuberculosis hospitals and institutions and hospitals for the mentally ill. I cannot understand this omission. While tuberculosis is in recession, mental diseases are on the increase. The hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Blair) placed on Hansard the record in this regard, a startling record, a frightening one, one which indicates a terrible toll and that mental diseases are, to a challenging degree, on the increase. The statistics he placed before the house indicated that between 1932 and 1954 there had been an increase of 87 per cent in the number of patients in mental institutions, or a total of 68,050. That is a very serious situation.
I listened to the minister as he made his explanation. I always find the minister intensely interesting. He possesses an unusual capacity for elucidation without providing the same degree of light, and what he says he says with a becoming suavity. But in all the arguments that he advanced I found no serious reason why these two groups, mental hospitals and tuberculosis hospitals or sanatoria, should not be included. His attitude was that to do so would be to assist the provinces, to subsidize them, I think was the expression.
As I have followed the course of the legislation I have wondered sometimes whether the government really intended when it was introduced that it would go into effect, for the minister imposed a veto on its application by providing that a majority of the provinces in number and in population would have to join the scheme before the legislation would become effective. That I cannot understand. Why is there this departure from the provisions in the past for the bringing into effect of social legislation unless the reason for the imposition of the qualification in question was the hope that the legislation could not or would not be implemented?
[Mr. Diefenbaker.l
There is also the further disqualification of sanatoria and mental hospitals. Why is this? Why are these hospitals and institutions discriminated against? I say that the legislation in its present form is discriminatory in that it denies these institutions a right that should be theirs. The hon. member for Eglin-ton said that it had that effect and that there was no reason to draw a distinction. The minister says that no distinction has been drawn. In point of fact, whether or not the distinction was intentionally drawn, the result is that there is discrimination against these two types of institutions.
At the present time the provinces find themselves with a smaller and smaller share of the tax dollar and with an increasing problem intensified by our modern way of life which has resulted in the multiplication of the number of mental patients. This load of responsibility cannot be discharged properly by the provinces. I suggest that now the minister give reconsideration to the question and accept the amendment of the hon. member for Eglinton which he moved on behalf of this party. Now that we are passing such legislation every reasonable facet of the problem should be met, for once the legislation finds its place on the statute books an amendment in order to cover tuberculosis sanatoria and institutions and mental institutions will be almost impossible of attainment. I cannot see that this demand is unreasonable and I feel that reality demands acceptance of the principle contained in the amendment moved.
This legislation which is designed to bring about the beneficial results which were pictured in such lucid language by the minister just before the dinner adjournment should not remain incomplete by denying to these institutions equality with the hospitals qualified under this legislation. The legislation as it is in its present form, beneficial as it will be, acceptable as it is to members in all parts of the house, is a step in the right direction. But the goal that all of us have in mind will not be achieved until the two types of institutions to which I have made reference are included within the provisions of this legislation.
Having said that I conclude my argument, for I do not wish to cover ground already covered. We in the opposition throughout the years have favoured this type of legislation. All parts of the house are in support of it. I ask the minister, before a vote is taken, once more to reconsider the matter to the end that, after a period of 38 years of promises periodically made and unkept, the legislation should be as complete as it is possible to make it and should cover all classes of medical institutions within our

country instead of discriminating against two, thereby placing upon the provinces a greater load of responsibility than their financial position permits them to discharge.


Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot see that this amendment is in order, considering the speeches that have been made to include hospitals for tuberculosis patients and mentally ill patients. Where reference was made to "does not include" to take the word "not" in line 8 out so as to make it read "does include" surely makes this amendment out of order.


Mr. Fraser (Peterborough):: Do you not
want them in?


William Gourlay Blair: Mr. Speaker, before the adjournment for the dinner recess the minister spoke and he gave me the impression-indeed the suggestion was made- that 90 per cent of the costs of mental hospitals in the province is paid by the provinces themselves. I want to point out to the minister that a person who is mentally ill-and let us have this point clear in the beginning -is suffering from an illness comparable with any other illness to which the human body is heir. It is just as important to consider mental illness as it would be to mention carcinoma or cancer, pneumonia or any other disease. The patients going into those hospitals are paying their bills; they are not all indigents. In fact, the proportion of indigents in mental hospitals in my own province is not any higher than the proportion of indigents in the ordinary general hospital. The only people who might be classed as indigents in those hospitals are those that have been there for a long time and have exhausted their finances as a result of long treatment.
I want to point out that when a patient goes into a mental hospital a form is filled out by the bursar of the hospital and inquiry is made into the patient's assets. His whole financial condition is analysed. I am going to point out various extracts I read from the mental hospitals act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, various extracts to prove my point that patients going into mental hospitals are paying their fees in a way comparable with that of patients admitted to general hospitals. I will read these extracts. I want to prove to the minister that patients going into hospitals are obliged to pay fees. I therefore read from section 16, paragraph 2, of the mental hospitals act:
(2)	The charges of such hospital treatment shall be paid by the patient unless he is an indigent person, in which case the charges shall be payable in the same manner as charges for indigent patients are payable under the public hospitals act . . .
Health Insurance
That is clear; there is no difference there. Then I read section 16a of the mental hospitals act:
16a. The minister,-
That would be the minister of health of the province of Ontario.
-out of such moneys as may be appropriated by the legislature for the purpose may contribute toward the cost of treatment in public hospitals of indigent patients transferred thereto under subsection 1 of section 16 in such amounts, in such manner and under such conditions as may be prescribed by the regulations.
But I go on with this proof. There is the question of the liability of the municipalities, and I read from section 57 of the same act;
57. (1) The necessary costs and expenses incurred under sections 23 to 29 and section 35-
That is a further reference.
-in determining the mental condition of any person including a fee not exceeding $10 and a travelling allowance of ten cents per mile of each medical practitioner who issues a certificate-
Those are charges. Then we come to the question of admission of a patient, and this is extremely important. This is section 60:
60.	(1) Upon due application for the admission of any person the superintendent and steward of the institution shall make a full and thorough inquiry respecting the estate, either in existence or in prospect, of the person and of its sufficiency, free from all claims of his family, to supply the means necessary for his maintenance and clothing in the institution as provided by the regulations.
That is maintenance. Do not forget that this is the beginning of the section where they deal with maintenance. If that were not enough we find this:
(2)	The superintendent and steward shall where possible require from the person liable for maintenance of the patient an agreement or bond to secure the payment of the patient's maintenance, either in whole or in part, and the agreement or bond shall continue in force so long as the patient is maintained in any institution.
Then it goes on, of course, to point out:
(3)	Where the obligation is for a limited period nothing herein shall extend the liability beyond the period limited.
And then we find this:
(4)	The giving of an agreement or bond shall in no way release the estate of the patient from its obligation to maintain and clothe him in the institution as hereinafter provided.
If funds are not forthcoming otherwise, they will be taken from his estate. Further we find this:
61.	Every patient admitted to an institution who has at the time of his admission or subsequently comes into the possession of property shall be liable for his maintenance.
Then there is a section with respect to his wife:
62.	Every person whose wife is a patient shall be liable for the maintenance of such patient.

Health Insurance
Then further:
64. (1) The steward of an institution shall send a written notice on the first day of each of the months of January, April, July and October to the person liable for payment of the maintenance of a patient, giving the date of the patient's admission to the institution and the amount which is due and owing for his maintenance . . .
And so on. It is clear that patients are paying in the mental hospitals in Ontario. Now we come to the powers of the public trustee. Directly a patient is admitted into a hospital within a province the public trustee, from the time of his admission, takes over control of his estate. I therefore read into this record chapter 77 of the same statute:
77. The costs, charges and expenses of the public trustee and any money advanced by him for the patient or for the maintenance of the patient's family shall be a charge upon the property of the patient, . . .
That is clear; there is no doubt about that. I further read into the record section 83 which is as follows:
83. The public trustee shall, out of the money in his hands belonging to a patient for whom he is statutory committee, pay the proper charges for his maintenance in the institution in which he is a patient, and he may also pay such sums as he may deem advisable to the patient's family-
The public trustee has control of the patient's money and he pays the hospital bills out of the patient's estate, the administration of which is under his control. I mentioned the fact that upon admission of the patient to the hospital inquiry is made and a financial statement given-actually it is called the blue form. I shall read extracts from that form.
The minimum rate for which a patient or his estate or the person liable for his maintenance shall be liable in the general wards of any institution-
I understand that varies from $7 to $10.50 per week.
-in cases where the patient's condition requires special care and treatment, such further charges may be made as the superintendent may determine.
This illustrates that extra charges may be made when the patient is in the hospital. One has to consider that under present conditions and new forms of treatment that are being used now, tranquilizing drugs may be included. The cost of these tranquilizing drugs is very heavy and may run from $20 to $40 per week. Nevertheless it says in this form that in cases where the patient's condition requires special care and treatment, an additional charge may be made.
I am going to cite some of the questions asked on the blue form by the bursar of the hospital when the patient is admitted. I have seen this happen quite often in my own province of Ontario, and I may say that every possible opportunity is given to lower

the fee as far as possible. However if there is a charge, certainly there will have to be payment by some person responsible. A member of the family may go and help fill out this blue form or it may be filled out by the solicitor who has charge of the estate. Questions like these are asked under the mental hospitals act:
Real Estate:

 Give the number of the lots, concession, township, and county; the number of acres, whether leased or freehold; the name and address of mortgagee, if any, and the market value of the property.
There are a lot of questions about property. Then if the property is rented there are many questions concerning who is receiving the rent. Inquiry is made into life insurance. They ask the name of the company; the number of the policy; the amount of insurance; who has the policy at the moment and who is the beneficiary under the policy. There are questions also about the personal estate and personal property. In the case of a farmer, they ask the approximate value of his farm implements; his stock in trade: livestock; farm produce; and other property, if any. They ask about moneys secured by mortgage. Then, there is this sentence:
What suggestions do the relatives or friends make for the guidance of the public trustee?
The rate of maintenance is then set, and as I said in any case in which I have participated these people have been most helpful in trying to put that fee down as low as possible. There is no doubt on that score, that the public trustee does keep very close track if a person is declared incapable. If he has an estate, they certainly have to pay for the patient's maintenance out of that estate.
Then I come to form 30. I am only trying to prove to the minister that if a person is declared incompetent to handle his estate, payment is made. Form 30 of the regulations under the mental hospital's act is a bond for the maintenance of the patient in the hospital. I feel that that proves beyond all doubt that patients going into hospital pay their hospital bills. I have stated that the number of indigents in these hospitals is at a rate comparable with the number of indigents in general hospitals.
Before the dinner recess I heard the minister mention what the federal government had done by way of providing beds. He pointed out what was happening in the city of Ottawa. Let me say to you that there are insufficient beds in the city of Ottawa to cope with this program. The civic hospital is going to put in 40 beds. There will be 80 beds in the city of Ottawa for mental patients. In so far as the hospital at Brockville is concerned, I am not aware of the number of patients in that large



hospital but I would say that 300 or 400 of the patients in that hospital come from the Ottawa area and not entirely from the Ottawa valley.
Let us look at the regulations as they stand. In answer to some of the questions that were put to him today the minister pointed out with a degree of pride that we are going to take care of mental patients in general hospitals. There is no doubt that is the case under this bill. However there is no restriction on the length of time which a patient may be in that hospital. Remember that when a case of mental illness occurs, no doubt the relatives will want to have the patient put in a general hospital rather than in one of the Ontario hospitals. It is only normal and natural that they would want to do that. I want the minister to pay particular attention to this, that they would have a further incentive to do so because the care of such patients is free in general hospitals and if they go to the Ontario hospitals they will be charged. It is going to come out of their estate or some place. Payment has to be made.
As I said the other day, I feel this is a retrograde step. You are not really recognizing the problem of the number of mental patients in Canada. The amount of money you are giving under the health grants does not begin to cope with this problem of hospitalization. As my leader has said, even if the province of Ontario or any other province is paying a large percentage of these costs there is this drag on the province's finances. After all, taxes have to be paid and the financial agreements that are made between the province and the dominion under this bill are of some help, but the provinces are having their own troubles in trying to finance other things. There is no doubt of that.
To recapitulate, I think I have clearly proven that patients going into mental hospitals in my own province are paying their bills. I do not believe this figure of 90 per cent the minister has mentioned. If they are not paying their bills, they might be classed as indigents, but there is a very strong inquiry made under the regulations. In cases where the estate is taken over, the hospital bills are paid. There is a percentage of indigents in these hospitals. If long-term treatment is required and it is certainly expensive, a small estate might easily disappear.
It is not sufficient to say that the cost of caring for the mentally ill will put up the cost of caring for the others. There was some suggestion that there might have to be an additional tax levied under the present 82715-214
10, 1957	3389
Health Insurance
scheme in order to take care of mental hospital facilities. As my leader has said, I feel that this should receive further consideration. There are 10,000 more people in Canada suffering from mental disease than there are in all the general hospitals put together. Some people do not understand that. They have taken the minister's statement that the provinces are paying 90 per cent of the bills.
Let me say this to you, sir. These are sick people the same as anybody else. If they are to be ignored under this scheme, then we shall arrive at this situation. We will pay for pneumonia, yes; that is fine, but we will not pay for mental disease. We are not giving recognition to one of the greatest problems that the minister has to face in the whole of Canada. If you are to face up to it, then some place, somehow additional funds must be provided for the care of these people. You should not set them aside and say that it is the duty of the province to look after them.
The minister made the statement this afternoon that the province is looking after 90 per cent of the mental patients. Their bills are being paid but there is no greater percentage of indigents in those hospitals than in other hospitals. We must look at that. Let us take a second look at this; let us inquire into it and do something to help this population which is growing in Canada.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, my intervention at this point will be very brief. I admit also that what I will say will inevitably be by way of repetition of things that have been said before. I feel, however, that we must indicate our whole-hearted support of the proposal now before us, which is in line with the contention that we have made right from the start, that reconsideration should be given to the government's insistence that mental and tuberculosis hospitals be excluded from this plan.
As the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Blair) has just indicated, the incidence of diseases in these categories is very great, and if we are to have a hospital plan that is worthy of the name it should include all the diseases that affect our Canadian people in all of the provinces of this country.
What we do not like about the government's attitude toward this matter is that it is giving the impression it is coming into hospitalization on a 50 per cent basis when in point of fact it is coming in on a basis of about 30 per cent or 35 per cent when you consider all of the illnesses in Canada that require hospitalization. We feel that is not good enough.
I rise also to protest once again against the times without number the minister tries to

Health Insurance
repeat the argument that the federal government is doing only what is done in some of the provinces. Mr. Speaker, let me say it again, despite the fact that I have said it half a dozen times already, in provinces like Saskatchewan and British Columbia particularly, where they have gone the farthest in this field, all hospitalization is taken care of by the state whether it be in general hospitals on the one hand, or in mental or tuberculosis hospitals on the other. It is paid for out of two different accounts; in Saskatchewan, for example, out of the insurance account in one case and out of the general account in the other, but it is taken care of for all the people of Saskatchewan by the state as represented by the provincial government with, in some instances, assistance by the municipalities. The federal government, on the other hand, proposes to get into the field of hospitalization and proposes to limit its participation in that field to hospitalization in general hospitals.
I deny to the minister the right to use the argument about the insurance principle because so far as the federal government's contribution is concerned it is to come out of the general revenues in the same way that the payments made by Saskatchewan and British Columbia for mental and tuberculosis hospitals come out of the general revenues of those provinces.
Again, I say to the minister that his argument about not being ready to subsidize the provinces with respect to some of their responsibilities does not stand up at all. This whole legislation is a recognition of the fact that the time has come for the federal government to get in and help share certain responsibilities that the provinces are now carrying. We contend that it should get in with both feet and not just with one foot. We support wholeheartedly the suggestion that is contained in the amendment that is now before the house that this bill should be referred back to the committee of the whole for the purpose of reconsidering the question of extending this coverage to hospitalization of all kinds.


Mr. G. W. McLeod (Okanagan-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words at this time on this bill. I am satisfied that the majority opinion in this house favours the bill in principle. Throughout the long history of this measure, for almost a year and a half, in committee and wherever it has been studied, I have personally been a consistent supporter of it. Since the bill has been brought forward we have noted a few of the regulations concerning it which will make it very difficult for the province of British Columbia to work its scheme in accordance with this legislation. At all times

1	have been impressed by the words of the minister that this bill would be set up in complete co-operation with the provinces and that no stumbling blocks would be placed against it. I believe the difficulties which I shall mention later can be worked out by regulation, and I have every confidence that within the understanding that we have been given on so many occasions by the minister sponsoring this legislation that will be done. However, at this time I should like to draw to the attention of the house the difficulties which we are facing.
In order to save time I shall immediately move a subamendment, seconded by the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Patterson);
That Bill 320 be not now read a third time, but that the said bill be referred back to the committee of the whole for the purpose of considering clause
2	(e) and inserting after the words "2 (e)" the
words "2	(f), clause 8 (1) and clause 4	(a)
thereof".
The whole amendment would then read:
That Bill 320 be not now read a third time, but that the said bill be referred back to the committee of the whole for the purpose of reconsidering clause 2 (e), clause 2 (f), clause 4 (a), and clause 8 (1).
I shall try to state simply my reasons for bringing this to the attention of the house briefly. In the province of British Columbia we have a system under which every resident, if he is in that province for one year, is automatically insured. We have no registration and we have no signing up and there is no record of policyholders in the ordinary accepted sense of insurance plans. One of these clauses refers to in-service treatment, for instance. There are many smaller hospitals which are quite efficient and serve the purpose in small communities but they are not able to provide all the services which are required under the particular regulations to which I have referred.
It is required that the province shall make monthly returns showing the number of policyholders, or insured persons in the province. I think you will see, Mr. Speaker, that under the system being operated in British Columbia that would be a very serious problem to us and it would be almost impossible for the province to furnish any such returns to the federal government, because we have no record whatever of insured persons. Every person in the province is automatically insured. To comply with the regulations it would mean that you would have to have perhaps a census of the province every month in order to get the total. It is apparent therefore that this regulation will need some clarification or change.
Concerning the matter of residence I believe this bill sets forth a stipulation that every person shall be immediately covered.

That is another feature which is contrary to our provincial set up. In the province of British Columbia it is necessary to have been a resident of the province for one year before you become eligible for hospital insurance and I think when you examine the situation you will agree there is nothing seriously wrong with that provision.
Under all other insurance schemes I know of, either private or provincial, the premiums are payable in advance at which time the insured person is covered, but in British Columbia the premium is not paid until you have lived in the province for one year. During the time you are resident there you pay 2 per cent in the form of sales tax on the purchases you make and this represents your contribution to the health insurance fund. I believe that these points should be given further consideration. I am sure it will be the desire of the minister to cooperate fully in seeing that these difficulties are ironed out.
British Columbia was the first province to signify its willingness to accept the federal scheme in principle, but now that the bill has come forward and a careful study of it has been made it is found that it will be impossible under the system now in operation in British Columbia to comply with the regulations attached to the federal proposal as this would involve a complete change in our provincial system. I therefore suggest that the subamendment I have just read be presented for the consideration of the house and that these matters be given further serious consideration.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I can assure my hon. friend that the points he has mentioned with which I am familiar could be arranged in the regulations through negotiations that we will have with the province.


George William McLeod: Mr. Speaker, I want a vote on it just the same. The one vote will cover them all. It will not make any difference in the time consumed. We appreciate the words of the minister and I am sure that such will be done. We may as well cover it all in the one vote.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a point of order. I contend that this proposed amendment is not a proper amendment to the amendment that is now under debate. It could be introduced as a separate amendment after my amendment is disposed of but in my submission it is not a proper amendment to the amendment.
The amendment that is now under debate relates to a particular subject, namely, the 82715-2144
Health Insurance
definition of "hospital" contained in the bill and the debate has proceeded very clearly within the confines of that subject, the inclusion of certain kinds of hospitals and the exclusion of other kinds; but the amendment introduced by the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke (Mr. McLeod) proposes to take in three other subjects dealt with in the bill which have absolutely no relation whatever to the subject of the amendment I moved.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke did not mean to do that. I appreciate what the hon. member for Eglinton is saying. We might deal with his amendment first. I do not think the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke meant that we should not deal with them separately.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Whatever his intention was he certainly introduced his amendment as an amendment to my amendment. Either the hon. member must withdraw his amendment or, in my submission, it should be ruled out of order, Mr. Speaker.
The three matters that he proposes to add to the specific reference contained in my amendment include clause 2(f) which is the definition of "in-patient services", a quite different subject matter from the hospital institutions that are excluded; the next matter is section 4 subsection (a) which relates to the basis of federal contributions under the whole scheme-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I intervene at this point. I have just spoken to the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke and he agrees that the amendment of the hon. member for Eglinton should proceed first. The hon. gentleman will withdraw his amendment for the time being.


Donald Methuen Fleming: If the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke is withdrawing his amendment I do not need to say any more because section 8 deals with the regulations and is still further removed from the subject matter of my amendment.


Mr. Depufy Speaker:: I have read the
amendment proposed by the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke. I understand that the hon. gentleman wishes to withdraw his amendment.


An hon. Member:: He has not said so yet.


George William McLeod: Mr. Speaker, we wish to
comply with the rules of the house. I was simply adding the contents of my amendment to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Eglinton. It was not my intention to destroy the hon. member's amendment and I was just adding to it. However if you rule

Health Insurance
against my doing so we are prepared to withdraw my amendment and move it later as a separate motion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Has the hon. gentleman unanimous consent to withdraw this amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Thomas:: Mr. Speaker, the understanding is that if you rule against this as a subamendment then the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke is willing to move it as an amendment after this one has been disposed of; otherwise, if you do not rule against it, we leave it as a subamendment.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, it is either withdrawn or it is not withdrawn. The hon. members must make up their minds.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think the situation is that my friend the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke does not want to interfere with the amendment moved by the hon. member for Eglinton. He recognizes the merit of what the hon. member for Eglinton has said on the procedural question and for the time being withdraws his amendment.
be followed and hon. members introducing such matters ought to know that they should be brought in by way of a separate amendment and not by way of being tacked on to an existing amendment to which their amendment has no relation whatever.


Mr. Patterson:: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the hon. member for Eglinton is jumping to conclusions. The amendment proposed by the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke has not yet been ruled out of order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Is it withdrawn or not?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: As I understand it the hon. gentleman wishes to withdraw his amendment. It is quite apparent to me that the wish of the house is to grant him that leave, and perhaps we could terminate the discussion on that basis. Has the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke leave to withdraw his amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment to the amendment withdrawn.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question on the amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Ray Thomas: No.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I understand that he withdraws his amendment for the time being to comply with the rule and afterwards he will reintroduce it.


Ray Thomas: Let us have a ruling on it now.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Speaker is not going to rule against it.


Mr. Hahn:: Mr. Speaker, in view of the
fact that this is going to be a time consuming process and in view of the fact that we do wish to see the legislation affecting British Columbia passed I would suggest that as we have this antipathy among our Conservative friends to the inclusion of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke the hon. member withdraw his amendment on his own instigation and we will be prepared to go ahead and move it later.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, there has been an expression used by the hon. member who just took his seat-


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is not a bad word.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is a word which I think is quite capable of totally misrepresenting the position here. We are here to see that the rules of the house are upheld. There is no occasion for suggesting that there is antipathy toward the subject matter on our part in suggesting that the rules of the house ought to


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. Is the house ready for the question on the main motion?


Mr. Weir:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


George William McLeod: Mr. Speaker, I had been trying to list some objections that we have to the bill and we got into a little bit of difficulty. I still have my amendment in front of me but I will not continue with it. I understand that it is felt that these difficulties can be ironed out, and if we can have such an assurance from the Minister of National Health and Welfare I will be glad to listen to him at this time.
Health Insurance


Paul Joseph James Martin: I can tell my hon. friend that I am hopeful the matters he has raised are matters which can be ironed out in the negotiations concerning the agreement and regulations if there is mutual acceptance by the federal and provincial governments, and I assure my hon. friend that we will endeavour to do that when the time of negotiation comes.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question on the main motion? Is it1 the pleasure of the house to adopt the main motion?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would you call in the members, please?


Mr. Speaker:: Those who are in favour of the main motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those who are opposed will please say nay.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


William Gilbert Weir: I desire to have my vote recorded on this very important measure.


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. gentleman be good enough to indicate whether he votes for the yeas or the nays?


William Gilbert Weir: I vote for the passage of this important measure.
And the result of the vote having been announced:


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. Bill read the third time and passed.



AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS MARKETING ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, April 8, consideration in committee of Bill No. 403, to 
[Stage Direction]
amend the Agricultural Products Marketing Act-Mr. Gardiner-Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.
Clauses 1 to 3 inclusive agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Order. I gather that it was the desire of certain members to submit amendments to this bill in committee. If I might express this opinion from the chair, I understand they are anticipated on the other side of the house. Is it agreed, by unanimous consent that we revert to committee of the whole?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister could move that the bill be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to committee of the whole. That is what we would have to do.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: will accept the suggestion made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).


James Garfield Gardiner: the third reading of the bill.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I move:
That this bill be not now read a third time, but that it be referred back to committee of the whole for consideration of certain clauses.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The house in committee on Bill No. 403, to amend the Agricultural Products Marketing Act-Mr. Gardiner-Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.
On clause 1-Preamble.
Stuart Sinclair Garson: When the bill was up for
second reading, I indicated to members that we would be introducing an amendment to clause 4 of the bill. Unfortunately one of my colleagues was speaking to me at the time clause 4 was called. I should like to move-


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Are we not on clause 1 at this point? Is the minister making his amendment to clause 1?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No, clause 3.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
On clause 3.-Onus.
Stuart Sinclair Garson: 
[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time by leave and passed.


Walter Edward Harris: the second reading of Bill No. 238, to amend the United Kingdom Financial Agreement Act, 1946.


Mr. Macdonnell:: Is the minister going to make any comment on this?


Walter Edward Harris: No, Mr. Speaker; I made a statement on the date of the signing of the agreement, which I think covers all the essential matters of the bill.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a very brief comment on this measure because it seems important and worth while very briefly to recall to our minds the circumstances under which this transaction was first carried out. I wish to read very briefly from what was said by Mr. Ilsley in this house on April 9, 1946, at the time the original agreement was made, in speaking of the circumstances of the granting of the credit and the reason for doing so. I am reading from page 765 of Hansard:
During the five years from 1946 to 1950, the United Kingdom will be going through a period of transition and reconstruction, both in its domestic and in its international economic affairs. In this period it will be endeavouring to revive and establish its export trade, which was so seriously curtailed during the war when all Britain's manpower was mobilized for war service, war production and only the most essential civilian purposes. It will take time for British exports to get back to their pre-war volume, although the progress made over the past few months is encouraging.
And so on. Then, I wish to read a very brief word of my own in the same debate. I am reading from page 776 of Hansard:
As the Minister of Finance has said, one of the aims is that we should give the British a breathing spell; give them a chance to get on their feet;
10, 1957	3395
United Kingdom Financial Agreement Act
give them a chance to pay us this loan, and in doing so be able to increase and increase and increase their foreign trade, so that we shall be able to sell them more and more goods.
When this agreement was originally made it was made on the basis that it was good business for us to assist Great Britain, whom we hoped would become again, as she had been in the past, one of our best customers. The agreement pursued its course until last autumn, when we remember that the British, pursuant to the terms of the original agreement, asked for a waiver. We remember that there was some considerable discussion about the granting of the waiver. They got into some difficulties in the congress of the United States and, as a result, new agreements were entered into which amended the original agreement and substantially altered the rights of the United Kingdom. Instead of having merely the right to ask for a waiver of interest, they were granted the right to several occasions on which they could ask for a deferment, both of principal and interest. That is the agreement we have before us. I wish to read very briefly from what was said in the British House of Commons when the matter arose. On March 6, when the act was passed, Mr. Thorneycroft, chancellor of the exchequer, said this:
In the view of Her Majesty's government these agreements fulfil in a satisfactory manner the aim that appropriate modifications of the language of the existing agreements should be made to carry out the spirit of their original intention.
Under the new arrangements Her Majesty's government will pay all the annuities in full and with interest, even if it claims any deferments. No question can therefore arise of any default on our obligations.
I should like to draw one other thing to the attention of the house. Under the original agreement the right of the British government to ask for a concession depended on a certificate from the international monetary fund, whereas under the present agreement the wording is such that the government of the United Kingdom can reach its own conclusion and make its own request without any reference to the international monetary fund.
I think there are one or two questions that I should like to ask when we get into committee, but I thought I would put on the record briefly what I have said just as a reminder of the background of this legislation.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.
On clause 1-Agreement approved.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: The question I wish to ask the minister is this. Under the original agreement made with the United States in

United Kingdom Financial Agreement Act the autumn of 1945, as I understand it, there was a clause which provided that no other loan agreement should be made with any commonwealth member on better terms than the one made in the autumn of 1945. As a result the action had to be a sort of three-cornered action, United Kingdom, United States and Canada. That arrangement has been carried through; that is to say, our agreement says that the United Kingdom may require this to be done if the government of the United Kingdom defers the payment required to be made in the same calendar year under the financial agreement between the government of the United States of America and the government of the United Kingdom, signed at Washington. The question I wish to ask is this. It would have been more satisfactory, perhaps, certainly in the view of some people, if we had an agreement which was not conditioned on the other agreement. Will the minister explain whether that was really out of the question and whether the agreement had to be carried through on the original three-cornered basis?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman, the original agreement, as my hon. friend has said, provided for a three-way understanding, so to speak. That is to say we could not have made an arrangement with the United Kingdom nor could the United Kingdom have made an arrangement with another commonwealth country more advantageous than that being contemplated by the United States agreement. Under those circumstances when there were only three of us concerned and since the original loan was negotiated for a sum of money which represented about the amount that the United Kingdom felt they would require at that time it was made up of a certain sum from the United States and a certain sum from Canada. The problems that have arisen under the two loan agreements have always been common problems and have been considered by the three countries as one.
It is true that there was one matter that was perhaps concerned only with Canada and the United Kingdom rather than the United States but that does not enter into these matters. When the United Kingdom felt that they would be obliged to ask for a deferment or a waiver of the payments due in December they did it on the basis of an emergency, as it were, at that moment, and seized the opportunity to ask for renegotiation of both agreements having in mind that over the period of eight or nine years the situation had changed. It was by an unanimous conclusion, and I think without any consultation, so to speak, that all three countries assumed

they should continue negotiations on a tripartite basis as they always had and to come to a common agreement if at all possible.
Whether or not it would have been possible to negotiate separately is another matter, but as I say none of us thought we should do so. It is true that we did not meet as three persons around a table or anything like that but the negotiations went on with all three parties being aware of the position of the other two parties on every point until an agreement was reached. We felt that that was a proper course; indeed, I think it led to an earlier settlement than any other course that might have been followed would have done. I am satisfied that all three governments feel that this is the proper way to continue the business of the repayment of the two loans.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Did I understand the minister to say that there was no suggestion from any quarter that it should be on any basis other than a tripartite basis?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry but I did not hear the opening words of my hon. friend's question.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Did I understand the
minister to say that in the renegotiation there was no suggestion from any of the three parties that it should be other than on a tripartite basis as in the past?


Walter Edward Harris: No, no one suggested that we should deal separately.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Am I correct in thinking that this was the first request for any waiver since the commencement of the agreements? Something the minister said made me doubt that this was the case but it had always been my understanding. Is it correct?


Walter Edward Harris: That is correct.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, April 8, consideration of the motion of Mr. Pearson:
That it is expedient that the houses of parliament approve the statute of the international atomic energy agency signed by Canada at New York on October 26, 1956, and that this house do approve the same.
Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, when this resolution came up for debate two days ago there was a brief statement made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) and one even more brief made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) and as we had not yet seen the copy of the statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency I moved the adjournment of the debate.
This evening the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Michener) is going to deal with the terms of that statute but before that is done I should like to point out one or two facts with regard to the manner in which this measure has been brought before the house.
This proposed statute was signed by Canada on October 26, 1956 and of course it required ratification by parliament. For some reason or other the resolution which we are now debating was not placed on the order paper until March 30, in other words ten days ago. At that time copies of the statute had not been distributed to hon. members. Apparently one copy was tabled in February but even today copies of this extremely important statute are not available to all hon. members. We received five copies for our party and I think altogether there were only 30 or 40 copies for distribution.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce the other evening in his usual "do things in a hurry" fashion gave as an excuse for rushing this resolution through the house the fact that there was to be a meeting in September and if the Canadian parliament did not ratify the statute at this session then Canada could not be represented at the September meeting.
This way of doing things is unfortunate; it is very unfair to hon. members of the house, to the members of the press and to the Canadian people. I am afraid, however, that it is just typical of the attitude of the cabinet toward parliament. They either forgot that this statute had to be ratified by parliament or they did not care enough for parliament to bring it on in time to provide for proper consideration of the measure. That is the situation in which we find ourselves tonight.
This statute contains very far-reaching provisions having to do with atomic energy. Canada is vitally interested in what takes place in this field. This statute should have been placed before the house early in the session and there should have been provided an opportunity for it to be considered by a committee of the house which could have called witnesses and carried on a proper examination and could have found out all the implications which will follow Canada's ratification of this statute.
Last year we had a special committee on atomic energy and research; two fields which 82715-215
Atomic Energy
never should have been linked although the government saw fit to so link them. This year there should have been, in view of the fact that this particular statute was to come up, a committee on atomic energy to review the statute very carefully. If this course had not been followed then the statute could have been referred to the standing committee on external affairs.
This way of doing the country's business is not good enough even though there is to be an election this summer. The whole field of atomic energy is probably the most important field in Canada's future and yet ever since the war we have been treated like a lot of children in so far as anything having to do with atomic energy is concerned. We have been able to get a special committee appointed in, I think, only three years. There should have been a committee of this house on atomic energy right from the start, just as there has been in the United States. I am not suggesting that this committee should have had such wide powers as the United States committee has, but there should have been a committee of our Canadian type, whose responsibility would be to keep in touch with the developments in the atomic energy field.
Now that we are faced with this question tonight I can only suggest that the next parliament, no matter which party may be in the majority and no matter which party has the responsibility of forming a government, should see to it that there is either a standing committee on atomic energy or a special committee appointed every year so that this house and the people of this country will be better able to keep in touch with what is going on in this important field.
I must express regret that the government has been so indifferent to the rights of parliament as to throw this matter before us in the last few hours of the session in the form on a little booklet published in New York, I presume by what is called the preparatory commission, and then expect this house to swallow it without having been in the position to give it the consideration which it merits.


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo):: Mr. Speaker, I must endorse the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) about the way in which this particular measure has been handled. I agree that it would have been very valuable to this house had the statute of the international atomic energy commission been referred to a committee so that there could have been a full discussion of the implications, the possibilities and also the limitations of the statute.
I think I can say at this time that this group welcomes the statute on two grounds; one,

Atomic Energy
that it is a very small, faltering step towards what we may hope will eventually be complete international control of atomic materials; the second ground is that it is also one step, I hope, in the direction of curbing the misuse of atomic energy. For those two reasons, as I say, we are glad that this has been introduced but we do feel that there should have been an opportunity for us to find out just what lay behind the formal document; just what we could expect in the way of international control and international cooperation; just what Canada was being committed to and what we could expect to come out of it.
I feel that it is very useful as it is at present; it lays out the terms under which the signatory powers are attempting, at any rate, to control the dangers inherent in the use of atomic energy; it lays out at least partly the approach that should be made to the supply of atomic materials to those nations of the world which need them. We welcome it also because I think it may be said that this is in line with what must be an ever-increasing development throughout the world.
I have never been among those who imagine that it would be possible at any time for one to sit down and establish anything that might be called a world government by
writing a constitution on a piece of paper. I have always felt that the world will have to move carefully step by step in very much the same direction in which we are now moving through the statute of the atomic energy agency; that is, the divesting of sovereignty by signatory nations over essential materials required for the general human welfare. I would hope that this is merely the first of the statutes that will be made within my lifetime and certainly if not within mine then within the lifetime of my children. May I move the adjournment?


Walter Edward Harris: Would it be possible for us to complete this business before we adjourn?


Howard Charles Green: We have another speaker.


Colin Cameron: I have not finished all I have to say and I note that the hon. member for St. Paul's also wishes to speak on this matter.
On motion of Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo) the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: Interim supply tomorrow.


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

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:

[Stage Direction]
Question No. 275
John Angus MacLean: 1.	Have any payments been made to any provinces under the 1952 tax rental agreements, during the quarter ending March 31, 1957?
2.	If so, what was the amount in each case?
3.	What was the total amount actually paid to the government of Prince Edward Island under the 1952 tax rental agreement, during the fiscal year 1956-57?
4.	Is any further amount still due to the government of Prince Edward Island under the 1952 agreement?
Answer by: Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of
Finance):
1.	Yes.
2.	While no payments are due in the quarter ending March 31, 1957, as some provinces wished to take part at least of any amounts outstanding to revenue in the 1956-57 fiscal year, advance payments on account were made pending the receipt of the certificate of the dominion statistician on which the terminal payments due by April 30, 1957, are required to be based.
These advances were made as of March 31, 1957, as follows:
Newfoundland	$ 3,000,000
Nova Scotia	 5,500,000
New Brunswick	 3,600,000
Ontario	 42,000,000
Manitoba	 5,800,000
Saskatchewan	 5,500,000
Alberta	 10,300,000
British Columbia	 17,500,000

3.	Prince Edward Island was paid the following quarterly instalments in 1956-57:
June 30, 1956 (including adjustment of $50,450.28 for
1955-56)	$1,091,429.75
September 30, 1956	$1,040,979.47
December 31, 1956	$1,040,979.47
Under the terms of the tax rental agreement no payment is required to be made in the fourth quarter pending recalculation of the payments completed during the life of the agreement. The amount that normally would be due (in this case $1,040,979.47) is in effect increased or decreased by the amount of the final adjustment.
4.	This cannot be finally determined pending the receipt of the certificate of the dominion statistician, as required by the agreement. Information available, however, would indicate that no further payment is due the province.
82715-215J

Thursday, April 11, 1957



MISCELLANEOUS PRIVATE BILLS

[Stage Direction]
Nineteenth report of standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.-Mr. Henderson.