Mr. Ashbourne Mr. Chairman, the Report of
the Public Health and Welfare Committee has
been distributed. It is not my intention to make a
very long speech. We hope that members will
find considerable food for thought in the report,
and that in completing the final picture of Newfoundland the information herein will
assist in
our deliberations. It is not in one or two reports
that we can expect to find the real answer we are
seeking, but in studying all of the various reports
as they are tabled and reviewing the future in the
light of the present and of the past, come to some
definite conclusions. I would like to make a few
observations before I begin the piloting of this
report through the Convention.
As convenor of the Committee. I would like
to record my sincere thanks to each member of
our Committee for the contribution he has made.
It was hoped we would have been able to have
had a second interview with the Commissioner of
Public Health and Welfare, Sir John C. Puddester, but on account of his serious illness
this
has not been possible. I hope he will be able to
appear before the whole Convention before its
sittings are concluded. Any commissioner who
has seen the whole life of the Commission of
Government, on the inside as well as on the
outside, should be able to make a distinct con
434 NATIONAL CONVENTION March 1947
tribution to our deliberations.
There are those who point to the Commission
of Government as those who have instituted a
new day in public health and welfare services in
this country. I do not see how it could have started
on the scale it did a decade ago had it not been
for the financial assistance afforded by the United
Kingdom. The aid received made it possible to
make a good start in enlarging the health and
social services.
The family doctor is filling and has filled a
very important place in the sphere of social welfare and health services. In going
his rounds he
has not only built up his practice but left an
influence which, when he is no longer available,
leaves a void very difficult to fill. The modern
tendency for the majority of doctors graduating
is to specialise, and it seems these prefer to practice where a hospital is located
and where hospital facilities are readily procurable. In the rapid
strides and advances that have taken place in the
field of medical science and scientific knowledge
it is admitted even by the layman that methods
may quickly become outmoded; thus it is understandable that doctors may prefer to
join the staff
of a hospital, but in the viewpoint of many who
have had the valuable services of the family
practitioner, they still much prefer to see the
genial face of the family doctor, rather than
having to take their sick to the hospital. There
may be some who wonder if our medical services
have not been extended too rapidly and spread
out too thin, so to speak, and question if the
country can afford to carry them. But the big
question is, can the country afford not to have
them? These cottage hospitals (a special feature
of Newfoundland) are part of a system of
modified socialised medicine No country can
expect to reach its utmost capacity of production
unless its inhabitants attain a satisfactory standard of health, and a nation's health
is a matter of
the most vital concern and consideration, and the
provision of adequate health and welfare services
is of paramount importance. We must look not
only at the present but also to the future, and we
see need of further expansion yet.
The shortage of nurses is a serious problem. It
is readily understood that hospitals require doctors and many nurses to staff them,
and if they are
to function properly, the need of sufficient
trained personnel is most apparent. During the
war there was a greater scarcity of doctors and as
time goes on and more medical students graduate
this shortage will be gradually overcome. Many
nurses marry after graduation and unless they
take up private nursing, generally speaking they
are not available. It has been questioned whether
the spirit of self-sacrifice in this noble profession
is not dying out. Personally I do not think it is. I
understand the same situation exists in Canada.
The scale of payments in Newfoundland offered
to student nurses — $150 for the first year, $200
for the second year and $250 for the third year,
may account for some of the shortage. During the
war many young ladies found more remunerative
employment at the bases and elsewhere and
many entered the teaching profession.
The opening up of the new buildings at the
Sanaton'um has been delayed by the lack of nurses. The need of many more nurses is
urgent; also
more beds for patients. The tremendous work of
the Department of Public Health and Welfare
itself suffered during the war owing to the fact
that it lost some of its key men through enlistments, and the higher wages paid by
outside
companies naturally attracted others at headquarters to better paid positions.
Perhaps it is not out of order to mention that
the success of efforts on behalf of preventative
and curative medicine in Newfoundland, and of
any all-round general scheme of health and social
services, depends on the degree of co-operation
between the people, the medical and nursing
professions and the government. Our system of
taxation should provide that all can get the necessities of life at the very lowest
prices. The matter
of nutrition is intimately connected and linked up
with health. Proper foods, as well as proper nutritional values, are vitally necessary
for our good
health....
One of the most serious problems affecting
Newfoundland is the great white plague, the
silent menace, tuberculosis. I add my voice to the
many others who have given unstinted praise to
the laudable efforts of the Newfoundland Tuberculosis Association in the great work
it has undertaken to assist to the utmost to rid Newfoundland
of this scourge. It is hoped that the government
will not only be ever ready but over-zealous to
assist in this colossal work undertaken by a band
of voluntary workers. This dread disease can be
stamped out only by continued and concerted
March 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 435
action in which the public must be adequately
informed. The response of the public in its purchases of Christmas Seals and donations
indicates its desire to further the work of the
association. If crippling disease, let it be TB or
anything else, is not checked and eradicated or
brought to the lowest possible minimum, what
avails the efforts of rehabilitation? Public health
must be in the forefront of reconstruction.
The appointment of a sub-committee consisting of Mr. Vardy, Mr. Crummey and Mr. Roberts
was made to draft a report on welfare. Their
report was considered by the whole Committee
and the report as amended forms part of the report
now before you. The hope is that able-bodied
relief, except for isolated cases, will soon be a
thing of the past, and that in its place the government will provide public works
or some other
scheme whereby the needs of the people who
have suffered owing to lack of sufficient income
may be met. It is to be hoped that soon the
government will be able to reduce the age limit
at which an old age pension may be obtained.
The splendid work done by Dr. Pottle and the
staff under him is included in the welfare report.
The boys and girls of today will be the men and
women of tomorrow, and monies invested in their
welfare will pay real dividends in the future.
Under section 6 you will find a section
devoted to veterans' affairs. It is not saying too
much when we say that everything possible
should be done on behalf of those who answered
the call of king and country. We consider that
labour affairs should be studied by a select committee of this Convention and while
the delegations are absent visiting England, and perhaps
Ottawa if one goes there, it might be a good time
if those available in St. John's, and who do not
intend to return home, could be appointed to
study this matter.
The people of Newfoundland deserve the very
best possible in the way of medical services. Who
is going to say that anything less than the best is
good enough for our people? We are dealing with
the greatest asset that Newfoundland possesses
when we are dealing with the people, greater then
the material assets, for it is a spiritual one. While
poverty and disease lurk in our midst it is our duty
to do our utmost to ascertain the underlying
causes and see that they are removed. In building
a strong and lasting society the deadly forces
which strike at the roots of society and sap the
foundations of national well-being will have to
be attacked, no matter how deeply entrenched
they may be before ultimate recovery can be
hoped for or real progress be attained.
Mr. Burry Mr. Chairman, I would like to call
the attention of the members to the fact that there
is one unfortunate omission in the first page in the
list of names. To that should be added the name
of the Hon. Mr. Quinton. The Committee feels
that your predecessor, Mr. Justice Fox, in the
selection of the convenor for this Committee
made a very wise choice. Mr. Ashbourne, with
his thoroughness and good spirit and persistent
energy, kept us plugging at this work since last
fall until 5 o'clock on Saturday last. We were able
to have 48 main committee meetings, besides
several subcommittee meetings, which meant at
least 103 hours work on this report. I would also
point out that the few references and quotations
in this report coming from the interviews are not
an indication of the value we have placed upon
the interviews. We feel that the interviews with
the various doctors, heads of departments, etc.,
were very valuable.
We were impressed last fall with the inadequacy of our equipment to cope with this
problem, and we thought that the best way was to
study the problem of public health and welfare
with men who knew more about it than we did.
We looked upon our interviews as study classes.
We placed a great value upon the knowledge that
was imparted to us by these men and two ladies
who came before us. We recall very vividly the
meeting that we had with the Commissioner,
Hon. John C. Puddester, and how he outlined the
work of his department and the problems that he
had to face, and how it grew up under the needs
of wartime. We also remember the studies upon
TB and the incidence of TB in Newfoundland and
Labrador under Dr. McGrath and Dr. Peters and
Mr. Davis....
[The Secretary read from the report][1]
Mr. Ashbourne Is there any member who
wishes to get further information about the section which has just been read? If not
we will pass
on to the next section. The report is quite lengthy,
and opportunity will be given later for members
to debate the report.
436 NATIONAL CONVENTION March 1947
Mr. Hillier Was Lamaline omitted? It had been
a nursing station but there is no nurse to my
knowledge there now.
Mr. Job I am going to ask one question. In the
cottage hospitals there are 14 doctors. Are those
in residence or are they just working part-time?
Do they have a doctor at all these cottage hospitals all the time?
Mr. Ashbourne Not as far as I am aware. They
have a doctor associated with some of them, and
they also practice in the other localities around. I
have not a list of the doctors at present associated
with the various hospitals, but I could get that if
you would like to have the names of the doctors
in the different localities.
Mr. McCormack It was mentioned about district nurses; and on page 10 it says, "304 nurses,
or one for each 1,046 of the population." It should
not be necessary for me to call attention to the
fact that the people of Trepasscy and that vicinity
are in urgent need of a nurse. They have quite a
population and are isolated all winter and I have
been trying to get a nurse installed there for some
time but could not do so. Those people have no
doctor or nurse, and over all Conception Bay
there are a lot of nurses in a section connected
with the city by railroad and taxis all winter.
Mr. Ashbourne Thank you, Mr. McCormack.
Has there never been a nurse at Trepassey?
Mr. Ashbourne It says there are places vacant,
I presume that is one of the places.
Mr. McCarthy A similar position exists at
Lourdes. Six years ago we did have one for a few
months, and two years ago we had one for two
months. I guess that's how it is with part-time
nurses.
Mr. Miller It says "...doctors in the part-time
service of the hospital". How can a man in part-
time service direct anything?
Mr. Burry It is true that this Committee found
there was a shortage of doctors, and when the
department could get one they put him at the
hospital where he was most needed and he did the
directing while he was there; but the shortage of
doctors necessitated that he would not be there
very long. I feel that when the situation changes
for the better all these cottage hospitals will have
full-time doctors in charge.
Mr. Spencer The report mentions that at present
there is no doctor on the
Lady Anderson.
[1] I
wonder how many years is it since there has been
a doctor there? It may be in some other part of the
report that I have not come to yet, but do you have
the cost of the
Lady Anderson?
Mr. Ashbourne Mr. Spencer will find in the
statistics the information that he requires. If it is
not there I will be glad to ascertain from the
department the further information that you require and see that you get it.
Mr. Hickman On the
Lady Anderson, I notice
there is at present no doctor. How long has that
been so, and to what extent does it hamper the
work for which it is intended?
Mr. Ballam In reply to Mr. Miller's question
about the 14 cottage hospital doctors working
part-time, I have been at these places and those
doctors supervise the hospital and do the surgical
work necessary, and serve the community outside on their own, and that's why it is
called a
part-time job. I can speak for Stephenville Crossing and the Bonne Bay area as well.
Usually those
localities are without medical care and doctors,
that's how they come into the category of part-
time work.
Mr. Ashbourne Thank you, Mr. Ballam. You
will find as you go through the cottage hospital
reports, they give the bed capacity and staff,
number of patient days, etc....
Answering Mr. Hickman's question, I tried to
find out about the doctor on the Lady Anderson
when I was interviewing the head of the department. He advised us that there was not
a doctor
at the present time, but they are hoping to get one
later on. I can't say what the last time was they
had a doctor.
Mr. Hickman How much would that hamper
the work of the ship?
Mr. Ashbourne Well, the nurse goes around
and does what she can in that locality. I don't
know if there is any member from that section
who could enlighten the Convention on that
point.... I am sure the nurse is doing what she can
in that district the
Lady Anderson is supposed to
cover.
Mr. Hollett I have not been there for about five
years, but I do understand that the
Lady Anderson
is costing $18,000 a year and has not had a doctor
March 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 437
for four years and very rarely has a nurse. I think
that question is well put and the Committee
should find that out.
Mr. Reddy I have been informed that the service is very satisfactory up there. I think that
requires going into thoroughly.
Mr. Spencer As far as I know there has not been
a doctor on the
Lady Anderson for the last four or
five years, and the
Lady Anderson covers that
coast and is very conspicuous by her absence.
Mr. Smallwood In reply to Mr. Hollett, if he
would look at the table of financial statistics he
will see that the cost of maintaining and operating
the
Lady Anderson for this year, which ends
today, is $11,800....
Mr. Newell You have to add the salaries —
about $7,000 for wages for the
Lady Anderson.
Mr. Ashbourne Rev. Mr. Burry has now gone
out to try and get that information from the
department, but I remember it was stressed, at the
time that we discussed this matter, the difficulty
that the department had to procure a doctor for
this service. When there has been a shortage of
doctors even for their stations on the land we can
readily appreciate and understand the difficulty
of procuring a medical man to go on the ship. I
feel sure there is great need of a medical man to
serve that part of the coast and that as soon as the
department can get a qualified doctor willing to
go on that ship one will be provided.
Mr. Hollett Whether it cost $11,000 or $35,000
is not to the point at all. What I want to know is
what service the ship can be if she has had no
doctor or nurse for four of five years? It's pertinent to the issue and these are
things we want to
find out.
Mr. Fudge I wonder if the Committee visited
any of the hospitals and made inquiries from the
patients there how often they see a doctor? I refer
now to those who go in on the government, not
paying their own hospital bill.
Mr. Ashbourne Mr. Chairman, various members of the Committee have visited various institutions.
I visited the General Hospital and went
through it, and also the Sanatorium since they
moved into the new wing, the Children's Home
and Merchant Navy Hospital, the Home for the
Aged and Infirm, and I feel sure that other members have visited other government
institutions.
During the course of my rounds I questioned
several patients about the food and care which
they were being given, and found no complaint.
I took it, of course, that in the general work of
these institutions that the doctors would make
their rounds, probably twice a day, and it did not
occur to me to ask whether the doctors did that
because I took it for granted....
Mr. Vardy I may say that on the welfare side of
it I visited just aboutevery hospital in town. I was
to the Mental Hospital with other members of the
Committee and have been there on three different
occasions, I have been to the Sanatorium and
talked to the patients. and any observations I have
I propose to make later.
Mr. Bailey We have a cottage hospital at Old
Perlican, and they also practice with a doctor in
Trinity South. The people of Bay de Verde district, including New Melbourne in Trinity
South,
practice with the doctor and hospital in Old Perlican, and the people of Trinity North
go to
Heart's Content. As you know a man or woman
has a lot of dependence in a doctor they are used
to; but we always found out that when a patient
went into hospital they had to go under another
doctor, and people often wonder if the medical
services could not have been served better if both
doctors could have had a chance to practice in the
same hospital. I don't know if the doctor has the
same chance to practice, but I know it is not
possible to get under our own doctor's care in Old
Perlican. I don't know if this condition exists in
any other part of the island, because I believe that
when a case puzzles the doctor he just calls in
another one. The people are wondering why it
costs a man in New Melbourne $10 for the doctor
and hospital, and $l4 in Old Perlican. They asked
me to find this out, whether the doctor is barred
from practicing in the hospital or whether it's his
own free will or otherwise. It seems strange when
there is a hospital in the vicinity that all doctors
should not be allowed to practice in them.
Mr. Ashbourne Mr. Chairman, as far as I know
the fee for these cottage hospitals is $10. The
doctors who attend the hospital, their wages are
$200 a month and two thirds of the fees collected.
I will try to find out why that additional $2 is
charged — is that it, Mr. Bailey?
Mr. Bailey The fee for hospitals is $4. I am
paying $4 and everybody in the district pays $6
to the doctor and $4 for the hospital, a total of
$10. When we come to New Melbourne we pay
$10 for the doctor and the hospital besides.... That
438 NATIONAL CONVENTION March 1947
is what our people are talking the most about, the
fact that when they go in hospital they go under
another doctor and not their own doctor. Their
own doctor does not practice in the hospital since
it was there. We don't know why, and people
asked me to try and find out.
Mr. Ashbourne That's probably a government
regulation about having their own doctors in the
various localities. It is quite understandable. You
could not have every doctor in every community
on the hospital staff at $200 a month, it would run
up the cost considerably. I take it that fee you pay
the doctor, who is not associated with the cottage
hospital, is a fee to have your name on his books
as we used to say in years gone by, and whoever
wanted his services, summer or winter, night or
day, would have to put his name on the books and
pay him a certain annual fee. I will try to get that
information for you.
Mr. Vincent That, to my mind, is a matter for
the local board of health. The fee is $10, and that
covers all settlements.
Mr. Crummey There are two points there, one
is that he has the family doctor, but at Old Perlican the doctor does not come within
the radius
of the hospital. He pays the family doctor for his
services, but on the other hand he is affiliating
himself with the hospital in case his family has to
go there and get special rates. If he is outside the
territory he pays $4, otherwise it is $10 altogether. There is no discrimination against
your
doctor going into that hospital, although he has
to go there under the supervision of the other
doctor.
Mr. Bailey We were wondering about that. I
don't know why because our doctor is a government doctor too.
Mr. Crummey But he is only getting a subsidy
because of your people who cannot pay. The
hospital doctor is getting his fee as a doctor in the
hospital plus the fees.
Mr. Vardy There are various scales of payment
for these cottage hospitals. I think I have a receipt
here from Walwyn Hospital
[1] for $15. There is
also a fee for the X-ray, and the $ 10 is the nominal
hospital fee, and there is a special medical fee for
certain special services if you pay the extra $5
and happen to require it. I think that's correct.
Mr. Butt On page 10:
Hospital beds: We have 1 for each 111 of our
population. Doctors: We have 1 for each 2,719
of our population. Nurses: We have 1 for each
1,046 of our population
I have no doubt that's statistically correct. I
was wondering if the Committee went into that.
In other words is there a bed available for every
111 people? In practice have they been able to get
to where we have one doctor for every 2,700
people?
Mr. Ashbourne No, it's not a general average.
In St. John's, yes.
Mr. Butt It does not work out in that way?
Mr. Butt In that case you may have one doctor
for 5,000 people.
Mr. Smallwood I think the figure taken as the
ideal is one doctor per 400 of the population. I
don't suppose there is a country that has reached
that ideal although some come much nearer to it
than we have done. Some countries average one
doctor for every 1,200.
Mr. Starkes That does not apply in White Bay
and Green Bay districts. The population down
there is around 30,000, and there is one doctor in
Baie Verte in the Bowater company's operation.
[The Secretary read the next section][2]
Mr. Hollett I would like a word on that. You
give the infant mortality rate for Newfoundland
over a period of years and on the next page the
infant mortality rate by countries. You have
Newfoundland down as 91, New Zealand 31,
South Africa 52, Denmark 45, Australia 36,
Canada 21.4. I take it that is per 1,000 births. I
am wondering if that's a typographical error, or
where did you get your statistics?
Mr. Smallwood The statistics affecting
Newfoundland were obtained from the Division
of Vital Statistics which has been keeping them
for many years past. The statistics on other
countries were obtained from their year books....
The particular question that Mr. Hollett has asked
with regard to infant mortality rate by countries,
speaking from memory I could not swear that
there is no typographical error at the bottom of
that table, Canada (1940) the rate 21.4. I suggest
that someone obtain the original script and see
March 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 439
how it checks with the mimeograph copy. It does
look very low I admit....
That's only one table, the number of children
dying in these countries under the age of one year
per 1,000 births, I am pretty sure that it's per
1,000. They have certain standard rates all over
the world, but they vary. TB is per 100,000;
maternity death rate is per 1,000 live births, what
proportion of the mothers die in childbirth, but in
all these different things it varies. I believe in
infant mortality it is per 1,000 live births. Short
of checking with the original copy, does that
answer you Mr. Hollett?
Mr. Hollett Yes, but I want to be sure, because
I have here the Canada year book for 1945 which
gives the infant mortality rate by provinces and
for the whole of Canada, and I find that in 1940
the infant mortality rate was 64 for the whole of
Canada....
Mr. Fogwill I have a table showing the world
rates for 1934-35-36, and this is somewhat
similar to those quoted by Mr. Hollett. For the
years 1921-25 the average is 98; in 1934 it was
72; 1935, 71; and 1936, 66.
Mr. Ashbourne I am glad Mr. Hollett brought
up that matter. We have here the original script
given to be mimeographed, and I notice that there
are several changes made on this list. Perhaps Mr.
Smallwood can explain because I believe he was
responsible for this; for New Zealand the original
he had was 22.6, and several of the others were
corrected and altered to give other figures. It
seems to me he has taken the wrong rate. I notice
that New Zealand, Denmark and several others
have been marked off, but the figure for Canada
was left there. It seems as if an error was made.
Mr. Smallwood I notice too that some of the
figures have been corrected in ink. I don't recall
from memory, but Australia is raised from 18 up
to 36 and Great Britain from 15 up to 54, USA
from 17 up to 40, Denmark from 18.3 up to 45,
South Africa from 25.3 up to 52, New Zealand
from 22.6 up to 31. Evidently the wrong figures
were typed in there in the first place and the
corrected ones were written in. What strikes me
as being possible is that Canada was also typed
and not corrected. I expect that is what happened....
Mr. Ashbourne I think we want to get this
report as correct as possible. I suggest that this be
amended to read Canada 1936 — 1940, average
64, and down below, Canada 1941 — 60. I think
that would cover it. As regards checking the
others I would be only too glad if any member
would do that, because we don't want any misleading information in our report....
Mr. Butt I suppose this table is given to show
something of a picture of Newfoundland's assets.
You will find that there is a little note on one of
these tables which says that this figure of 64 does
not include statistics for the territories. I point out
that nine-tenths of the population of Canada runs
straight across the American boundary. There is
something like 1,400 miles from that up, and
there is one tenth of the population in that area,
and they have a problem of isolation something
the same as we have. We ought to take into
consideration the problem of isolation in this
country as well. I know the problem we have in
public health. It is serious and terrific. We should
all give all the time and attention and energy that
we can do it, but it strikes me as odd that we make
ours out as a little worse than we need to. I think
64 would be a little high if you take in the isolated
districts. I am only just trying to keep in my mind
the fair picture of the problem in relation to our
own and those of other countries.
Mr. Smallwood This figure of 93.5 per 1,000 is
for Newfoundland and Labrador. The same thing
applies to the other countries. You take the figure
for all Newfoundland and you see how it stacks
up against other countries. Naturally, you take the
figure for all Newfoundland, and all the USA and
all of Canada, not a part of it. We had figures for
parts of Newfoundland which were much better
than that, but the average for all Newfoundland
and Labrador is 93.5 per 1,000 live births for
1943, but there are parts of the country that were
deliberately left out of the report because we
thought it would be queer to pick out certain
parts. There was one part that was 210, another
part 145.5, 118.4 ... another part is 43.5, another
part 51, etc ..... Taking the country as a whole with
Labrador it is high, but it is dropping. The report
gives the results from 1920 up to 1944, every year
inclusive, and the rate is dropping. In 1944 it shot
up again, but there is a general fall in the rate, in
other words an improvement in the infant mortality rate. We have along way to go but
our rate
is improving....
Mr. Hollett I am only interested in correcting
the figures presented to us. Apparently there is a
440 NATIONAL CONVENTION March 1947
grave error concerning the infant mortality rate
in Canada.
Mr. Bailey I wonder if we could know What the
medical services are in those sections where the
infant mortality rate is so high.
Mr. Smallwood I am not going to mention the
places where the rates are high — where it is 210
the medical service is not good, not too plentiful.
Now the other one — 145 — the rate is high but
the medical services are good, and where it is 141
the medical services are excellent. On the other
hand there is one part where the rate is the lowest
in the country and I don't believe there is a doctor
there.... It is not only the medical services, the
doctors and nurses, there are a lot of other factors.
Mr. Miller In view of that correction, the following sentence: "Newfoundland is 300-400%
worse off in her rate of infant mortality than the
countries shown", we have to accept that with
some reservation. That conclusion is definitely
based on the comparison submitted, and if we
can't feel they are really correct I don't see how
we can accept those conclusions. There is
another point, the report is signed by the full
Committee, and I would like to ask what liberty
any one person has to make alterations and add
more thereto. It seems queer no one knows
whether these figures are at random or correct or
what. I don't think that's thorough enough for our
work.
Mr. Newell It seems to me that when errors are
discovered and corrected in other reports, and the
report has been adopted as amended, there has
been dam little said about it. It seems today there
is an attempt being made, because of these errors,
to sort of throw dust over the rest of the reports.
I wonder why?
Mr. Ashbourne I suggest the report be amended
and even though I signed the Report as other
members did, believing that those figures were
right, I for one am prepared to have them corrected, and I believe I can speak for
the other
members....
Mr. Newell I don't know if this discussion,
which seems to be rather aimless, may be to make
some other country a little worse or our own
country a little better. I suggest that if we don't
know our own country well enough to know the
condition of public health it is time we got around
to finding out.
Mr. Vardy No individual tampered with the
report after it was signed. These changes were
made beforehand, it is only a minor matter, and
we should get on with the report. There were
changes made in every section of every report
brought before this Convention. There were
many times, over the welfare section. when the
guts and almost the ribs were taken out, but I did
not complain. All these 11 men had to agree
practically unanimously. If there were minor
details we disagreed over we still signed the
report, and generally speaking we agreed with the
report.... There was no juggling of figures by
anyone.
Mr. Reddy I agree with Mr. Miller. There is a
grave error here according to Mr. Hollett's year
book, and it is too bad to try and make Newfoundland any worse than she is.
Mr. Ashbourne Mr. Reddy, there was nothing
in my mind as regards to trying to do anything in
Canada's favour.... I assure you there is nothing
in my mind about trying to bias the thing in favour
of any other country or show Newfoundland in
anything other than the true light.
Mr. Banfield I think Mr. Reddy made a very
harsh statement in saying that we are trying to
build up a record for Canada.
Mr. Hillier I am quite satisfied that the Committee placed on that report the facts as received.
If
their source of information was in any way incorrect no blame is attached.
Mr. Vardy I would like to make a motion that
the next paragraph on Newfoundland be deleted.
Mr. Chairman The motion is that these words
be deleted: "Newfoundland is 300-400% worse
off ... countries shown". Are these the words you
mean?
Mr. Chairman Moved and seconded that these
words be stricken out — motion carried.
Mr. Newell I wish that the high infant mortality
rate we have in this country could be stricken out
just as easily. I notice nobody has questioned the
figure of 93.5 for 1943. That's what I am concerned with, not what it is somewhere
else —
ours is still 93.5.
Mr. Bailey I agree with Mr. Newell. I am not
worried about other countries, but I believe one
of the first things that should have been done is
to see that the medical service as regards our
mothers of the past and future are being looked
March 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 441
at. Now considering the conditions that our
people live under, and the way they work, especially our wives, and the number of
children they
bring into the world, I think the time has come in
Newfoundland when the mothers of the future
won't be bringing children into the world every
year and every second year of their lives. Mothers
of the future will be prepared, because I don't
believe it is possible, especially where a woman
has got to work in the stage and the field, and
work like a dog, to nurse and care for a brood of
15 or 20 children. I believe the time has come
when not only the medical service can be
broadened, but that education should be started
for the mothers-to-be, to give them a break, and
then we will have a healthy population. It is
impossible not to have a high rate going out when
we have so many coming in. That's what's wrong
with the country today.
Mr. Smallwood ....I don't think the Committee
would mind if I say that these statistics were
compiled by me. All the members of the Public
Health Committee were given their work to do....
This particular table, which Mr. Hollett's eagle
eye detected so quickly, was this: this is the
original script.
[1] I would like to put myself right
with him. Idon't want you to think I was a Hitler
or a Judas. It was discovered that some of the
figures were wrong and they were corrected by
me with a pen, here they are up here, but they
were not corrected all the way down to the bottom
of the column. I would be willing to stake my life,
it is the only error in this mimeographed copy,
because the error was not corrected in the original
copy. You will find all the other tables correct I
am reasonably sure. I have lived in this country
long enough to expect that my word would be
taken on something or other, but over further
there is another table here where Canada shows
up very badly in comparison with Newfoundland, and that is in the matter of maternity.
Look at page 6 in the report, Newfoundland
maternity death rate 3.7, Canada 4. That is quite
a bit worse, quite a difference. Now I did not
change it there, or try to twist it there. The same
comparison runs all through the report.... I am not
such a fool as to make a thing like that deliberately.
Mr. Hollett I am sorry I raised that point. I had
no knowledge that Mr. Smallwood had anything
to do with this. I happened to look at this table
and it struck me as being so very small that I
thought I would bring it up. There is nobody
thinks that he would do that with figures. I have
perfect faith and trust in his manipulation of
figures. If somebody suggests that, I would like
to take him outside. I had no knowledge that you
had anything to do with it, if there is any objection
let's waive the matter.
Mr. Ashbourne I have no objection whatever to
it and want to thank you for it.
Mr. Burry I express my thanks too to Mr. Hollett for bringing this to our attention. As far
as I
am concerned there is no attempt whatever on the
part of any member of the Committee to fix up
these figures to make Newfoundland appear in a
dimmer light than Canada or anyone else. I do not
like the remarks of some members insinuating
that if this was wrong then we could not take any
of the other figures. We shall be glad to make any
other corrections and do it in the interest of the
work at hand.
Mr. Banfield Referring to the remarks made by
Mr. Hollett, he was out of the room when another
member rose to his feet and made the accusation
that threw a slur on every other member of the
Public Health and Welfare Committee.
Mr. Bailey I intended to draw the attention of
the Committee to it because it was a matter of
fixing it for Canada. I looked through it before I
went out, because i knew that New Zealand has
the lowest infant mortality rate in the world.
Mr. Reddy I believe I made that remark. I am
glad the words are stricken out.
[The Secretary continued reading the report][2]
Mr. Hickman On page 5 it states, "At this writing over 100 patients have been moved into the
new Sanatorium." It would appear from the
report that that would be new patients not
hospitalised before. That is not an additional 100
patients?
Mr. Ashbourne I do not think it is. I am not
quite sure of the number out there. They are
suffering from lack of staff. They have the beds
but they have not the nurses to care for them.
Mr. Hickman It reads as if 100 new patients had
moved in.
442 NATIONAL CONVENTION March 1947
Mr. Bailey ....One thing I have been wondering,
and that is what has been done with patients from
different parts of the island and different hospitals where they have no care going
back to their
homes. I firmly believe that a lot of spreading of
the white killer has been done in that way,
whether through total ignorance or carelessness,
I do not know. The
Northern Ranger[1] should
have been a modern ship — she was a ship which
carried passengers and hospital patients from
north to south and from south to north. Fishermen
also travel on that ship. There was a case of a man
who returned from Belle Isle and shortly after
two of his girls got sick. Four months before he
had called in a doctor and who said there was no
TB. When it was all boiled down, it was found
that there was a TB patient travelling in the
steerage with that man. It ended up with five of
the family getting TB. There should be a special
place on the boats where patients from or to
hospital can be placed. If a nurse is travelling with
them, there should be accommodation for that
nurse. There have been cases on the
Northern
Ranger where the nurse had to sleep on the table.
That is one of the greatest crimes against us....
Mr. Miller Mr. Bailey has raised the point of TB
patients travelling and mixing up with other passengers. When I returned from my Christmas
vacation — you will understand there is only one
boat on the Placentia Bay route from Lamaline to
Argentia — at that particular time the boat was
packed, some sitting on chairs, some lying across
tables, some walking about the deck, etc. If you
got a place to lie down for half an hour, you were
lucky. I had occasion to go down in the second
class to see someone. The second class was also
overcrowded. When I went down someone
remarked, "We have a very sick woman on
board." As I walked along I looked just below me
in a berth, a mere frame of a person. Right down
there among a crowd of passengers.... The boat
was overcrowded and is nothing but a spreader
of disease, and to have a patient in that condition
in the second class among a crowd of passengers,
I really and sincerely think it is not good
enough....
Mr. Crosbie Could you tell me, in the case of
families on relief, who have TB in their homes,
do they get ordinary relief or do they get an
increase?
Mr. Ashbourne They do get an additional
amount. You will find that later on.
[The Secretary read the section on Recent and
Prospective Expenditures][2]
Mr. Hollett That projected expenditure — is
that capital or is it upkeep?
Mr. Ashbourne Additional capital expenditure.
Some has been made on the new general hospital....
Mr. Ashbourne They are all projected expenditures. Some of them are capital.
Mr. Crosbie There is an amount of $420,000
mentioned here for cottage hospitals.
Mr. Ashbourne That is the erection of new
hospitals. Mr. Crosbie mentioned the amount of
$100,000 — additional outpott doctors and nurses.
Mr. Newell That would be regarded as capital
— that with the others; it is an extension of
present services....
Mr. Ashbourne That would be a recurring expenditure as well. When we have the new hospitals built,
doctors will be required to staff them
for years after they are constructed.
Mr. Smallwood All the items in that table are
capital expenditures with the exception of the
$100,000 and that refers to increases in expenditures in future for doctors and nurses
in the existing institutions, for services. They are down now
where the hospital institutions and services are
below standard. To bring them up to standard will
cost  $100,000. "that does not count the additional
doctors and nurses in the additional institutions.
That $6,730,000 will be spent. Page 5: "The
Commissioner states that they could use an additional 50 nurses at the present time."
Before all
these places are built. Fifty nurses are at least
another $60,000 or more of that $l00,000. The
$30,000 or $40,000 left for doctors they need
right now.
Mr. Crosbie That is maintenance, not capital. It
recurs every year.
Mr. Miller On the question of the nurses' home.
We find that the General Hospital report says "A
splendid new Nurses' Home has been erected."
There are 47 nurses registered and 84 nurses in
training. Turning to the Fever Hospital, "It is
March 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 443
planned to erect a new nurses' home for this
institution at a cost of about $200,000." There are
only nine resident nurses — it does not give the
number of nurses in training The figures seem to
be out of proportion.
Mr. Smallwood Costs have gone up. The
nurses' home was built several years ago.
[The Secretary read the next section,[1] and the
committee adjourned to 8 pm]
Mr. McCarthy In the list of cottage hospitals,
the total revenue is given in comparison with the
expenditures and most of them with the exception
of Old Perlican seem to have collected 30% to
50% of the expenditure. This one was only about
approximately 12%. I would like the Committee
to explain the reason for the difference.
Mr. Ashbourne I took up the matter with the
secretary of the Department of Public Health and
Welfare. The Old Perlican cottage hospital, for
the year 1946, collected about $11,000 but in
1945 the amount is shown here as $3,000. I
understand there was no board of health there
previously, or otherwise it was not properly organised. That would account for it.
Mr. Smallwood I rise to explain how that error
occurred, that we were discussing this afternoon.
You will remember the infant mortality rates as
compared with other countries. This is a copy of
the official year book of the Commonwealth of
Australia. This chapter on vital statistics gives
their statistics and also statistics for other
countries. On page 339, there is a table showing
the infant mortality of many countries. Any
gentleman who wishes to look at it can see that
the figure is 21.4 in Canada; in South Africa 25.3;
in the United States 17.9; Great Britain 15;
Australia 15; New Zealand 22.6. 1 copied those
figures from the Australia year book 1942-43. ln
doing so the mistake is made. Although the headline is 'Infant Mortality' there is
also 'Crude Birth
Rate.' I discovered it and made some corrections
in ink. I was in the right table but in the wrong
column of that table. If there is any impression in
anyone's mind that that was done deliberately, I
am most anxious to convince the whole House
that it was an honest mistake that any gentleman
would have made if he were copying from that
same table.
[After some discussion, the section was adopted.
The Secretary then read the next section][2]
Mr. Smallwood ....It is worth noting, if members took the trouble to add up that first page of
statistics — 1934-35 up to 1946-47 — the total
amount spent is $45 1/2 million for the 13 years
that Commission of Government has been here.
The total amount they have spent in that one
department, Health and Welfare, is $3.5 million
a year on average — starting at $2 million and
ending up at $6 million. We all feel that the public
health part of that department has been very good.
There has been big development in public health
institutions and services. It has cost, along with
the rest, $45 million. A staggering sum of money!
Mr. Newell ....The 1945-46 figures are more up
to date in that they are the actual expenditures for
last year. As for the 1946-47 figures, they were
compiled one month ago. It should not be more
than a few thousand dollars out. One other correction: in the last section "War Pensions",
l943-
44, this figure should be $476,325.
Mr. Vardy We are making some wild jumps
there. I know figures are a bit monotonous. but I
wonder if we are giving sufficient information to
the country. I realise a whole lot of this information will be given more fully, but
I am inclined to
think we are making big jumps there. All the
details are not given. If we do not read more
figures, we will be through the report tomorrow
and the country will know little or nothing about
what we are spending $6 million for. It is the
heaviest spending department in the government,
especially if we bear in mind that the Department
of Public Works is spending a large amount. We
should, as far as possible, give the country what
information we can.
Mr. Chairman I think all these figures will be
published in the newspapers. I suggest the constant reiteration of figures becomes
utterly meaningless, even to the most intelligent men. You
cannot grasp a series of figures delivered one
after the other without a break. I do not think the
people would appreciate it. If anybody wishes to
comment on the figures, that is another matter. lf
you want your constituents to read them they will
probably do so.
Mr. Vardy I am not thinking of my constituents.
I had a telephone call from a man who complained that the cottage hospital figures
were
444 NATIONAL CONVENTION March 1947
given out in round numbers. The whole country
would want to know what was spent for
provisions; what was spent for salaries and what
for fuel and light.
Mr. Chairman The exception proves the rule.
If the Convention desires these figures to be read,
we shall read them.
Mr. Starkes I understand an old age pensioner
is supposed to be 75 years of age before he goes
on the list as a pensioner?
Mr. Starkes A man who raised a family of eight
children — three of them might have lost their
lives in the war and the others married, with
families. The old age pensioner of 75 or 80 might
have $100 in the bank and might be living with a
married son. Is it true he is not allowed to get his
pension, seeing he has $100 to pay for his
funeral? When is a man entitled to that pension?
What are the conditions after he is 75 years of
age?
Mr. Ashbourne This matter of old age pensions
is listed under the section on welfare which we
have not yet come to. There are certain regulations under which old age pensions are
granted.
It is not everyone who attains the age of 75 years
mat can send in to the government and get his
cheque. He is supposed to be pretty much in need
of the old age pension. Still, he does not have to
be in destitute circumstances. Up to quite recently, I think, the man was allowed
to have $250 in
the bank if he belonged to the outports. He could
have a somewhat larger figure, $400, in St.
John's. Although he had that amount in the bank,
if the relieving officer, after investigation of his
circumstances, approved of his application, the
old age pension could be granted. I believe it is
now $400 in the outports. Naturally an aged
person who had worked hard in the fishing boat
and on the land and had attained the ripe old age
of 75, should not have to be penniless before he
could get the pension. I do not think a man with
$100 would have any difficulty in getting an old
age pension.
Mr. Smallwood Mr. Vardy made a very good
point. Your reply, Mr. Ashboume if I may be bold
enough to say it, was very good. There are five
or six pages, masses of figures showing the
money spent the last 13 years by that department.
It is a pity the whole country could not be here
with the figures in front of them, so they could
follow them. 1 do not think it would be any harm
just to take one year, the year ending today. On
salaries: doctors, nurses. clerical — 1,374
employees $1.25 million. There were other large
amounts. Next largest is assistance to indigents,
$1 million. Next largest amount for the year, war
pensions, $750,000; next largest amount is nearly
$500,000 for widows, orphans and infirm (sick
people); next largest amount is maintenance of
hospitals and institutions $1,100,000. Another
large one is hospital grants: $150,000; grants
given to orphanages, $41,000. Local councils —
local town councils —- $200,000 for the year. For
the ambulances here in the city, $25,000. For the
year they spent $25,000 on telegrams. Travelling
expenses for employees, $36,000. All that and a
few other items thrown in comes to $6 million. I
think the country ought to know that. That is
roughly how it is made up year by year.
Mr. Newell I think when we drew up this table
we felt that it was something the members would
study at their leisure. Therefore we did not draw
the conclusions. Two of the largest amounts
spent have been on salaries and maintenance of
institutions. Salaries are just about eight times
what they were in 1934-35 — the total spent, not
the individual salaries. The same is true of hospitals and other institutions. Approximately
eight
times. What I was going to suggest is, that our
report is in two sections — public health as read
and public welfare which we are about to read.
The figures in between are applicable to both.
These figures will have more meaning if they
were taken up after having read the welfare section. There are things in the welfare
which might
be asked about here now.
Mr. Starkes $1,100,000 — what was that spent
for? Is that what was once called dole? Was $1
million in dole given out this year?
Mr. Ashbourne I have a breakdown of that. But
first I would like to answer your enquiry about
old age pensions. An old age pensioner is eligible
in the city of St. John's if the applicant is of the
age of 75 years and is in receipt of less than $40
a month or less than $600 capital. Outports: he is
eligible if in receipt of less than $20 a month or
less than $400 capital.
[*See next page]
Mr. Starkes Could you give us the exact figures
paid out in dole?
Mr. Ashbourne That is the total of relief accounts, including sick people — $803,450. You
March 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 445
will see in the welfare section when we come to
it, the total number of persons on relief, and costs
as broken down by the various districts
throughout 1946.
[*]
Mr. Cashin It was not my intention to make
many remarks on this report, but this involves a
huge expenditure of public funds and I think the
people should know how the money was spent.
This report does not tell it all. There is another
report which should have been brought in with
this. Are we going to overlook that and pass this
report by reading out a lot of figures or are we
going to have the whole truth? I would like to
know that.
Mr. Ashbourne In reply to Major Cashin, as
regards the other report, you know as much about
that as I do.
Mr. Cashin The public have not been informed
what is going on and the public are entitled to
know. All very well to read off a list of figures;
look at this $1,100,000 — $4,000 overspent.
Where is it going to end? Particularly when there
are suspicions over the whole department. It
should be cleaned up before this report goes any
further. It is up to the government to clean it up.
If we are going to whitewash everything, it is time
to close down the whole Convention. If I am in
order I would move that the committee rise,
report progress and ask leave to sit again; and in
the meantime find out what is happening to the
other affair before we go any further into the
matter.
Mr. Smallwood Before we vote on it, does
Major Cashin really mean that?
Mr. Cashin When I make a motion of that kind,
I mean it.
Mr. Smallwood I was wondering, if he puts it to
a vote — I am trying to picture developments
from hour to hour. We have Easter coming up. I
am sure Major Cashin knows the position of the
Committee.
Mr. Cashin I understand the position of the
Committee. I think this Convention should
demand an explanation. This document was
given us two or three months ago. Inquiries are
going on in one department and the public knows
nothing about it. Nasty rumours are going around
about this department and I contend we should
not go any further until it is cleaned up.
Mr. Chairman I did not recognise at first what
you had in mind. I appreciate the situation now.
Your motion is still in order, of course. I would
like to point out that this Convention has no
authority to obtain any such information from the
government and if the government refuses, there
is nothing we can do about it. In the meantime, I
do suggest this to you: that these proceedings can
go along. We are not likely to finish the report
tonight. Even should we do so, on the
committee's report you can raise the question
again. I think that would be the better place to
raise it.
Mr. Cashin I appreciate your suggestion. This
has been on the go for some time. True it does not
concern the Convention, but these people are
trustees of the people's money. We are the only
elected representatives of the people in existence.
I hold, whether under the Convention Act or any
other act, we should demand and get an explanation into the whole business. If not,
we are
derelict in our duty here tonight. They saw fit to
give us a document two or three months ago. We
have kept our months shut about it. I want to serve
notice on the government that I am going to open
my mouth about it. My motion still stands.
Mr. Penney In regard to Major Cashin's motion, I wonder could we not defer action on that
at this time and proceed with our work and when
the recapitulation of the reports come in, we will
446 NATIONAL CONVENTION March 1947
have an opportunity then.
Mr. Cashin Getting the information is another
thing.
Mr. Vardy Mr. Penney has given the thoughts I
had in mind when Major Cashin made the motion. I feel if I could go on with the report
it would
be better. We have Mining to come in and then
Finance and then the delegation to London has to
move off. This will give us time to consolidate all
this into the main report. Eventually we all have
to take our stand here. We have to pick to pieces
all these reports and it is my firm conviction that
Major Cashin will not find himself alone at that
time. I have done all I possibly could to get the
information he refers to released to the Convention and to the people of this country.
A whole
lot of the facts contained in the various documents will be looked into when a fully
qualified
government takes office in this country, and I do
feel we should do nothing to jeopardise the work
of the Convention. I would like to see Major
Cashin reconsider his position. I think we will get
further in the end. We will all support each other
when that main report comes before this Convention and every man is called upon to
speak according to the dictates of his conscience. Let us
get on with the report. I would again ask Major
Cashin to please reconsider his motion.
Mr. Cashin In reply to Mr. Vardy, it looks to me
like a case of whitewashing. We all know they
have been down in that department digging up
things and the report is incomplete. It does not
contain the right facts and you know it. When we
go to England I want to know the true statement
of the Public Health and Welfare Department
before I go over and talk to the Dorninions
Secretary, otherwise how am I to know? The
department is under a shadow. Clean it up! They
have been at it six months; it could have been
done three months ago. The Department of
Public Health is deliberately hiding facts from
this country.
Mr. Penney I want to tell Major Cashin and the
House that I am not in favour of smothering
anything. I know in this report there is a whole
lot of stuff hidden that the country and the House
should know. But as I said we shall have an
opportunity later to go into that and to demand all
the information we want. I think at this time it is
better to get ahead with all the work we can. You
have to go overseas the 24th or 25th of April and
we can get that information later.
Mr. Cashin I am prepared to compromise. I am
prepared to go ahead but on condition that the
report will not be definitely received until they
get this information.
Mr. Chairman That is a matter for the Convention to decide when we have the motion to receive
the report and lay it on the table. That was my
suggestion to you. Am I to understand that your
motion is withdrawn?
Mr. Crosbie I am not satisfied to withdraw.
Three months ago we were asked to receive a
confidential report. We were not allowed to use
it or release it. What have they been doing? Are
they going on investigating until the Convention
winds up? I think the people are entitled to know
about it. I regret very much that I took the confidential report. If I had not taken
it I might be
able to print it.
Mr. Chairman I still suggest that the bringing
up of this matter on the report of the committee
is the proper place to hold up the report. In the
meantime I suggest we let the details of the report
go through. This is a committee of the Convention to examine the details of the report
and to
amend as the committee thinks they ought to be
amended. When the report comes formally
before the Convention, the whole thing is in the
melting pot again and can be all discussed. I
suggest you let it go through.
Mr. Chairman The motion is withdrawn with
the consent of the mover and the seconder.
Mr. Hollett In connection with that statement
that $45 million has been spent by the Commission of Government on public health;
also in
connection with the matter raised this afternoon
in connection with the
Lady Anderson, it was
intimated there was no doctor and no nurse. It was
also insinuated that the hospital ship was not
doing as much as she could in regard to medical
services. I would like to point out....
Mr. Ashbourne I rise to a point of order. We
have not said that the hospital ship has not had a
nurse. I have the information here. Since June
1941 there has been no doctor available, but there
has been a nurse on the ship continuously. There
is a nurse on the ship now.
March 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 447
Mr. Hollett In that connection, I would like to
point out that during the past four years it has cost
the country $45,000 to send a nurse on the southwest coast. Whether that is right
or not, I do not
know. I am wondering if the Committee enquired
into that?
Mr. Hillier I think the point is the ship brings
patients from the various places to the hospital,
accompanied by a nurse. She may have been
instrumental in saving a number of lives. If she
has done that it would not have been a waste.
Probably she has been giving better service than
we know. I do not know much about the service.
Mr. Hollett I am asking the Committee to give
us some information about it.
Mr. Banfield There have been periods of time,
longer than a week, when that ship was without
a nurse. I know what the expenditure is; whether
it is justifiable to the taxpayers of the country, I
do not know.
Mr. Burry I telephoned Mr. Crummey and he
told me the ship has a nurse continuously except
when they have a change-over and that is a period
of a week or longer.
Mr. Burry I do not know the coast very well,
perhaps Mr. Banfield might be able to answer
that.
Mr. Harrington On that matter of the
Lady
Anderson, it is only fair to the Convention to
point out, as far as I could gather from the interviews, that there is a difference
of opinion in the
department as to the value of the ship. As far as
territory is concerned, actually when she went
into service she covered part of the southwest
coast, Burgeo to Hermitage. Now she is on the
Fortune Bay run. The point should be made clear
as to what her real value is. If she has saved one
or two lives, her services are worth that.
[The Secretary read the next section, on Welfare][1]
Mr. Cashin On page 4, what does that mean,
"special orders (nourishment) $10 per month per
head for very needy cases?"
Mr. Cashin I have heard some peculiar remarks
regarding this "nourishment".
Mr. Smallwood Does not that refer to special
amounts given over and above the regular
amount of dole? There are some persons who are
sick and need special nourishment.
Mr. Ashbourne That is given on a doctor's
order — milk, eggs, soup and other things for
people in delicate health, to build up their bodies.
Mr. Vardy Under this $10 order they get special
orders for milk and other food — so many milk
tickets; order on the butchers; and various other
items, including fruit. '
Mr. Fudge I wonder ifthe people in my district
get those milk tickets, fruit and fresh meat? "Orders on the butcher" — where do they
get that?
Mr. Ashbourne In reply to Mr. Fudge, I have
here a circular signed by Dr. McGrath from the
department to all doctors, district nurses and
relieving officers:
I am directed by the Commissioner of Public
Health and Welfare to give you a ruling in
respect of the policy of the department for the
issuing of special food orders...special food
orders were designed for tuberculosis; following operations and childbirth. This
nourishment is not especially intended for
chronic cases, such cases should be referred
to the relieving officer....
Mr. Cashin I wonder if Mr. Ashboume could
try and get a statement from the department as to
the total amount paid last year under the special
nourishment orders of $10; and could you give us
a statement how much was paid in each district
under that heading, in goods or in cash?
Mr. Fudge I note there that the relief in the
outports is $5 per head; special nourishment
$7.50; in St. John's, $1l.25 and $10 per head. I
wonder why the difference. I doubt if some of the
outports I know get either $7.50 or $5.
Mr. Fudge I doubt if some of those people get
$10 in the outports. I have in mind one or two
places, and according to what I can gather they
have not gotten it. lt largely depends on the
relieving officer. However, I would be pleased
indeed if any of those people who have to apply
to the relieving officer in the district of Humber
and who have not gotten this special $10, would
wire me collect tomorrow, so we can get a true
picture. It depends upon the relieving officer as
to what an individual gets — if the relieving
448 NATIONAL CONVENTION March 1947
officer likes him he may give him something, if
he does not, he will not. There is a special case I
know in Flowers Cove where a man had a large
family and had to take dole. The result was he had
to come to the Lakeside.
[1] Another man had to
travel 20 odd miles to get the dole and he went
out of this world before he was sent for.
Mr. Ashbourne If Mr. Fudge will refer to page
18, he will see the number on Relief and costs per
district for 1946. It says there sick people in the
Humber district — 204 — which at $5 would be
$1,020. The amount given is $1,070.00. I
presume there were five $10 orders given in
addition to the $5.
Mr. Smallwood I must have been napping. On
page 2 there is a little table that ought to be read
out. It starts in 1934. If I remember, that is the
year the investigation starts with, the changes that
have taken place in Newfoundland since 1934.
The reason 1934 is given is because that is the
year the Commission of Government came here.
This shows from 1934-39, the number of people
in Newfoundland on relief — March, 1937,
80,000; 1938, 45,000; March 1939, 67,000. It
seems to me these ought to be read out. Up to the
outbreak of war we were still on the dole.
Mr. Bailey I do not think anybody in the country
is going to forget it.
Mr. Smallwood I find a lot of people who do
forget it. Thousands of people think that before
the Commission of Government came the
country was on the dole. I know a lot of people
who will tell you honestly that dole came here
before Commission and that since Commission,
everything has been prosperous. But these
figures that the Commission gave us do not show
that. They show us they had tens of thousands on
the dole up to the day the war broke out; it did not
disappear, it went right on. When the war broke
out they increased it; we were giving them a lot
more money — our money.
Mr. Fudge I notice in this report that in 1934 the
outport people were receiving $1.80 per month
relief. In the city of St. John's they received $6
per month.
Mr. Bailey On page 5, 1935 — $2, what does
that mean?
Mr. Ashbourne That was given per person for
relief, as against $5 in 1946. It is $5 now.
Mr. Bailey 1935-39 a lot of people did not get
that.
Mr. Starkes In the outports, 1931-34, a person
on relief received $1.80 per month; at St. John's
they received $6 per month plus free house rent
and free medical attendance.
Mr. Bailey I cannot see why those figures are
here; they are not true. I was in contact with the
relieving officer and he told me there was nothing
given above $1.80 a month — that was before
1939.
Mr. Cashin They gave them 20 cents extra —
they made it $2 instead of $1.80.
Mr. Miller Twenty cents a month was worth
more then than it is today.
Mr. Fowler It is significant that 1933-34, prior
to the war, the cost of government relief was $1.5
million. Now this year, 1946-47, immediately
after hostilities, you see the amount spent on
reliefis practically the same $1.1 million. I would
like to ask, is it a fact that in the outports every
person gets $5 a head for relief? For instance, if
a woman and child is left and her husband is
incapacitated, do they get $5 each per month?
Mr. Fowler If that wife and child should be
incapacitated, do they get an extra $10?
Mr. Ashbourne Only under special orders —
either from a doctor or relieving officer.
Mr. Fowler I have a special case in mind, where
a man is in hospital, expecting to be there ten or
12 months. He has a wife and child of two or three
months; no income to depend on. What, in your
opinion, should that family receive? The figures
look encouraging, but when you get down to
brass tacks, those figures do not work out. I agree
with Mr. Fudge when he said anyone not receiving what they are entitled to should
wire him. It
is all right to publish figures and say that the wife
and the child gets $5 each and $10 for special
orders, they sound fine and look fine on paper;
but when you come to see them in cold reality, I
can tell you it is not a bit as encouraging as it is
here. I think everyone in that condition should
make representation to someone in authority. I
know people who are not getting anything near
March 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 449
it. Do you think that a wife left with a small child,
her husband in hospital — should they get $5 a
month each and $10 a month extra for sick relief?
Is that the opinion of your Committee?
Mr. Ashbourne In reply to Mr. Fowler, of
course this man would have to qualify for relief
because I presume he has not any means or any
bank account. If you give me the name of the
person and the locality, I will investigate it for
you.
Mr. Fowler I am not questioning you as a minister of the Crown. I know that you, as chairman
of the Committee, are doing your utmost. In
private I will give you the name of the man in
question and point out to you where he is not
getting near the amount stated in this report. It is
not any fault of yourself or your Committee but
the fault lies somewhere between the relieving
officer and the department concerned.
Mr. Starkes Would this be correct, page 19
[1] —
341 receiving able-bodied relief in March, 1946?
Mr. Ashbourne These are the figures supplied
us by the department.
Mr. Starkes And in April 1939, the total on
relief was 84,659 — that was five years after
Commission of Government came here. Would
that be right?
Mr. Vardy In regard to the 341 on able-bodied
relief in White Bay, I asked the department why
that was so and they explained it was in a section
where the fishery was an absolute failure. They
were compelled to give temporary relief.
With reference to the 84,000, that was the peak
of all time.
Mr. Northcott To go back to the "three score
years and ten". Take an old man of 75 years, he
gets $12.50. Is that man entitled to able-bodied
relief or sick relief?
Mr. Ashbourne No. The amount is different
now, it is $18.1fa man is married, he and his wife
get $30 a quarter.
Mr. Chairman Perhaps it might be just as well
to run through these tables so that members of the
committee could ask questions. One or two questions are given where we have read thus
far.
[The Secretary read the table[2]]
Mr. Hollett In that summary, under able-bodied
relief, the number is given as 2.688. I look back
to page 18 and I find that is wholly for St. John's.
There is no able-bodied relief anywhere else?
Mr. Ashbourne I do not think there was; it was
practically non-existent.
Mr. Hollett That was the only able-bodied relief
last year. I want to bring that up because I saw
where there were something like 5,600 on relief
in Halifax which is another seaport town. It is
something which is not the general condition of
things either in this country or in Canada, but it
is a seasonal thing which takes place.
Mr. Ashbourne Yes, it is a seasonal thing.
These men got out of employment and cannot get
any further work, Naturally they have to fall back
on the government. I presume it is mostly
labourers and longshoremen. In winter time work
is slack. I presume the same thing would apply to
Halifax.
Mr. Ballam If you look through the whole year,
you will find those conditions existed throughout
the year and not seasonally except for White Bay.
Mr. Vardy At the present time there are slightly
over 100 outside the city on able-bodied relief.
[The Secretary continued to read. The committee then rose and reported progress and
the Convention adjourned]
