1957-12-21

Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, later this morning I shall be introducing a bill to amend the Criminal Code with regard to the humane slaughtering of food animals. It is the intention to give this bill first reading only and I should like to make a statement now to advise the house of our plans.
For some time there has been a growing demand for action that would compel the slaughterers of food animals to adopt a humane method of killing. The concern has been mainly that these animals are subjected to shackling, hoisting, bleeding, or other processes connected with slaughtering while they are still fully conscious. Special humane slaughter associations have been formed and these, together with the various branches of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, have spearheaded the drive for legislation to make humane methods of slaughter mandatory.
The previous government took the position that no further legislation was necessary; that the present section 387 of the Criminal Code makes it an offence to cause unnecessary pain and suffering to an animal, and that all that was required was enforcement of this legislation. However, a test case involving the usual slaughter methods in an abattoir came before a magistrate in Vancouver this fall and was dismissed. The decision was appealed, but the appeal was also dismissed. This demonstrated pretty conclusively that something more is required, and we are prepared to act accordingly.
There are difficulties in this field which all have recognized. There are questions as to what type of action or legislation is called for by the government, and at what level of government, and whether a method or methods of humane slaughter exist which it would be sound, from a practical and economic point of view, to require the slaughterers to follow.
A special committee was formed in the province of Ontario to study these problems,
including representatives from the meat packers' council of Canada and the Ontario
S.P.C.A. The government made available two of its experts in the field, and more recently the national research council has joined in a full-scale investigation program.
The government welcomed the formation of this committee and looked forward to its advice. We were concerned to avoid action which would produce legislation which would either be simply unenforced and unenforceable or, alternatively, if enforced would simply result in driving a number of packers out of business. At the suggestion of the committee action was accordingly deferred until they might have an opportunity to report.
An interim report was received from the committee on October 31, and on November 13 my colleague the Minister of Agriculture and I, together with our parliamentary assistants and departmental officers, met with the joint chairmen and other representatives of the committee.
At that meeting we were advised that while no complete solution to the problem of method so far as hogs and sheep are concerned had been agreed upon as being immediately practicable for universal action in Canada, nevertheless such methods do exist. We were also advised that there was agreement that humane methods of slaughter of cattle could immediately be enforced. It was also clear that the committee felt that action by government is essential.
The committee is to continue its study on the same basis as before, with the full assistance of the government experts and the national research council. In this connection I find that I must make a correction in a statement I made on December 10. It was my understanding as a result of that meeting, that the S.P.C.A. representatives felt there was nothing further they could usefully do, having made clear their views as to the necessity for legislation. I am glad to find that they are continuing as members of the committee, and that the committee is functioning fully.
There is, then, general agreement that humane methods of slaughter exist and can be made applicable in Canada although there are still some problems to be solved. In considering our course of action we have had to bear the following factors in mind. First,

Ministerial Statements that there is a measure of divided responsibility, and that in any criminal legislation to be introduced we must bear in mind that the responsibility for enforcement rests with the provinces. Second, that hasty action on the part of the government might force out of business abattoirs and packing plants and could result in a shortage of such commodities as bacon, etc. Third, that impracticable or unenforceable legislation does more harm than good. Fourth, that the provinces have an interest in the matter especially from the point of view of enforcement, and therefore should be consulted.
We have accordingly drafted a bill which we believe to be practical and enforceable, first reading of which I shall be moving in a few moments. It is not the intention to proceed further with the bill at this session, but to make it available to all interested persons, including especially the attorneys general of the provinces. We shall welcome their views and suggestions as to the legislation, and also the views and suggestions of the packers and all those interested or involved in this problem.
All representations received will then be studied, and we shall be prepared to make such changes in the legislation as appear desirable in the light of those studies. After making such changes as are necessary we would propose to reintroduce and enact the legislation at the next session of parliament.
In this way we will hope to have sound legislation which will produce the desired result with a minimum of hardship and a maximum of co-operation.



CRIMINAL CODE


Edmund Davie Fulton: for leave to introduce Bill No. 241, to amend the Criminal Code (slaughtering of animals).


Mr. Herridge:: I congratulate the government on accepting the C.C.F. approach.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



ATLANTIC PROVINCES


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to authorize the government of Canada to enter into

agreements with any of the Atlantic provinces to provide assistance in the generation of electric energy by thermal electric power projects and in the control and transmission of electric energy, and including provisions for the payment of a subvention on coal used in the production of electric energy.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George H. Hees (Minisier of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre asked why the work program announced by the Canadian National Railways did not include some special projects for Fort Rouge and Trans-cona.
The car equipment program that is being undertaken by the Canadian National Railways is the conversion of damaged or obsolete cars into extra gang feeding cars, bunk cars, and so forth. This work can only be done in regularly equipped car shops. In the case of Fort Rouge, as the hon. member knows, the car shops at that point were destroyed by fire two years ago. With regard to Trans-cona, a special work program on hopper and general service cars is already under way there.
I might advise the house that I have asked the management of the Canadian National Railways to make a careful review of possible work projects that might be put into effect at other points on the system, and they have assured me they will do so.
Also, yesterday the hon. member for St. Antoine-Westmount inquired if it is the intention of the railway to proceed more rapidly with the work at Cote de Liesse and other points in the Montreal area.
As he knows, a contract has been let for grading at Cote de Liesse, and the management advise me that this work is well in hand and they do not think it could be further expedited. With regard to other points in the Montreal area, as I have just mentioned in reply to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, the management have indicated they will give earnest consideration to expanding the work program wherever that is possible.
The hon. member for Essex East asked yesterday if the work program planned for Windsor airport could be expedited. Certain additional runway work is contemplated for the airport next year, and my officials are presently reviewing the project to see whether a start could be made this winter. The problem is one of getting the engineering

plans ready, and every effort will be made to expedite the project, although it is not yet possible to say exactly how soon tenders may be called.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisia-Twillin-gate):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might address a question to the Minister of Transport. I wonder if in view of the unique national importance of Gander airport his department is still giving consideration to the possibility of federal assistance to the hospital at Gander, which consideration was begun by the previous administration.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I answered that question some time earlier this year-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think it was that question.


George Harris Hees: -and the hospital at Gander is, I am told, the responsibility of the provincial government.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps I could remind the hon. gentleman-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, perhaps I should ask the hon. gentleman if he has not found on consulting the files that the previous administration did consider the possibility of federal assistance, and that no final decision was made about it.


George Harris Hees: It is my information that no decision was taken by the previous administration to give the assistance for which the hon. member is asking.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is precisely what I said; it was still under consideration.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I am told by my department that the previous administration did not agree to give the assistance. The hon. member is now asking the present government to do something which the previous government did not do.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps I could clarify that-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It is not in order to make clarifying statements at this stage of the day.
Inquiries of the Ministry



DEER LAKE, NFLD.    FURTHER CONSTRUCTION ON AIR STRIP

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. M. Batten (Humber-St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Is the minister in a position to give any information regarding what provision has been made for further construction on the air strip at Deer Lake in the province of Newfoundland?


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I wish to thank the hon. member for advising me some time ago of his intention to ask this question.
There was an agreement in principle, I believe, with the provincial government of Newfoundland about a sharing of costs in certain further development at the Deer Lake air strip, but the provincial government was not able to provide funds for this purpose in 1957. We remain ready to discuss further development with them at any time.



PROPOSED INCREASE IN DUTY ON FRUITS AND VEGETABLES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. McMillan (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance, and in his absence to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Can the minister inform the house as to what action was taken or what conclusions were reached at GATT in respect to the proposed increase in duties on fruits and vegetables?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Marler:: Very informative.


William Hector McMillan: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Will he inform the house whether the meetings of GATT have been concluded for this year, and whether the duties on fruits and vegetables coming into Canada were discussed at those meetings?


Mr. Speaker:: I think that question might properly be put on the order paper. It does not seem to me to be one of urgency.



MISSION TO UNITED KINGDOM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. L. Houck (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. He may take it as notice if he wishes, because I realize he has not been back in his office long

Inquiries of the Ministry enough to have answered all his fan mail. I wonder if the minister has received any letters of protest from Welland, St. Catharines, Hamilton or Peterborough pursuant to the $10 million purchase of hydro equipment in the United Kingdom and, if so, would he table those letters?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Concerning the $10 million purchase of what?


William Limburg Houck: Hydro equipment.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I have not received any letters of protest with regard to that matter, but again I have not checked all my mail.



CASH ADVANCES ON FARM-STORED GRAIN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. A. Tucker (Rosthern):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Could he tell the house the amount that has been advanced to farmers under the cash advance plan?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As of December 18, 1957, the total of the advances was $22,281,361. The total amount refunded to date is $408,836. This leaves a total advance outstanding of $21,872,525.


Walter Adam Tucker: Could I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister have that broken down by provinces?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have. The figures by provinces are as follows:
Total Total
Number of amount amount Province	applications	advanced	refundedManitoba	
7,597	$ 4,942,911	$127,042Saskatchewan	..	17,758	13,866,410	246,838Alberta	
5,187	3,472,040	34,956



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. M. T. McDonald (Hamilton South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Can the minister say whether the combines branch has recently received complaints about the loss leader selling of cigarettes and, if so, what is being done about it?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, although it is ordinarily not the practice to disclose whether inquiries are going on in any particular trade or industry unless and until a report is made and published, nevertheless since no particular part

of the business community is identified in the question just asked I can say that the combines branch has lately received a considerable number of complaints about the loss leader selling of cigarettes with injurious effects on small businesses. Inquiries are accordingly being pursued under section 412 of the Criminal Code. This section provides in part that it is an offence to engage in a policy of selling goods at prices unreasonably low, having or designed to have the effect of substantially lessening competition or eliminating a competitor. The inquiry will be pursued vigorously.



DISA3LED PERSONS STATEMENT ON AMENDMENT OF REGULATIONS UNDER ACT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Monleith (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre asked me whether or not the regulations pertaining to the Disabled Persons Act had been amended since the revision of this measure at the current session of parliament.
In answer, I would inform the hon. member that a number of changes had to be made in the disability allowance regulations consequent upon the amendments to the act approved by parliament last month. For example, changes in the legislation with respect to the eligibility of certain patients in certain types of institutions require some follow-up by way of alterations in the regulations covering this same matter. These changes are under consideration at the present time, and when drafts are ready the provincial authorities will be consulted with regard to them. As soon as there is general agreement on the text of proposed changes in the regulations these will be put forward for approval by the governor in council. I expect that this will be done early in the new year.
I might add, Mr. Speaker, that I have not forgotten the undertaking I gave at the time of the debate on the Disabled Persons Act to carry out a comprehensive review of the regulations as soon as possible. For reasons which the hon. member will, I am sure, appreciate, I have not yet been able to complete this task, but I shall follow up what I said during the debate at the earliest possible opportunity.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. As I look at

the list of the cabinet ministers, according to precedence I gather that my good friend the Minister of Veterans Affairs is at the moment the Acting Prime Minister in this house. My question is based on press reports that senior members of the government regard it as a matter of non-confidence that the committee on external affairs decided to call Mr. Lawson and Mr. Zeckendorf to appear before that committee. Can the Acting Prime Minister give us the assurance that the government will not interfere in any way with the unanimous decision of that committee?


Hon. A. J. Brooks (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, my term of office as Acting Prime Minister is going to be short. Perhaps I should explain to the house that the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) would have been here himself at eleven o'clock this morning except that his plane is late. We are expecting him here very shortly, and I shall call his attention to the question asked by the hon. member and see whether we can get him an answer. Frankly, I know nothing about it.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alistair Stewart (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister another question which perhaps can be taken as notice. In view of the fortunate and indeed pleasant situation which exists in this house, is the government prepared to give consideration to having an all-party meeting with a view to the election of a permanent Speaker?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I shall certainly take that as notice, sir.

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


[Stage Direction]
249. Departmental administration, $1,303,859.
Mr. Martin (Essex East):: Is the minister going to make a statement? I think he will find it is the custom, particularly when a minister is introducing estimates for the first time, for him to take advantage of the opportunity to make a statement. I am wondering whether the hon. gentleman intends to follow that course.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, it may be the traditional course for a minister being in such
Supply-Health and Welfare a position for the first time to make a statement, but I do not propose to do so. I propose to follow the example set by the previous minister of the department for many years past of not making an opening statement but replying to questions as the estimates are proceeded with.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words at this time. First of all I should like to take advantage of this opportunity to say what I am sure the minister has learned by this time, that the Department of National Health and Welfare is indeed manned by a distinguished group of public servants from the deputy minister level down to the lower grade workers. As one who was minister of the department for almost 11 years I thought I should like to take this opportunity to pay a tribute to the personnel of the Department of Health and Welfare who made my task an agreeable one; a task, I think, that produced some very constructive results.
The Acting Prime Minister said the other day that Canada had reason to be proud of its public servants. I am sure all of us in every quarter of the house will agree with that observation, and I want to say in particular that the public servants of the Department of National Health and Welfare are ladies and gentlemen who have served and are serving the country with distinction and the people of the Canada have every reason to be proud of them. As the former minister I want to say in the house that I have special reason to be grateful for the loyalty and service which they gave to Canada and to the department during my tenure of office.
I am wondering whether or not it is the minister's intention to indicate at some stage the extent to which it has been possible for him to cut down the expenditures of the department, in accordance with the statements made during the course of the election campaign by hon. gentlemen opposite. I recognize, of course, that the expenditures of the Department of National Health and Welfare are by no means all controllable, but there are areas where, if an administration wanted to, that could be done. I do not know whether or not the minister will indicate whether he has been able to effect the kind of savings which it was suggested, not with regard to any particular department but with regard to the government generally, would be effected by the administration of which he is now a member. We shall look forward to hearing from him in that particular later on.
I want to take advantage on the first item to again express what I believe is a wide measure of regret in this country at the failure of the government to give evidence

Supply-Health and Welfare of any progress in the implementation of the federal government's share of responsibility under the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act. This matter has been referred to by interrogation in the house and by statements made by some hon. members from time to time, but I think the minister will agree that anything I have said, certainly anything involving him personally, cannot be characterized as having been anything but responsible and fair. However, I find it necessary now to say that as we come to the period of adjournment, after many days of discussion in parliament since October 14, there is a wide measure of regret at the lack of evidence of progress being made by this government in respect of this particular matter.
In reply the hon. gentleman may say that as a result of the discussions at the dominion-provincial conference my statement cannot be fully substantiated. In that context I think it must be realized what took place at the dominion-provincial conference. The Prime Minister at that conference said-although he had refused to say so on the Friday before the conference in this house-that the federal government was prepared to include tuberculosis and mental illness under the terms of the hospital insurance act. He noted that this was in conformity with assurances he himself had given during the course of the election campaign and assurances that had been given by implication as a result of the stand taken by hon. gentlemen opposite when they were in opposition.
The fact is that these promises are not being kept by the government in its stated policy. The Prime Minister said the federal government was prepared to include tuberculosis and mental illness but that the costs involved would be deducted from any increase made in further fiscal grants to the provinces. That statement is not in conformity with the promises made during the election campaign. That is not the kind of urging that was made of the previous government by hon. gentlemen opposite when they were in the opposition. The result will be -and I am now giving my warning to the minister-that certainly two provinces, namely the province of Ontario and the province of Quebec, will want to get their full fiscal grants under the new arrangement. Then in subsequent years, having received those moneys, they will come to the administration and seek to get compensation with regard to tuberculosis and mental illness. I am sure the minister will be aware of that danger. I am sure it is a likely development as a result of the changed position which the government has taken in this matter.


My reason for expressing regret again is that the minister, in answer to questions, has not revealed that any negotiations whatsoever have taken place between the government and the provincial governments in the matter of the implementation of the hospital insurance act. The minister has said on occasion that his officials are available, and we know that recently there was a technical conference on the public services level. However, I am sure the only way in which to make progress in a matter of this sort is for these negotiations to be initiated and carried on by the minister himself. Officials in government departments can go only so far. They must always have their conduct tempered by considerations of government policy. The only way in which you can have any advance made in a matter of this sort is by a vigorous interest on the part of the minister concerned and on the part of the government as a whole.
In this context I ask the minister this question. Apart from his meetings at the dominion-provincial conference, can he tell the house what negotiations he has carried on with any provincial government in trying to encourage the latter to take steps by which this measure can be implemented at the earliest possible date? I find it difficult to understand why, at this late date, there are no agreements whatsoever with any of the provinces. I cannot understand why there are no agreements signed now with the provinces of Saskatchewan and British Columbia, provinces that now have schemes in being. If the minister wants to give the country the impression that there has been no dilatoriness on his part or on the part of the administration, I think he will have to explain why no agreements have yet been concluded with at least these two provinces in which hospital insurance is in existence.
Prior to the election on June 10 the situation was that all the provinces that had expressed their willingness to come within the four corners of the federal scheme had been sent a draft master agreement. My recollection is that not only had that agreement been sent to the provinces of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and Ontario but that as well, in order to facilitate matters, we had sent the agreement to the provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, two provinces that had given evidence of rather intensive interest in the possibility of an agreement with the federal government.
What has happened? What reaction have we had from the provinces with regard to these agreements? Why has no agreement

been signed yet, for instance, with the province of Ontario? In the month of April we met with the government of the province of Ontario and I indicated, on behalf of the government of the day, that if by the end of September we had not concluded agreements with any of the provinces we would have to give consideration to arrangements which would place the province of Ontario in a position where it could begin its scheme without any concern over the failure of other provinces to participate. This is a serious situation. Ontario has indicated that it is going to begin its scheme on January 1 next. In the meantime, in a large province like Ontario-


Jay Waldo Monteith: May I interrupt the hon. member at this point? Did the hon. member really mean January 1 next?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No; January 1, 1959.


Jay Waldo Monteith: That is better.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I thank my hon. friend for that correction. The situation is that in the province of Ontario arrangements are now being made-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am sure, Mr. Chairman, that the applause which greeted the entrance into this chamber of the Prime Minister will be shared by everyone, and that as the one who has the floor I would be expected to say on our behalf how pleased we are to see the Prime Minister back. We are looking forward at the earliest opportunity to a report from him on important matters; we trust his health is good; we believe that his humour is satisfactory, and we hope his outlook for the future will be tempered by events over which he will not have the fullest control.
My colleague the former minister of agriculture tells me the Minister of Finance has also come in, and I welcome back that hon. gentleman. I am glad to see him in a happy mood, which I hope will also temper his conduct in the future. The Minister of National Defence and the Secretary of State for External Affairs are also home. I hope they have had a very useful assignment at a very important meeting, and we will be looking forward to having a report from them.
On this particular matter which I am discussing, however-


Mr. Green:: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, I believe the Prime Minister is prepared to make a statement at once, not having taken advantage of an opportunity to do so either to the C.B.C. or the press at
NATO-Paris Conference the airport. I wonder if the house would give unanimous consent to revert to motions so that he may make his statement now.


Mr. St. Laurent (Quebec East):: Mr. Chairman, I think it would be the desire of the committee that we rise, report progress and be given leave to sit again later this day, because I am sure we are all anxious to assure the Prime Minister and his colleagues of our pleasure at seeing them back, of welcoming them most warmly and congratulating them on their safe return from a very important meeting of the north Atlantic treaty organization about which we all are most anxious to hear the impressions of the Prime Minister and, if possible, have confirmed to us the optimistic expressions of those impressions which we have read in the newspapers.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, we also are happy to join in the unanimous consent that we rise and report progress and that the house then revert to motions. We would like to join in the welcome to the Prime Minister and his colleagues on their return to this house which has already been extended by a spokesman for and the leader of the official opposition.
Mr. Chairman, since we are doing a number of things these days by unanimous consent, and since there are a few members who are not in the chamber but who would, I am sure, like to hear the report of the Prime Minister, I wonder if we could either delay a moment or two or if we could do a most unusual thing and ring the bell to bring those members back.


Mr. Low:: Mr. Chairman, we would like to make the motion unanimous, and also wish to join the other members in welcoming back the Prime Minister and his colleagues from their trip. We are glad to see they are here safely and looking well. I do not quite understand the patch on the cheek of the Secretary of State for External Affairs; perhaps he could explain that to us later on.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He
forgot to turn the other cheek.
Progress reported.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank the house for granting me the right at this time, by their indulgence, to say a few

NATO-Paris Conference reports on everything we do, similar to the practice followed in all other NATO military commands.
Now I come to the question that was raised in the house in connection with economic developments. To a surprising degree, I thought, having regard to the experience of the last few years, it was reiterated over and over again that NATO is more than a military alliance; that it is a community whose members are guided by similar fundamental ideas, and that under article II of the treaty we have agreed to give effect to the community by co-operation and collaboration in the important aspects of international relations.
At the meeting this week the flowering of this concept of the Atlantic community was much in evidence. There was not a great deal of divergence of view as to the necessity of greater and more expanding developments in connection with the article in question. Indeed, the wording of the communique itself indicates the degree to which, almost for the first time, the nations comprising the alliance were in agreement when they pledged themselves to this effect; that "they will cooperate among themselves and with other free governments to further the achievement of economic stability, a steady rate of economic growth, and the expansion of international trade through the further reduction of exchange and trade barriers."
Then there was a reference that I think I should mention at this moment. They reaffirmed the desirability of a closer economic association with the countries of western Europe, which they deemed to be in the interest of all countries and which will lend encouragement to the successful development of the European economic community and the European free trade area. In connection with the latter, when this matter came before the council I used the following words in order to clarify and make certain Canada's stand in this regard:
When the proposal for the European free trade area was placed before the Canadian government for consideration it qualified its approval by specifically excluding from its scope food, drink and tobacco. By this exclusion the trading interests of Canada were protected, and on this qualified basis the Canadian government has been able to give its approval to the proposal.
I would have preferred to have had this omitted from the communique, or alternatively to spell out the nature of our reservation. However, recognizing the strong desire of a number of governments represented here to include a brief endorsement along the lines of the draft before us, I am not going to press our objection.
We did repeat for the record that Canada's approval of the European free trade area depends on the exclusion of the three groups of products to which I have already referred,
[Mr. Diefenbaker.l
the exclusion from the ambit of the proposals of the commodities in question.
I come now to one other matter that has been foremost in recent weeks, particularly in connection with the shipment of small amounts of arms to Tunis and the strong objection taken by the government of France to the course of action followed in that regard, which underlined the necessity of there being the closest consultation among all the members before action is taken. That was one of the most striking general matters at this conference, the determination of all the partners to develop still further the habit of consultation, which is an essential element in maintaining the cohesion and unity of the alliance. The Canadian delegation stressed the importance of the habit of consultation, the neighbourly frame of mind, and the desirability of member nations refraining from adopting firm policy stands or making major political announcements on questions that affect the interests of their NATO partners until they have consulted with them.
I am convinced that this habit, this frame of mind, will still further develop interdependence. Certainly there was unanimous support in this regard among all the members present. It was recognized, too, that since the aim of the Soviet bloc was to weaken and disrupt the western world by all the means at its disposal, the alliance could not be concerned only with the north Atlantic area and the military defence of that area. It was agreed that our political and economic strength must be organized on the principle of interdependence.
However, this does not imply, and the Canadian delegation made that very clear during the discussions, an extension of the commitment of the alliance to defend other areas, nor does it imply in any way a desire on the part of NATO to interfere in the affairs of other countries. Our interest was to affirm the support of our governments for the independence and sovereignty of states in areas such as the Middle East, and our continuing interest in the economic wellbeing of their peoples. To the many nations which have gained their independence since the end of the second world war and to all other peoples who are dedicated to peace and freedom, the NATO countries offered their co-operation on a basis of complete equality and in a spirit of fraternity.
I stated in the house before the Canadian delegation left for Paris that the government felt that particular attention should be given at the NATO meeting to the implementation of the objectives set forth in article 2. I stressed this view in Paris, with particular reference for the need of members of the

alliance to bear in mind the needs of the underdeveloped nations. I said the free world would not accept a situation where half mankind is well fed and the other half is not. Such a situation merely invites communist mischief.
In this connection I said that something in the nature of a NATO food bank might be created to make food available to countries which are in need and which are in danger of being overrun and subverted by the Soviet union. It would also make possible the availability of those deposits of food in the event of war. It is our hope that such an eventuality will not occur, and that we have come a long way in the last few days toward once more reinforcing the forces of peace.
In connection with scientific and technical matters within the alliance there was a general recognition of the need to increase the number of trained scientists and technicians in most of the countries. In Canada, as elsewhere, progress in this field will depend not only on the state contribution but also on the devoted contribution of teachers and scientists in our schools and universities. It will also depend on the support which governments will give to institutions which provide courses in scientific subjects, and this government intends shortly to give full reconsideration to its policy in this regard and have it placed before parliament.
To give effect to a co-operative effort within the alliance it was decided to arrange a NATO science committee on which all member countries will be represented by men qualified to speak authoritatively on scientific policy, and to appoint a scientific adviser to the secretary general of NATO. While some may say these were merely procedural decisions, none the less we had before us specific proposals for developing co-operation in this field between NATO countries which will be worked out in detail by qualified authorities on the new committee.
Let me mention one other matter. We thought of the people behind the iron curtain, people who believe in freedom as we do. Sometimes we are apt to forget them. When the declaration was being drafted I had the honour to move that there should be the inclusion of a paragraph to give to those people, whether in the Ukraine, in Hungary, in Poland, in East Germany, in the Balkan states, or in any other countries, the hope that the day will come when they will be able to live in freedom; to let them realize that we have not forgotten and do not forget their heroism and their plight. We want them to know that the flickering flame of freedom they have kept alive is being seen by those
NATO-Paris Conference who represent countries under democratic control. It was accepted that this paragraph should be included in order to give some hope to those who live in the expectation that tomorrow may give them new opportunities in life and the right of human beings to enjoy a measure of freedom. The portion in question is as follows:
For the entire world it is both a tragedy and a great danger that the peoples under international communist rule-their national independence, human liberties and their standard of living as well as their scientific and technological achievements- have been sacrificed to the purposes of world domination and military power. The suppression of their liberty will not last forever. Already in these countries there is evidence of the growing desire for intellectual and economic freedom. If the free nations are steadfast the totalitarian menace that now confronts them will eventually recede.
While I was in Paris I was met by a group of 15 to 20 representatives of those peoples behind the iron curtain, who asked for nothing in the nature of a declaration belligerent in its wording. All they asked for was a word of appreciation so the aspirations and hopes of those people will be maintained.
That in general, sir, represents a summary of the principles that activated those who met there. In brief the alliance, I believe, has made a substantive contribution to the cause of peace, not only by reaffirming its purely defensive character-that was underlined and re-emphasized over and over again-but also by leaving the door open to meaningful disarmament negotiations. Decisions have been taken which, through a closer integration of our individual forces, will result in the strengthening of the alliance and I believe will ensure greater security to our peoples.
The machinery of NATO will be adapted to make possible the full use of the resources of each and all of the member nations. Above everything else a new impetus has been given at the highest possible level and a revised vision to our alliance which will help us to translate its aims and objectives into practical achievements. While there may be those who feel otherwise, one of the most moving things that took place at that conference was at its conclusion, when the President of the United States asked that the leaders of the various countries should engage in silent prayer for the welfare and the preservation of freedom in mankind.
I am not going to say more than that; but never have I seen a group of men less actuated by any purpose other than to achieve, or to lay the foundations for, peace, and so to act that the 450 million people whom they represented will at least know that everything has been done and everything will be done to ensure through negotiation the maintenance of our way of life; that we are prepared, not

NATO-Paris Conference in a spirit of appeasement but with a realization of the awful realities that face us, to go as far as possible to bring about that climate and that atmosphere which will ensure the laying of the foundation, internationally, of peace through disarmament.
Each member government will now have to review either individually or in the council the implications of the practical steps that have been taken. Each of us-and I speak personally when I say this-endeavoured to express the view of the Canadian people and to make some contribution to the development of that sense of partnership with our immediate allies which has been so necessary in recent days. No one who was there could countenance the thought that we shall not succeed, for we must.
I know what the cynics will say. They have done it all down through the ages. They will contend that the declaration and the communique are simply the same old tired cliches strung together in a different arrangement but leaving the old patterns substantially unchanged. That is not so. This conference has taken striking decisions that affect the military posture, the scientific disposition, and a new and imaginative economic approach that have both domestic and external applications to all the 15 countries. We have extended the range of our concern where economic and social matters are involved to take in underdeveloped countries outside and beyond our alliance.
These to me are significant and profound advances in the NATO of today; and I hope, sir, that what has been done will render NATO perceptibly more united, actually more united, more effective, and with a more revived purpose than was the case one week ago today.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I am sure we have all listened with great interest to this summary report by the Prime Minister of Canada with respect to the important meeting of the heads of the governments of the countries that make up the north Atlantic treaty organization, and that no one would wish either to underestimate or, on the other hand, to exaggerate the practical results of these deliberations.
There is no doubt that there is something of value in having had the heads of the governments participate in the communique that was issued and in which their unity about the objectives of the alliance is once more very clearly asserted, perhaps asserted with even more clarity and certainly with more specific developments than were included even in the treaty that was signed. But as in all other human endeavours it is not

sufficient to state objectives and do what might be the implementation of wishful thinking. What is necessary is to have achievements expressed not only in words, however necessary that is in the first instance, but by actual conduct that gives effect to the expressions found in those words.
Everything that is said in the communique and everything we have had in the interesting report given to us by the Prime Minister was expressed in general terms contained implicitly in the treaty itself, and has been expressed in diplomatic exchanges many times since. I think we have reason to feel that the cost to us and to our people, to all who belong to the north Atlantic treaty organization, great as it has been has been a cost that provided in return to our peoples value for the whole of it.
It is now nine years that the alliance has been in existence and has been pursuing its objectives. As the Prime Minister pointed out, during that time there has been no further expansion of the domination of one great power over its neighbouring countries. That was the thing against which the participants in the alliance wished to guard when the treaty was originally signed. Everyone accepted the language of the treaty, and I would imagine that all the member nations feel that their respective governments have endeavoured to give effect to the undertakings of the various clauses. But although the objectives have been the same for all of us, the extent to which the conduct of the 15 nations has been directed at realizing those objectives has not been completely satisfactory to every one of the nations forming the alliance.
With respect, for instance, to the matter of economic collaboration, I am sure all the governments wish to have the other members of the alliance in a satisfactory economic position. But more could have been done than has been done to strengthen the economies of the participant nations. Now that attention has been called to the matter again in this solemn pronouncement by the heads of the governments who attended the recent meeting we will hope there will be an increase in the effectiveness of the economic collaboration that is necessary to maintain our standards of living, and at the same time feel that we are doing everything it is proper to do to maintain that defensive strength that will permit the alliance to realize the general objective for which we have been striving.
We note that the Prime Minister says we should all feel that everything that can be done by negotiation to give greater assurance

NATO-Paris Conference
to the foundations of peace in the world is being done and will continue to be done and that, in spite of what we cannot all look upon as universal good will, we will continue to hope that there will be achievements that will be substantial. I am sure those of us who heard over the radio this morning that Mr. Gromyko had declared that Russia could not participate in a conference at the level of ministers of external affairs shuddered somewhat at that early pronouncement. We do hope we will be able to convince them that we are sincere in our desire to treat with them on a basis of national equality in regard to the objective which is and must be of as great interest to them as it is to us, or at least to their people as it is to our people.
I suppose in order to make progress all of us, each and every one, who have any influence whatsoever on the conduct of ourselves and our fellow citizens, should endeavour to bring ourselves to the frame of mind in which we can attempt to negotiate with some feeling that there could be decisions arrived at that would be kept which would enable us to protect our own and future generations against the catastrophic consequences that will be inevitable if we cannot reach some satisfactory arrangements -arrangements we will not have to call appeasement, but that will at least appease the anxieties that must somewhat becloud the frame of mind we endeavour to reach at this season of the year.
Whether it be brought about by silent prayer, as the head of the great American nation requested at the close of the conference, or otherwise, I think there is a necessity perhaps on both sides of a more confident approach to the possibilities of reaching some kind of an arrangement that will be the result of negotiating from strength, but not forgetting that there is strength on both sides and that that strength would be disastrous to both sides as soon as unleashed by either one or the other.
We are coming to the anniversary of that event which was heralded to the world by the declaration that peace was being brought to men of good will. I think the men who attended this top level meeting of the north Atlantic treaty organization were all men of good will. I hope their good will will be recognized. It is sometimes necessary, without being disposed to resort to anything to which the term "appeasement" in the unacceptable sense could be applied, to express a genuine, confident desire to conduct negotiations on the basis of it being possible that they will succeed. It is in that spirit that I
think we should, in our silent prayers, accept this heralding of the coming of peace to men of good will in this world.


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roselown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is well that the Prime Minister should have taken the earliest opportunity to come before the house and give us a report on the extremely important conference from which he has just come.
I think there are times when an atmosphere is felt. As I listened, particularly to the Leader of the Opposition, whose words I think were well chosen and who expressed the thoughts of many of us as we listened to him, I thought that this morning we have such an atmosphere. I do not think there is an individual anywhere who is not impressed with the dangers that surround us and beset the world. I think we all looked to this great conference which has just concluded in Paris in the hope that something concrete might come of it, something that would give us hope for the future.
As I listened to the Prime Minister this morning my heart sank, because I could find nothing concrete that gave us any hope of peace. There is to be co-ordination of defence, co-ordination of defence production, but no co-ordination for economic integration among the nations comprising the north Atlantic treaty organization which was envisaged nine years ago when article 11 was adopted by the nations which now compose the north Atlantic alliance.
I should like to know what the Prime Minister had in his mind in concrete terms when he mentioned economic aid at the NATO conference, but perhaps that may come when we reassemble after Christmas. However, I think this statement, in the light of the documents that may be issued and what we may know at that time, should be the basis for a debate on external affairs so that we may have more than a few moments in which to discuss this extremely important matter.
Then we have the proposal for a conference of the scientists of the NATO countries. What for? To improve our weapons of war, to make further preparation for defence. That may be necessary in the world in which we live, but as I said on a former occasion, why can we not go beyond that? Why cannot Canada say that we would welcome within our borders a scientific conference representing scientists of all the nations of the world, so that others than statesmen may discuss these problems and guide the world toward some peaceful solutions? I welcome the suggestion that there should be negotiation but, like the Leader of the Opposition, I believe it must be negotiation with a large measure of good will.

NATO-Paris Conference
If I may stray outside of our own parliament, may I say that I read with a good deal of misgiving an article by the secretary of state for the United States as well as some of his statements just prior to this conference. How can you expect negotiation to be successful when the spokesman for the most powerful nation within NATO makes the kind of statements which one heard and which one read in the current issue of Life magazine? I think we need a new approach, and I think particularly we need a new approach among the most powerful of the nations on both sides.
I read the Bulganin letter with a great deal of care. I do not think this letter has been considered or answered by NATO. I think it is a letter which should be answered paragraph by paragraph and sentence by sentence, and if no one else would undertake it, I would say our own Secretary of State for External Affairs should undertake the writing of such a document. Because I believe, when we contrast the report of the Prime Minister this morning respecting the NATO conference and Mr. Dulles' statement with the Bulganin letter, that once again we are losing the battle of propaganda.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Major James William Coldwell: This is a struggle for men's minds if ever there was a struggle for anything. We exclude 600 million people because we refuse to recognize that there is a government in China. Yet we are engaged in a struggle, a desperate struggle for men's minds. Through the years I have felt that we have given some of the choicest weapons in that field to the other side.
I feel we need a new approach, and I would like to know what are the concrete proposals for these new approaches. We did not get them this morning. I am anxious to read the documents which will be issued; I am anxious to read what the leaders of other countries have to say in order that I might at least arrive at a clearer understanding of what happened at NATO than I have been able to obtain from the statement of the Prime Minister. It is all very well; the words are fine, the sentiments expressed are good but, as has been pointed out by the Leader of the Opposition, they were generalizations.
So I say to the Prime Minister and to the government that I hope when we reassemble after Christmas we can set aside a day when we may discuss external affairs in the light of the new developments-I have not referred to the new dangers-so that we may make a real appraisal of what happened at NATO and whether there is any cause for hope.

This proposal to put missiles in countries in Europe was, I notice, a bilateral arrangement. I also notice that there is tremendous opposition on the part of some of our most progressive European allies, Norway and Denmark and so on. The Prime Minister said he listened to the debate in the House of Commons in England last night, and no doubt he heard there the speeches of both Mr. Macmillan and the acting leader of the opposition; possibly he also saw the vote taken, one of the narrowest majorities the present government of Britain has received since it took office, with abstentions by some of its own supporters, and possibly also some members voting unwillingly with the government. All this indicates that in the United Kingdom, one of the powerful countries, as well as in the smaller countries, there is misgiving and active opposition as to this proposal to put the new missile weapons in European countries.
If I were a Russian and I lived in the Soviet union I think I would feel just as I would feel as a Canadian living here if I saw all around my country bases with high powered planes in which new weapons of war and guided missiles were being placed for the potential destruction of my country. I cannot see how this helps the cause of peace, but that should be the subject of debate at some other time.
We in this party, in common with others in this house, have supported NATO. We appreciate the achievements which have been made by NATO and we know that what has been said-that NATO has prevented the spread of the influence of the Soviet union through subversive activity since Czechoslovakia-is quite correct. However, are we always going to live under this shadow of war, war that would bring universal destruction and universal annihilation? I want to say that I believe every member of this house-the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and every one of us sitting in our seats-feels, as the Leader of the Opposition said, particularly at this time of the year when the bells ring out and the message of peace on earth to men of good will is in our minds, that we should see if we cannot bring about measures of good will so that we may negotiate an end to this terrible threat which hangs over us all.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Solon Earl Low: Over the past week, Mr. Speaker, I believe many Canadians have been keenly interested in the reports which have emanated from Paris. I was particularly interested in the attitude toward the conference and its work expressed by a number of United States reporters. If one is to believe what they wrote, then the

NATO meeting was a flop, because that is the general opinion expressed by so many United States writers. Whether that was because those reporters felt the United States did not have its own way entirely at the conference I could not tell, but certainly there seems to be quite a lot of disappointment that the United States suggestions were not altogether followed at the conference. I am glad they were not.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Solon Earl Low: I feel the United States did not have a realistic attitude toward this meeting. I am not asking the Prime Minister or his colleagues to corroborate what I have said, but that has been my impression; that they went over with an eye concentrated on one purpose, which was to impress upon European countries the necessity for accepting equipment of the latest type with which to arm the bases which are supposed to make a ring around Russia. For that reason perhaps many people got the idea that the conference was not successful.
I listened most carefully to the sobering report of the Prime Minister this morning. I am glad he came in as quickly as he did, while parliament is still in session and before the Christmas recess, in order to give us this report. I found that what he had to say contained some reassurance although, as I said, it was to me quite sobering. Like the Leader of the Official Opposition I think he chose his words well, but I feel reaffirmation in high sounding terms of the purposes and objectives of NATO is not enough. What we do in the years ahead, and it seems to me more particularly in the months ahead, to translate the important principles adopted by the alliance nine years ago into effective action is going to be the criterion of the success of that alliance.
I do not for one moment mean to imply that we think the alliance has not accomplished much in the nine years it has been in existence. While the cost of Canada's participation in the north Atlantic treaty has been very great, and probably will continue for years to be exeedingly heavy, we think it can be looked upon as a good investment if it has done nothing more in those nine years than prevent further expansion of Godless communism throughout Europe and the western world. We think, however, that the true measure of whether it will continue to be a good investment in the future will depend on how much is done to give practical application to the high-sounding principles that have been expressed as its purposes and objectives.
NATO-Paris Conference
Sabre-rattling is not enough to keep the peace. There are those, perhaps, who believe we have to develop a fighting machine which will be superior to that of our competitors, the Russians especially; but I repeat that in my judgment sabre-rattling does not do very much good compared with quiet preparation for negotiation from strength. There is quite a difference between the two; and while many people may say that the strong proposal of the United States to arm the European bases with nuclear warheads frightens the Russians, let us not overlook the fact that Russia does not make any bones about the 500 submarines she has ranging the seas from which she can launch nuclear weapons against her enemies, making us feel a little insecure as well.
I think we must keep that in mind. Both sides, as the Leader of the Opposition has said, are strong, and we must never overlook that fact. But that must not deter us for one moment from completing our preparations so we can carry on negotiations from strength.
Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that the negotiations are going to be mighty important too, and those negotiations will have to be carried out on a high moral plane. Now is the time, if ever in the history of this world, when the nations composing the NATO alliance should put their cards face upward on the table and in every way carry on their dealings on the highest moral plane. There should be no attempt, it seems to me, to negotiate in such a way as to give people the impression that we are attempting to do as Chamberlain did at Munich back in 1938. I do not think this is a time for appeasement, by any means. It is a time for peace with honour, and I think we can only achieve that if we are strong and at the same time seized with the necessity of treating other peoples in the world as equal to ourselves.
I do not like this idea which is too often abroad that what we people in the western nations have to do is to bring other people up to our level. Bless my soul, some of the people in the east are far beyond us in moral and spiritual achievements, and it seems to me we have to get over to them the idea that we are prepared to meet them as equals and negotiate with them as equals for peace.
I wish to say in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, that I think it is now time the Prime Minister should prepare and deliver to the Canadian people as a whole the kind of report I suggested he should make when I spoke before he left for the NATO meeting. I think the Canadian people want to hear from the Prime Minister the details of what went on at

Supply-Health and Welfare NATO. Reports from this parliament are not carried adequately enough for the people to get a clear idea of what is going on.
I am glad to see the delegation back, looking as well and fit as they do today. It must have been a very heavy task and a difficult time for them, and I hope every single one of us will be preprared to express his views some time after the resumption of the parliamentary session in the New Year on these very important matters which constitute the effort to attain peace. But I cannot help thinking, Mr. Speaker, that if the world is ever going to achieve peace it has to start with the individual, with each one of us here.
I learned years ago from an old Chinese philosopher who said this: "If there is righteousness in the heart, there will be beauty in the character; if there is beauty in the character, there will be happiness in the home; if there is happiness in the home, there will be strength in the nation; if there is strength in the nation, there will be peace in the world."


John George Diefenbaker: I wonder whether the house would take kindly to having appended to Hansard today the declaration and communique, so the discussions which have taken place here may fit in with the general compendium of what actually took place in Paris.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Would this course be agreeable to the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[For text of documents referred to above, see appendix, pages 2762-65.]


Paul Joseph James Martin: I should just like to ask the Prime Minister one question. Was it decided that the letter in reply to the Bulganin letter should be made as a NATO reply, or will replies be made by the individual countries?


John George Diefenbaker: There was no consideration of that point, and that being so the replies will, of course, have to be on an individual basis.


[Stage Direction]
249. Departmental administration, $1,303,859.
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Courtemanche in the chair.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.

AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, before we interrupted this particular discussion to enable the Prime Minister to make a 

report on the important conference in Paris of the north Atlantic powers I was dealing with the situation that confronts us in the province of Ontario as a result of the fact that at the present time no agreements whatsoever have been concluded between the federal government and the provinces pursuant to the provisions of the Hospital Insurance Act introduced in the previous session of parliament by the government at that time headed by the present Leader of the Opposition.
I had indicated that in a conference I had with the government of the province of Ontario some time during the course of last spring agreed that if agreements had not been concluded by the end of September with the five other consenting provinces other arrangements would have to be made to avoid the very difficult situation which could arise in the province of Ontario in view of the fact that the premier of that province had stated that he proposed to begin his hospital insurance scheme in Ontario on January 1, 1959.
I was about to indicate before the interruption that in connection with the preparation which understandably the government of Ontario must make that that government must be in a position well ahead of the starting date of having clear understandings with the federal government. The province of Ontario and indeed every province could not be expected to start their schemes unless they were assured that the federal government would begin to share in the costs of the operation of the various plans. In the meantime arrangements would have to be made with private insurance groups, with labour organizations and with employer organizations all leading to the situation in which insured people under these various plans could be given some guarantee that they would not be without the benefits of hospital insurance either under government or under private auspices. The only way that a chaotic condition could be avoided would be by dispatch in getting agreements between the two senior levels of government, and every step would have to be taken to make sure that that dangerous possibility did not confront the provinces concerned.
Notwithstanding the announcement made by the government, that if there was a measure of unanimity on the part of the provinces it was prepared to bring in an amendment to provide for sharing of costs by the federal government at a date other than that referred to in the existing legislation there is great danger now in the light of the only evidence that is available to the house and to the country of the possibility of that chaotic

situation arising. I find it difficult indeed to understand why there are not agreements now concluded with at least four of the provinces. I could go further and say that I am sure that if the necessary interest and will existed on the part of the government agreements with the six provinces could by now be concluded.
It is all very well to suggest that the government proposes to meet this situation by amending the act in order to make payments possible, let us say, to the province of Ontario; but the fact is that if the government is going to take that step, and it has announced its decision so to do, I do not know how it will explain with regard to those provinces that now have schemes in being that it has not taken steps already to provide payments to these particular provinces.
It may be said in answer that that was not the policy of the government of which I was a member. That is true, but as I have indicated we did suggest to the province of Ontario that if agreements were not concluded by September other arrangements would have to be made. But there was a good reason for the policy we were pursuing because our objective was to bring in a maximum number of provinces under a system of hospital insurance based on cooperative financial arrangements between the two senior levels of government. It was as a result of our adhering to the formula of six provinces that we were well on our way to something that approximated a nationwide scheme.
However, as a result of the situation that now develops, are we any nearer to such an approximation? Are we any nearer to having any more than the provinces of British Columbia and Saskatchewan, possibly Alberta, and Ontario with schemes of hospital insurance available to their respective constituents? I think we are not. I think that as a result of the failure of this government to conclude agreements certainly by the end of September and as the result of its failure since the end of September to give evidence of progress we are not going to have the nationwide approach we could have had if there had been alacrity and a greater evidence of interest and concern on the part of the administration.
There will be the greatest regret on the part not only of the people of the various provinces but of the people all over the country that such little progress, if any at all, has been made in the matter of hospital insurance. If there was a justification for the decision that parliament took, in the month of April in accepting the federal government's proposal for a system of hospital insurance,
Supply-Health and Welfare I believe this government can be charged with great neglect in the face of the position which parliament then took, in the light of the demand all over this country, for not having marched with a firmer step and with greater dispatch regarding a matter which means so much to the preservation of the health standards of this country and to providing health assistance to the people.
I was a little disturbed the other day when, in answer to a question put by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, the minister replied that it was proposed to continue the health grants introduced by the government of Mr. Mackenzie King in the month of May, 1948, but, since there might be some overlapping, there could in consequence of that be some modification of those grants, or the withdrawing of some of them. The word "withdrawing" is my own and I do not want to do any injustice to the reply of the minister. But he did indicate the possibility that, because of the overlapping, some of those grants would have to be discontinued or some modifications made as a result of the alleged overlapping. If that is done there will be genuine regret in the country. That kind of reply fails to indicate an appreciation of the full reason for those grants. Those grants have nothing whatever to do with hospitalization.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, there is going to be no withdrawal. There will purely be a re-allocation and the same amount will be given.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend says a "re-allocation". That disturbs me all the more. These grants were introduced in this house as a condition precedent to the day when we would be adopting a form of hospital insurance. Indeed, the prime minister of that day said that these grants were a prerequisite to the setting up of a system of, I think the words he used on that occasion were, health insurance, and that the grants themselves were designed to prepare for the day when we would have the facilities to make hospital insurance a possibility. These grants included assistance for public health, for tuberculosis control, for mental health, for hospital construction, for medical scientific research, for professional training, for rehabilitation, for cancer control and the like. None of these grants has anything whatsoever to do with health insurance except in so far as providing a foundation stone for the successful operation of a system of health insurance.
What allocations are to take place? Are we to conclude that because the government is proposing, under certain conditions, inconsistent with the promises that it made during

Supply-Health and Welfare the election, to include tuberculosis and mental illness, they are going, by allocations of the funds provided for in these two particular categories, to spend less money for tuberculosis control. The moneys spent for mental illness have nothing to do with hospital insurance at all. The moneys in these two particular categories had to do with another phase altogether.
Remember what I am discussing now is a project of health insurance, a project designed not to assist the provinces in respect of obligations that they have assumed but to assist individuals in Canada in meeting their hospital costs. The money spent under the tuberculosis control grant and under the mental health grant are moneys spent for the purpose of providing facilities. They are not moneys provided to help individuals meet their hospital costs; they are designed to provide research in these various fields, to give the provinces the wherewithal to employ the necessary personnel and to carry out the general objects and purposes of these particular grants. Therefore, I hope the minister will give very careful consideration to the reply he gave a few days ago and to the observation he made a moment ago.
Take the hospital construction grant. That has nothing to do directly with hospital insurance. That grant was designed to place the provinces and the communities of our country in a position where, when we had hospital insurance in being, there would be the necessary hospital facilities available to make that scheme practicable and possible of operation. Under that grant, with the assistance of the provinces and with the major assistance of communities and voluntary bodies, we would be able together to provide for the construction of somewhere between 70,000 and 75,000 additional hospital beds.
That was a very essential foundation for the operation of a system of hospital insurance. Those grants will have to be continued because the country is growing. The need for hospital beds will continue and if there is to be any allocation of those grants and the moneys used for this particular purpose are to be transferred to take care of part of the federal share of hospital insurance we shall be going back on the commitment which the previous administration made to the provincial governments. That has had the greatest possible consequences. Therefore, I hope the minister will give careful consideration to maintaining the grants in the form in which they are. Of course he will be confronted, as time goes on, with the necessity, possibly, of increasing them if we are to maintain the pace which I believe the provincial, the municipal and the federal


governments have been able to achieve in Canada during the past decade or so.
I would remind the minister that he told us quite frankly the other day when I asked him a question that the amendments contemplated to the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act had to do with the provision of payment so that one province which was prepared to embark upon a scheme would not find itself handicapped as a result of the fact that at the present time there are no agreements with any one of the six provinces, a situation which I believe would have been avoided if the kind of care and interest had been pursued which I suggested, and about the lack of which I complained.
If that is the only amendment the government has in mind I am forced under these circumstances to point out at this time that it represents but a small portion of the commitments, or of the position which was taken by hon. gentlemen, now on the treasury benches, when they were in opposition. When they were in opposition they said that the hospital insurance measure which the government of that day introduced was a good one but it did not go far enough, notwithstanding the fact that the federal government of that day committed itself to an expenditure of at least $200 million in the first year of complete operation, a sum that represented half of the total cost of hospital insurance in Canada.
They said that we should go farther; that we should do something about taking care of a share in depreciation costs. What is the government going to do about that? They made strong arguments on this side that our measure was weak because it did not include a decision on the part of the federal government to share in the costs of depreciation. Does the government now take the position that it was wrong in urging these things when sitting on this side of the house?
What about the costs of administration? When we introduced hospital insurance we were told that it was inadequate because it was unfair to impose upon the provinces the responsibility for the full cost of administration. We pointed out at that time that the provinces were not going to be called upon to find as much new money as the federal government was going to have to find and that the provinces could be well left with the responsibility of providing for assistance in the matter of depreciation and in the matter of administration if that were thought the desirable thing to do.
But our reply in that particular was not accepted by hon. gentlemen opposite and they now have the responsibility of discharging the obligations which they sought

to impose on the previous government or of admitting now that the arguments they made on that occasion were not valid or sound. We have the right to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare what he proposes to do about these particular claims that were made by the opposition of the government of the day, claims that have a great interest and importance in the minds of the various hospital administrations and the various voluntary bodies all over the country who, I know, are most vitally interested in the position taken by hon. gentlemen opposite with regard to the questions of depreciation and the cost of administration.
Therefore I ask the government to realize the importance of this matter. It is not too late for the minister to rise now in his place and to explain why agreements have not been concluded and to give us assurance and evidence that the delay that has taken place will be corrected by a new effort on the part of the government to carry out its obligations in respect of the act-


Mr, Monteith:: There has been no delay.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -that I think mean so much to the people of the country.


Mr. Smith (Simcoe North):: May I ask the
hon. member a question? It has to do with his statements concerning grants for hospital construction. Can the hon. member tell me what percentage of the cost of hospital bed accommodation in Ontario general hospitals was contributed by grants from his government?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I cannot give that offhand. As my hon. friend knows, the federal grant was $1,000 for every acute bed and $1,500 for every chronic bed. The provinces contributed a slightly larger amount, as was to be expected, because hospitalization is quite obviously a responsibility of the provincial governments. But the grants made by the two senior levels of government are not, of course, as great as the contributions made by the voluntary organizations themselves. They bear the greatest load. But no one will deny that, in the language of Premier Frost, it was the hospital grants provided by the federal and provincial governments that spurred on hospital construction in this country, and I think every Canadian recognizes that as an achievement of the greatest kind by all levels of government and voluntary bodies.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I should like at the outset to join with the hon. member for Essex East in paying tribute to the staff and officials of the Department of National Health and Welfare. Obviously some of us have not had 96698-173
Supply-Health and Welfare the advantage of the contacts with the officers and staff that the hon. member for Essex East enjoyed for a number of years, but we have met them in committee, we have dealings with them from time to time when we have cases to pursue, and we also have the advantage of the excellent material that the research workers in the department prepare.
I should like also to express appreciation of the tremendous importance of this department to the life of the people of Canada, and I congratulate the minister for having been called upon to preside over the affairs of such an important department. However, I must also join with the hon. member for Essex East in expressing the regret of this party at the delay of the present government in implementing the provisions of the the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act. Everyone knows that it is the view of the C.C.F. that we should have on our statute books much more advanced legislation than that act. We feel the time has come for an over-all national insurance plan with provision for provincial administration but with provision for coverage of all aspects of illness on the part of our people.
Nevertheless, we do appreciate the step along the way taken in 1948 by the inauguration of the health grants program and the further step taken in the spring of this year through the enactment of the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act. Because we appreciate these steps as being in the right direction, we regret very much that the implementation of the act seems to be so slow in coming under the aegis of the present government.
While the former minister was speaking I heard the minister interject that there had been no delay, but I submit that there is evidence of nothing else. It is not my intention to repeat the speech I made in the House of Commons on November 18 when on behalf of our party I moved an amendment to the motion to go into supply. But I would remind the minister that it was pointed out then that the present session was opened on an historic occasion with the speech from the throne read by Her Majesty the Queen but that in that speech there was no mention of health insurance or hospital insurance in any way. I remind the minister that to the first number of questions we on this side of the house asked with respect to whether anything was going to be done about hospital insurance or whether the matter was even on the agenda for the then forthcoming federal-provincial conference the answers were in the negative or evasive.

Supply-Health and Welfare
For several weeks it looked as though nothing was happening. Then tor a period ot a couple of weeks the air vibrated with assurances and promises. Strangely enough, those two weeks followed the moving from this corner of a non-confidence motion on the question of implementing the hospital insurance plan. The Minister of National Health and Welfare, from whom we had had difficulty in getting any answers to questions, got into that debate and assured us that the matter was being studied in his department. The Prime Minister previously had been unable to assure us that the matter would be discussed at the federal-provincial conference but he got into that debate when the confidence of the house in the government was under discussion and assured us that all matters in relation to the hospital insurance legislation would be discussed at the federal-provincial conference if the provincial representatives wished to discuss those matters.
Then the conference itself was held and at that conference there were discussions regarding the implementation of the hospital insurance plan. We were led to believe that those discussions centred in the main around two points, one being the removal of the six-province requirement and the other the inclusion of mental and tuberculosis institutions within the four corners of this legislation. A few days after that we had statements in the house-both on the initiative of the Prime Minister and in reply to questions-to the effect that the implementation of this legislation would be proceeded with; in fact, that we would get it sooner under the Tories than we would have had it under the Liberals.
These vibrant, sonorous assurances rang through the chamber for a few days and as a result we were led to believe that something would be done. Hence the pace of our questions slackened. But what has happened? Any evidence that anything is being done has died down completely. In fact, although the Prime Minister has been pleased to add to the list of items to be dealt with in this session of parliament, he still has not given the house notice, nor has his colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare, of any legislation to amend the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act. In answer to questions the Minister of National Health and Welfare has admitted that if there are to be any amendments to that act they will relate only to the removal of the six province requirement.
With regard to the other matter, namely mental and tuberculosis hospitals, the minister now says that this is a matter of government policy and that any announcement

of any decision made with regard to that question will be made in due course. That latest word, in fact, was given by the Minister of National Health and Welfare as recently as December 17, in response to questions of mine on the orders of the day as recorded in Hansard at page 2473 and 2474 of that date.
In other words, Mr. Chairman, it all adds up to one big zero. No agreements have been signed. No action has been taken. No legislation has been placed on the order paper. In fact, it seems to us that there is on the part of the new administration no appreciation of the importance, social significance and urgency of this legislation to make a beginning in the field of health insurance by doing something with regard to hospital insurance.
The minister may not like my saying that it adds up to nothing, but I submit that that is a fair statement of the case. As I reminded the Conservatives when we debated this matter on November 18 and 19, they were loud and strong last spring in their insistence that the act should be improved; and the point on which they were loudest and strongest was that mental and tubercular hospitals should be included. Indeed, it was they who moved an amendment or two to that effect, even as late in the game as on third reading of the bill, when they moved an amendment to refer the bill back to a committee for the purpose of reconsidering that aspect of the matter.
I remind them that during the election campaign-and I have here excerpts from some of the items that appeared in the press -the Prime Minister made certain promises. According to the Minister of Finance we must not quote what the Conservatives said in the election campaign unless the Prime Minister said it. But during the election campaign the Prime Minister, amongst other items, promised that the Conservatives, if elected, would bring mental and tubercular hospitals under the provisions of this act. Yet, Mr. Chairman, nothing has been done on this matter for which the Conservatives were so strong last spring. The Minister of National Health and Welfare, by his answer on December 17 to which I have made reference, made it clear that that idea has just about been scuttled so far as this present government is concerned. If he wants to say that we have been assured that we are still going to get the amendment to the act to remove the six-province provision, I ask him what value there is in that now. If he replies to me that we moved an amendment to that effect last spring, I remind him that we moved that amendment at a time when only

five provinces had signified their willingness to come into the plan. But shortly after that, a sixth province indicated its willingness to participate. Now that there are six agreeing provinces, I say that the six-province provision no longer has any practical limitation so far as the implementation of this act is concerned.
So what the government proposes to do is this. All that has come out of these assurances, all that has come out of the supposed study and attention that has been given to the matter, and the supposed interest that the new government has in this legislation, is the promise that somewhere along in the piece we are going to get an amendment that does not mean anything at all. We are going to get the removal of the six-province requirement at a time when six provinces have already agreed. That being the case, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that we have to do to this government exactly what we had to do to the former government, we have to keep on poking and prodding, trying to get them to take action.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Did
I hear an interjection from my friend the hon. member for Essex East?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No. You saw
a smile on his face.


Stanley Howard Knowles: saw a smile on his face. I say to my hon. friend with whom we have had discussions about these matters for many years-and our respective forbears had them back to 1919-that he could have helped us in this effort to secure the implementation of his own legislation if on November 19 he had voted the way he spoke on November 18. He supported in words our contention that steps should be taken to achieve the implementation of this legislation at the earliest possible moment. But the next day he stood up and voted the other way.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I know that my hon. friend is a very fair-minded member. He will know that I explained clearly the reason, namely what would have happened if we had followed my hon. friend's course, a course which he himself would pursue only in the clear belief that the government would not be defeated. That defeat would have meant postponing the realization of the very matter which he and I are now urging so vehemently.


Stanley Howard Knowles: wonder whether the hon. member still believes that.
96698-173J
Supply-Health and Welfare


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do.


Stanley Howard Knowles: wonder whether the hon. member is now prepared to say what his vote on November 19 implied, namely that he has confidence in this government so far as health insurance is concerned.


Paul Joseph James Martin: 1 think the hon. member and I will prod on and they will do what we are asking them to do.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That answer, of course, is an admission that he does not have confidence in this government so far as health insurance in concerned; and on that point he and I are agreed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is that the only aspect of lack of confidence?


Stanley Howard Knowles: There are other aspects as well. I am sure the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has aspects of lack of confidence in the government, but I am sure that any suggestion that this government does not have the confidence of the Liberal party must wait until after January 14, 15 or 16. We shall be greatly interested when that time comes to see whether that confidence still remains.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is a great difference between tolerance and confidence.


Stanley Howard Knowles: confess that we enjoy the way in which the Liberals manoeuvre in trying to explain their position. We prefer to look at these things on their merits. On the merits of the case, on the facts, on the history of this government since it came into power, it has let the Canadian people down in so far as health or hospital insurance is concerned. We call upon this government to get over this attitude of relying on the votes the Liberals will give them, to realize that they made commitments to the Canadian people when they were on the opposition side of the house, that they made commitments in the election campaign and to face the fact that the time has come to implement in full the provisions of the hospital insurance act.
That surely calls for immediate steps to make it possible for the provinces that wish to do so to sign an agreement. We suggest if they are sincere about their proposal to remove the six-province requirement that means they are prepared to make federal money available to some of the provinces, even before six of them have their plans in operation. If they are prepared to do that, why not demonstrate it by making that money available now to those particular

Supply-Health and Welfare provinces that have their plans in operation, even if no more than two or three have plans in operation at the present time.
I insist that the governments and the people of the provinces of British Columbia and Saskatchewan have just as much right to have federal moneys made available to assist them in their plans as the province of Ontario would have if it were the only one, or one of only two or three, which had plans in operation.
I welcome the fact that the government of the province of Ontario is going ahead with plans for a hospital insurance scheme in that province, in order to put it in effect by January 1, 1959. I welcome the fact that discussion on this point so far as the premier of Manitoba is concerned is a little more active than it was before June 10, but why do provinces like British Columbia and Saskatchewan have to wait for these six to get into the field if this government has already declared, both by the way they voted on our amendment last spring and by the statements they have made, that they are prepared to see that this money should be made available to some of the provinces even though the full quota of six have not got their plans in operation. That is an immediate step which this government should now be taking if it wants any of us to believe that it is sincere in its convictions about hospital insurance.
We also contend that the veil must be lifted and that we should be told the full story about mental and tubercular hospitals. There is a strange air of secrecy and mystery about that subject. The speeches were loud, the Conservatives were determined that this should be done; we were assured as a result of questioning in the early part of this session that the promises had not been forgotten. Such reports as we got during the open session of the federal-provincial conference led us to believe that something would be done on this point, but on the following day when the conference was in secret session-in fact from that day to this-there has been no indication of hope from the government side of the house that there is any intention left to implement the Tory promise to bring mental and tubercular hospitals under the provisions of this plan.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does the hon. gentleman not know that there was a "Frost" in the secret session?


Stanley Howard Knowles: am just waiting for somebody to think up an appropriate reply to that but perhaps I had better go on.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have a chill.


Mr. Small:: The temperature rose.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The
hon. member for Essex East made it clear that when he was minister of national health and welfare he did not agree that mental and tubercular hospitals should be brought under the plan, but I think he has the right, even if he did not take that position then, to call upon the government now in power to implement its own promises. This means that we are unanimous. The Tories stood for it in the last session, the Social Crediters and the C.C.F. have stood for it in both sessions, the Liberals did not stand for it last session but they stand for it now and I think among the four of us we are expressing the views of the Canadian people on this issue. We therefore call upon the government to do something about this and to do it soon.
In speaking to these estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare one must remember that they cover a wide range of subjects and we shall deal with some of those subjects when we get into the individual items of the estimates. However, while we are on this first item there is one other major subject which comes under the jurisdiction of this minister about which I would like to say a few words. I refer to the question of old age pensions. I give to this government all the commendation it deserves for the action taken earlier in this session. I think it is fair to say that following the kind of election campaign we had last summer and in view of the tremendous amount of feeling that existed in Canada because of the fact that the Liberals had raised the old age pensions by only $6 a month, it was inevitable that any government which was returned to power would have to do something about that disgrace and would have to raise the pension to a higher level. Therefore, we welcomed from this corner of the house the amendments to the various statutes such as the Old Age Security Act, the Old Age Assistance Act, the Blind Persons Act and the Disabled Persons Act, raising the pensions under those statutes to $55 per month.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could I ask a question of the hon. gentleman? Does he not think that perhaps in entering into this subject he is out of order?


Stanley Howard Knowles: No,
I have not the slightest fear of that, Mr. Chairman.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was merely asking for my education.


Robert Hardy Small: You definitely need it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As
I indicated a few days ago, when my hon. friend was a professor and I was a student

in the same college we did not happen to connect in the classroom, but we did have discussions out in the hall and I hope we educated each other. It would be out of order, Mr. Chairman, if I were to rehash the debates that took place on the amending bill that was before the house some weeks ago. At this moment, however, it is the law of the land that the old age security pension, among others, is $55 per month. It is perfectly in order for the government to bring in another bill at this session raising it to a higher amount just as it is perfectly in order for a member in this session to urge that the law, as it now stands, should be changed to bring greater benefit to our people.
However, what I propose to do is to suggest that this whole subject does need further and very serious study. Here again I might point out that on one of those occasions when we had before the house a motion of non-confidence in the government we got something out of it. These motions of non-confidence are apparently not without value. It is only when you have a motion of non-confidence or by prodding and poking that you seem to get something out of the government across the way.
During the debate on one of these motions we got a promise from the Prime Minister that the government would study the system of old age and survivors' insurance in the United States and other similar systems to see if some way could not be found to improve our old age pension situation in Canada. We have heard nothing about it since and that is exactly our fear, that this sort of thing gets promised in the heat of debate; this sort of thing gets promised to get the government off the hook, but then time has a way of going on with this government as it did with the former government.
The fact is that we need to raise our sights a great deal so far as old age security is concerned. I can make these remarks brief because I said something along this line in another debate a few days ago. There was a time when it took an heroic effort on the part of my predecessor, Mr. J. S. Woods-worth, to sell to parliament the idea of an old age pension at all, even with a means test and even at a rate of only $20 per month. But in due course it got acceptance, although it was not until the first old age pension bill had been defeated over in the other place. Then it took us a number of years to sell the idea that there should be a pension for our senior citizens, as a matter of right, without a means test. I can remember in my time here the occasions when we were told this simply could not be done. We
Supply-Health and Welfare got that principle established, that a pension is a social responsibility and that a pension should be as of right without a means test.
Mr. Chairman, we think we ought to go further, and get to the place where we recognize that people having made their contributions to the economy and life of the country should in their retirement years have a pension, not just sufficient to exist on but sufficient to retire on in dignity and decency; and that means a pension much higher than $55 a month, much higher, even, than the $75 we advocated in the last election campaign.
That means, Mr. Chairman, we may have to do some more thinking about this problem; we may have to go in for a plan that has two aspects; we may have to go in for a combination of the present universal pension on a flat rate basis and a contributory pension based on income supplementary to the flat rate pension. We may have to find a way to provide for portable pensions in industry; a way of making it possible for people to move from one job to another and maintain their pension rights. We may have to recast our income tax structure in relation to old age pensions.
I had something to say about this matter in the special committee on estimates on Thursday, April 12, 1956, as reported at page 284 of the minutes of proceedings and evidence of that committee. I suggested then that some of us who had lived through the means test era would never agree to the re-imposition of a means test, and I am sure the hon. member for Essex East now agrees with me, even if he did not always agree with me on it, that to talk about pensions related to need is to talk about the re-imposition of the means test with all the hurt and misery it imposed on so many of our people.
At the same time it is possible by means of a steeply graded income tax and by a special income tax on pensions received by people who have higher incomes to even out the effect of higher pensions. What I am suggesting is, with all these things, the possibility of raising tremendously the present $55 pension, and taking care of the wealthy person by a change in the income tax, by introducing legislation to provide for portable pensions in industry, by introducing a national industrial pension plan as proposed by the Canadian Labour Congress, or a national pension on a contributory basis supplementary to our old age pension on a universal basis. It is possible, if we do these things on the bases I have suggested, to achieve a raising of our sights.
We had the Gordon commission report about a year ago. We do not hear much about it these days, but I remind hon. members

Supply-Health and Welfare that the Gordon commission forecast a substantial increase in the gross national product 20 or 25 years hence. The commission forecast an increase in salaries and wages and we have got to meet the kind of increase forecast by the Gordon commission with the recognition that we may have to find a way whereby all our people on reaching retirement age will enjoy pensions, not just at the charitable level but sufficient to enable them to enjoy decency and dignity in retirement.
I see you moving to the edge of your chair, Mr. Chairman, so may I conclude these remarks-to come back later, because we are in committee of supply-by calling to the attention of the Minister of National Health and Welfare an excellent document entitled "Age and Opportunity" prepared by the welfare council of greater Winnipeg, which is a study of the experience of older citizens in the greater Winnipeg area. This report indicates that to a surprising extent our older people have as their main source of income their old age pensions, which means we have to get that amount up a lot higher. I draw attention also to the fact that this very responsible body urges very strongly on page 41 of this report that there should now be a complete review of the whole question of old age security provisions similar to that undertaken by a joint committee of the Senate and of the House of Commons back in 1950. All of us who were members of that committee and had the assistance of the staff of the minister's department believed it was one of the finest committees which ever met in parliament. It did a good job and it made recommendations on the basis of which effective steps were taken. We think it is time for another such committee to meet and study these matters with a view to revamping our pension system so as to maintain our older citizens, not just at a subsistence level but at a level which would enable them in retirement to participate in the higher standard of life now possible in this country.


Mr. McLeod:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words on the first item that is before us at the present time. Like the two previous speakers, I also should like to pay my tribute to the officials of the Department of National Health and Welfare. During the last parliament it was my privilege to head the committee on health and welfare within our little group, and I had occasion more than once to visit the various heads of departments within the Department of National Health and Welfare and I always got a very cordial response. I was given all the information that was available-it was far too much

for me to assimilate-and I appreciate their efforts very much to be helpful and agreeable.
Like the other two speakers, I also was keenly disappointed in the action or lack of action on the part of this government in implementing hospital insurance. We listened to the debates in the last parliament, and have listened to the promises made throughout the country that this would be implemented speedily; that mental and tubercular care would be included and that various changes would be made in the act, which would be a much better and much more suitable act; and that greater financial assistance should be given to the provinces.
However, a strange curtain of secrecy seems to have been woven around this question of hospital insurance since parliament assembled here in October, and it is not just with regard to the department of health. We can ask questions of practically every department in the government, and we are given the brush-off in most cases. In this respect our questions as to what progress is being made, how other provinces are reacting to the plan and whether arrangements to cover mental and tubercular care are being considered, have been particularly unsuccessful in obtaining any definite information. We are told that all is proceeding well; we are asked to have confidence in the government.
Mr. Chairman, we may have confidence in the government, but our confidence may be growing less day by day due to the fact that there is no co-operation between the government and members of the house to give us information about what is going on. I say with all seriousness that there cannot be co-operation unless we are advised of what this government is doing; we must at least have some knowledge that they have at heart these problems with which we are concerned. We should be told just a little bit of what is being done in order to sustain our confidence.
I am now going to make a few general remarks and when the detailed items are before us I will perhaps deal with them more specifically. The Department of National Health and Welfare is the second largest in terms of expenditure of all the departments of government, second only to the Department of National Defence, but in many ways it is of the greatest importance to the people of Canada of all departments of government. It is greater in importance than the Department of National Defence which spends more money because the greatest asset of any nation is the health of its people. At the moment I am more concerned with the subject of health than with the subject of welfare and so I will confine my remarks to that

aspect of the department. It is the duty of our department of health to ensure that we have a nation of healthy and vigorous people and so it must be constantly on the alert to guard, promote and maintain the health of Canadians.
Today the emphasis in the field of health is on prevention. The medical profession and all our health organizations are today gearing their efforts towards the prevention of sickness and disease rather than cure. In order to facilitate that program of prevention, in other words to combat disease before it occurs, we must have an additional speeded up program of research and study.
The battle that will be waged by our research men against sickness and disease will require a greatly enlarged staff and we will have to provide additional training facilities in order to prepare technicians and experts to carry on this research. This will also require the expenditure of vast sums of money but I am satisfied that the people of Canada will not begrudge money for this important aspect of promoting their own health and welfare and in building a nation of which each of us may well be proud. That is a general review, as I see it, of the need for expanding and continuing research into the prevention of sickness and disease.
One aspect of illness with which I wish to deal in greater detail at the present time is mental illness. This is the No. 1 health problem not only in Canada but throughout the world. It is difficult today to pick up a magazine or newspaper of any repute without finding a report of advances that are being made in the study of mental disorders and in devising cures for the various phases of mental illness with which our people are beset. I sometimes wonder if we are completely on the right track in this respect. Many patients who visit doctors at the present time complaining of stomach disorders, skin disorders, neuritis, sciatica and migraine headaches invariably have their disorder diagnosed as being attributable to nerves. If a person with a chronic skin disorder visits a doctor there is a strong likelihood that the doctor's verdict will be that the patient suffers from nervous eczema. A person suffering from what used to be called gastric stomach disorder or some other common stomach ailment is today invariably told that he has a nervous stomach. Those suffering from various neuralgic pains, sciatica, neuritis or migraine headaches are advised they are suffering from just plain "nerves". The treatment for those conditions, of course, is frequently psychiatry or sedation. I think that in too many cases our doctors today do not have the time to devote to treating these
Supply-Health and Welfare cases which seem to be increasing in number and an easy way out is to prescribe sedation. This of course has a temporary effect and may bring relief but I have often wondered if it is the proper relief.
I was recently intrigued by a series of articles which recently appeared in a publication written by two noted doctors, one from Montreal and one from the province of Saskatchewan. I will not mention any names but I will say that these men are approaching the problem of mental illness in a fresh way. In cases of chronic skin disease they are attempting to find if there is some physical cause for the disease. They are of the view that perhaps chronic skin diseases which can be extremely irritating are the cause of the nervous condition in the patient instead of the nervous temperament of the person being the cause of the skin disease. In other words we are coming back to the question: which came first the chicken or the egg? That is the problem these and other doctors are trying to determine today in the field of mental health. I suspect that all too often doctors have said that the patient's condition was caused by nerves whereas the nervous condition has in fact been the result of physical disability.
The chief of the mental health department of the province of Saskatchewan and the doctor in charge of the research institution there are taking that attitude. They are obtaining wonderful results by treating people who for years have been considered incurable mental patients. They are attacking the problem from the physical standpoint and have discovered that in many cases a physical disability has been the cause of a nervous condition from which patients have been condemned to suffer for many years. Many people have been cured and are leaving that institution to which they were condemned, if you will, and in which they expected to spend the rest of their lives. The problem of mental illness will require a vast amount of study, research and the expenditure of large sums of money.
Hon. members of this house frequently ask the government to cut down expenditures and yet we always seem to be hollering for it to spend more money. I would suggest, however, that there be absolutely no cutback in grants to provinces, universities and health organizations of any kind that are furthering the cause of research into any of the sicknesses and illnesses that plague our people at the present time. I would make a special plea that the grant for research and study in the field of mental illness be greatly increased

Supply-Health and Welfare because it is one of our greatest problems today and it looks as though it will be a continuing problem of increasing proportions unless some drastic action is taken.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, as I said we shall go into the minor details of the huge expenditure contained in these estimates. We shall study the estimates as we go along, but I should like to emphasize this. I hope the Department of National Health and Welfare will do absolutely nothing, in the way of curtailing expenses, to interfere with grants to the provinces, to universities and to health organizations in any plans they may have that bring promise of winning the battle in the prevention of disease and sickness among our people.


Mr. Halpenny:: Mr. Chairman, I have been privileged to serve as parliamentary assistant to the Minister of National Health and Welfare since last August. In the brief space of less than five months I have been greatly impressed with the wide range of the department's activities connected with health and welfare, and with the way in which the work of this department reaches out to touch almost literally the lives and the way of life of almost every one of the 17 million people living in Canada.
In terms of personnel employed in this department, it is not one of the larger ones in the government of Canada. In terms of personnel employed, the establishment this year for the entire department numbers fewer than 5,000, which is only about three per cent of the public service taken as a whole. It does not compare in size, Mr. Chairman, therefore, with the giant establishments of national defence, post office, veterans affairs, transport or the finance department. The entire department actually employs only about half as many people as the national employment service and the unemployment insurance commission.
On the score of budget and expenditures, however, this department is one of the largest and most important of all departments in the public service, with a budget that will this year run somewhere close to $1 billion. This is true when supplementary estimates and additional expenditures arising out of recent legislative changes are added to the $918 million published in the blue book of estimates at the beginning of the current year. Only national defence, with a budget of almost $lf billion, and finance with a budget of $1,150 million, exceed the total size of the annual budget of expenditure of the Department of National Health and Welfare for the current year.
Perhaps the most outstanding feature of this budget of close to $1 billion is that only

$75 million requires to be voted by parliament. The balance of the $925 million consists of statutory items, where the authority for the expenditure is written into the legislation itself. It continues from year to year as long as the legislation remains on the statute books and consequently an annual appropriation is not required to be voted by this house.
I should like to repeat these two figures, Mr. Chairman, because I doubt whether many members realize how large a proportion of the expenditures of this department is dependent upon the annual procedure of voting the estimates in this house. The sum of $925 million, or roughly 92.5 per cent of all the funds required by the Department of National Health and Welfare this year, is provided automatically by the statutory authority contained in the legislation which this department administers. Only $75 million, or 7.5 per cent of total expenditures, requires to be specifically voted by this parliament.
What I have just said with reference to the small percentage of this department's estimates requiring a vote of parliament does not in any way lessen the importance of close and detailed scrutiny by the members of this house when the estimates come up for consideration. In offering our comments and criticisms with respect to the estimates of this and other departments we are discharging our responsibilities as elected representatives of the people, sent here to ensure the wise and proper administration of the funds which are taken from the people by way of taxes and provided to the various departments to enable them to carry on the administration of the public services of the country.
Since this is the first occasion when this new parliament has had an opportunity to consider the estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare, and since there are so many newly elected members of this present parliament, one might have thought that the work of the department and the programs which it administers would require a good deal of explanation and elaboration at this time. However, the fact is that while the estimates in the formal sense come before this parliament now for the first time for detailed discussion, most of the programs administered by the department have already received a good deal of the attention of this house in the weeks that have elapsed since we first met here on October 14. In fact, the second thing that impresses me as I examine the estimates of this department is this: already, within the short space of two months, the new Conservative administration, under the leadership of our present Prime Minister, has

introduced and obtained the passage of amendments effecting major improvements in social legislation now on the statute books of this country. It took almost 20 years for the previous Liberal administration to place on the statute books such enactments as the Unemployment Insurance Act, the Old Age Security Act, the Old Age Assistance Act, the Blind Persons Act, the Disabled Persons Act and the Unemployment Assistance Act.


Mr. Lesage:: What about family allowances?


George Ernest Halpenny: We will forget that just now. I must tell you something. You have been up in this house about 30 times. This is my first time up. Will you lay off, or I will have to interrupt you some day.
It took only two months, Mr. Chairman, for this government to effect important and far-reaching changes in all of this legislation. We have amended the Old Age Security Act to raise the amount of benefit from $46 to $55 a month and to reduce the residence requirement from 20 to 10 years. We have made similar changes in the Old Age Assistance Act, in the Disabled Persons Act and in the assistance given to the blind people. These changes have brought great comfort and satisfaction into the lives of over 900,000 aging and handicapped men and women in all parts of Canada. Through the Unemployment Assistance Act, passed only this week, we have offered a much larger measure of financial assistance to the provinces which will have the effect of improving the standards of relief and services to needy persons in many parts of Canada, because it will place the provinces, and particularly the municipalities of this country, in a much better position than before to deal generously with the needs of these unfortunate people.
Here we have no fewer than five pieces of legislation, Mr. Chairman, all of them administrated under the direction of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, touching directly the lives of over one million people in this country; I think it is to the very great credit of this administration that in the short space of two months with all the difficulties involved in taking over the reins of government after 22 years in opposition the first priority on the time and attention of this new parliament has been the amelioration of the lot of our senior citizens, our aged blind and disabled and needy persons. This is a very striking demonstration, Mr. Chairman, that the present administration is close to the people, responsive to their needs and gives first 96698-174
Supply-Health and Welfare priority as a good government should to the human and social needs of the people to whom it is responsible.
The five pieces of legislation to which I have referred are not, of course, the only ones on which the government has taken action or with respect to which it has announced its intention of taking action in the very short space of time since it took over the reins of office. The house has already debated and approved a very important measure for the extension of seasonal benefits in connection with unemployment insurance, a social measure which lies outside the scope of the Department of National Health and Welfare but which none the less is an important item in the list of accomplishments in the social welfare field during the present session of parliament.
Another important announcement concerning changes in the six-provinces requirement in the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act has also been made by the Prime Minister during the course of the current session. Since this is the last day on which the house will be sitting during the calendar year 1957, I think I am safe in assuming that this important change in the hospital insurance legislation will not be brought down until some time early in 1958. Its introduction and passage will furnish still one more example of the rapid forward strides that have been made in the field of health and social legislation under the new administration.
I should like to say as one member of the house, Mr. Chairman, that on the basis of the record I have outlined I think the new government is to be heartily commended for the creditable record it has achieved, particularly in the health and social welfare fields, and for the almost unbelievable speed with which it has acted in these matters. To record our satisfaction with these accomplishments is not, however, to suggest that our work is finished. As we examine in detail the work of the Department of National Health and Welfare, we will no doubt find other areas, both in the administrative and legislative fields, for changes and improvements.
One of the most important and valuable programs undertaken on the health side of the department is that represented by the national health grants. Through this program more than $35 million is made available in support of the health services and facilities of the provinces of Canada.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Is it not $48 million?

Supply-Health and Welfare


George Ernest Halpenny: It is $35 million right now and it will be more next year but I am talking about 1957.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: The hon. member said "available". I think it is $48 million available and perhaps $35 million has been spent.


George Ernest Halpenny: Thirty-five million or $36 million has been spent, somewhere around there, and there is approximately $45 million available. Time does not permit an examination now of the many and varied phases of this program, but one of the problems to which we shall undoubtedly have to give our attention in the years ahead is the relationship of these grants to the new hospital insurance program which will come into effect in 1958 in some provinces and in 1959 in others, and which will have a very real but as yet unpredictable influence on the total structure of health services in this country.
To illustrate the connection between the national health grants program and the hospital insurance program, I need only refer to the fact that the major item in the national health grants program consists of hospital construction grants through which the federal department endeavours to stimulate the building of additional hospital beds to meet the demands which hospital insurance will undoubtedly create. One other important area of program on the health side of the department is that represented by the Indian and northern health services items in the estimates. I referred in my opening remarks to the fact that only $75 million in the estimates of this department is subject to an actual vote of parliament. I might have mentioned at that time that approximately 25 per cent of this total is represented by the salary item in the department as a whole; and likewise, to provide an indication of the relative importance of this item in the expenditure of the department, I should point out that the Indian, Eskimo and northern health services items taken as a whole represent about 25 per cent of the total amount which parliament is asked to vote in the estimates of this department.
May I at this time, Mr. Chairman, take the opportunity to express best wishes for Christmas and the new year to you, to your associates, to the officers of the house, the page boys, the stenographers, the members of the press, of whom there are not too many present at this moment, and to each and every member of the House of Commons.


Mr. Beech:: Mr. Chairman, I rise to make some comment on the attitude of the hon. member for Essex East with regard to the

$1,000 grant towards the capital cost of the construction of hospitals. It seemed to me that he was satisfied that this was a generous amount. I want to say that the hospital of which I happen to be a director is currently putting on a campaign to raise funds for an addition. When I see the canvassers going from door to door, alienating their friends and spending their valuable time in order to get a few extra dollars for this construction program, it seems to me that a grant of $1,000 a bed is a betrayal of these people. I sincerely hope that the government is going to take a more realistic attitude in the matter of grants for hospital construction.


Mr. Barnett:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words before the item carries. If I understood the minister correctly, when we began the discussion of the estimates of the department he indicated that he was going to follow the bad example of his predecessor and was not going to give us an outline of the activities of the department or of his plans for the future. While there may have been some reasonable excuse for the former minister not having done so in recent years on the ground that over a period of years he had made a good many statements and that as he had no new plans to offer it would simply be repetitious if he were to do so, nevertheless it came as a bit of a surprise to me that, with the bold, new government to which the minister belongs, according to statements he and others on the treasury benches have made, he did not see fit to give us some indication of just how the new broom was going to sweep clean. Perhaps after listening to the suggestions and comments made by members like the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre the minister may see fit to give us some indication before his estimates are carried as to just how we are going to see the new broom in action.
I noticed that the parliamentary assistant gave us quite a resume of the legislation that had been put on the statute books by the former administration over a period of 22 years. He said what all of us in the house know, that certain amendments have been made to some of these acts since this session began. However, when some of us have the opportunity of assessing just how these amendments are working out perhaps we can be excused for not being quite as enthusiastic with regard to them as was the hon. member for London.
I have no desire to enter into an extended discussion of the subject. However, I should like to make it quite clear, along with other members from the province of British Columbia, that the delay and the silence with respect to when national hospital insurance is going to become effective in our province,

referred to by some other speakers, are something about which we are concerned.
According to some reports I have seen in the British Columbia press we have the prospect that our provincial administration may be going to carry out some retrenchment of expenditures in this coming year. It is reported that one of the reasons for that retrenchment is some decline in the revenues that come from our provincial sales tax from which, as the minister knows, the expenses of our hospital insurance services are defrayed. If that is the case, then of course the minister will appreciate the fact that some of us at least in British Columbia are going to have a greater concern as to the future progress of our hospital system in British Columbia than perhaps we have had even before this time.
Any of us who have had any opportunity of a connection with any local hospital board in the province of British Columbia know that our local hospital boards in that province have been labouring under very serious difficulties in maintaining adequate services because of the financial limitations that are being imposed upon them by the provincial administration. For that reason we are more than ever concerned that the financial assistance that is provided under the act that we passed in this house should become available in our province at the earliest possible date.
I am not going to say any more on that subject except that I know the suggestion just made by the hon. member for York South is one which those of us in British Columbia who have seen the problems of our hospital boards there would most heartily second. On more than one occasion in previous discussions we have made it clear that because of the drastic increases in hospital construction costs that have taken place since the present figure was set we feel it to be unrealistic in that it does not bear anything like the same relationship to the costs of providing hospital beds and hospital accommodation that it did originally.
References have already been made to the fact that earlier this year we in this house passed a further increase to the old age pension. It is on record, of course, that those of us in the C.C.F. group considered that to be a step in the right direction. However, in our consideration of the estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare, and in our assessment of the effectiveness of the activities that are carried on under the responsibility of this minister, I think we must consider such things as this particular old age pension increase in the context of the general situation in the country. While on the face of it an extra $9 a month appears 96698-174J
Supply-Health and Welfare to be a very welcome addition to the income of those who are dependent primarily on that basic old age security pension,-and the same would apply to some of the other pensions that were increased-nevertheless I think part of our responsibility as members of parliament is to remain alert to what is happening to that money after it goes into the hands of the old age pensioners. There have been a good many indications-in the province of British Columbia at least-that the effective value of that $9 is already disappearing to a large extent. In many of the centres one hears increasing numbers of reports that most, if not all, of that amount has already been taken up by an increase in the rents which people receiving old age pension are going to have to pay.
According to reports I have seen, approaches in this connection have been made to the provincial administration for a resumption of rental controls. But apparently our provincial administration in British Columbia has turned a completely deaf ear to any suggestions of that kind. Perhaps it is not too surprising to some of us that that should be the case, because our provincial administration in British Columbia, just as our federal administration here, seem bound and determined that they are going still to worship at the feet of the golden calf of free enterprise. Just as in this house the present administration turned a deaf ear to our pleas the other day in respect of interest rates on housing, so apparently the provincial administration in British Columbia turned a deaf ear to any suggestion for action that was put to them, at least as far as the rental field is concerned.
As a matter of fact I drew the attention of the house the other day to the effect on the old age pensioners for whom people are attempting to provide low rental housing. The effect of the action of this government in the housing field, in continuing to allow the increase of interest rates that went into effect in the last year or two to remain in effect, is that no matter how they may try to work the thing out these societies are going to have to charge increased rentals to people on the old age pension. Those affected are not only those who are renting individual quarters, the same situation applies to those who are in some of the rest homes for aged persons.
I have here a communication which I received the other day which describes just such a situation. It describes how all of the people there, who are all over 70 years of age were looking forward to having that extra $9 in order to be able to have for the Christmas holiday season some extras
2742	HOUSE OF
Supply-Health and Welfare that they had not previously been able to enjoy, and how they had been discussing among themselves the thought that, after the Christmas season, with their next $9 they would be able to go out and buy a few extras in the way of clothing which many of them needed badly, and how this interest and anticipation was brought to a sudden and abrupt conclusion when they received official notice that, effective January 1, their rates for room and board were going to go up by $10 a month. The net effect, of course, is that they are now going to be $1 a month less well off than they were before this parliament took the action that we took earlier this session.
These are some of the things that are happening, and these are some of the things that this present administration had better get busy and deal with more effectively than did the previous administration or they are not going to have any 22 years in which to enjoy the emoluments of office. The Canadian people, at least as I have observed them in the last few months, were roused to action. Without going into the gory details of the results of the June 10 election as far as membership of this house is concerned, by observers of the political scene who are outside this house I think it is generally agreed that actually what happened then was that the Canadian people were not voting so much for a new government as voting against inactivity and what some people have described as the complacency of the previous administration.


An hon. Member:: I do not know how you could say that.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I can say that because, as far as I am concerned and so far as any indication in this house to date is concerned, all we have got is a new version of the government we had before.
Perhaps the leader of the party to which my hon. friend belongs may have gone across Canada crying a little louder and a little harder than some of the other political spokesmen. He got elected, not because the people thought he was going to give a different kind of government but because they felt he was going to do some of the things which the other government had refused to do or at least do them in larger measure.
I may say that, while the hon. member may think the government he supports has been very kind and generous to the people with their own money in this particular session, when the Canadian people see what is happening to that generosity so far as its practical effect is concerned, and when they see the present administration is just as inconsistent


as the previous administration in dealing with the fundamental economic problems of the country, then the day may not be too far away when they are going to look for a government different in kind rather than in degree. However, perhaps I am wandering a little from the discussion of the estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare.
I have no intention of making prolonged remarks at this time but I do hope the minister will realize what is happening to these extra payments that have been going out in administering his department and that he will give us some indication of his attitude towards effective action to prevent moneys being dissipated in the manner which I have just described. I may have some other remarks to make on various items in the estimates of this department as we come to them, but I felt that this was a matter of such wide and general importance to the country that I should spend a few moments in bringing it to the attention of the house while we were still on the first estimate.


Mr. Olson:: Before this first item passes
there are one or two questions I would like to ask the minister. At page 1564 of Hansard I asked him a question on orders of the day as follows:
How many of the provinces have indicated that they want the proposed hospitalization plan set up so that the federal government makes a specific contribution to national health and the details and administration of the scheme will be left in the hands of provincial authorities?
He replied as follows:
-I know of no correspondence from any of the provinces to that effect.
He went on to say:
I may be wrong. As I say, I have not had an opportunity to check my files, but if I have made an incorrect statement I will let the hon. member know.
I did not pursue the matter at that time because on the orders of the day was not the proper place in which to do it. I was not only concerned with the correspondence he may or may not have had. There have been some dominion-provincial conferences from time to time and there have no doubt also been conferences of a lesser degree between the various ministers of health and his department. I wanted this information from the minister because it seems that there has been some difficulty in getting the provinces to agree to Bill No. 320 in view of certain of the conditions attached to it.
I realize some of the provinces may have felt they could not meet the conditions required by Bill No. 320 in order to come under the act, and I know on several occasions the premier of Alberta, for example, has publicly indicated that that province is all

for the health scheme which will be of benefit to all the people but is not too happy about having the federal government seriously intruding into matters which are actually under provincial jurisdiction. As several members have indicated today, national or public health is a provincial responsibility. Furthermore I have every reason to believe the province of Quebec has voiced the same rather strenuous objection to being told what to do-perhaps not exactly that-but to meeting the conditions as set out by the federal government.
Now surely we will have to determine where the responsibility for health lies and also where we are going to get the money to pay for it. If the provinces are to be responsible for public health and they do not have the fields of taxation necessary to take care of it, then they will have to come to the federal government. Of course I will agree that the federal government should be prepared to meet some of those costs, but on the other hand if they are going to insist that the details of administration in so far as items being included or excluded are concerned being a federal responsibility, then I suggest they are very definitely intruding on provincial jurisdiction.
There are perhaps some provinces who feel that their resources are just not sufficient to meet the conditions in Bill 320. If that is the case I think this department or this government should take another look and try to come up with something which will be acceptable to more of the provinces. Some of the richer provinces can probably meet these conditions and there are certain items, I understand, which are not contained in Bill No. 320 but which are already being looked after by certain provincial governments. It seems to me on the basis of what I have heard-and I am now asking the minister for clarification-that the provinces are not too satisfied with this bill and I would like to know specifically what objections have been raised.


Mr. Carter:: I have two very brief questions which I think had best be asked on this item because I have not found any other items in the estimates to which they seem related. In my riding we have three travelling clinics. They are very small boats of about 50 feet in length with a crew of two in which a doctor travels around the territory allocated to him and visits the various settlements in his district on a regular schedule. Now these travelling clinics were provided by grants from the Department of National Health and Welfare. There is a need on these boats at the present time for the provision of radio telephones. These boats, as I said, have a
Supply-Health and Welfare crew of only two. Sometimes they have to carry a nurse, and at other times they have to take a patient to hospital, and they are powered by only a single engine. We have had one or two narrow escapes due to the engine giving out, and it was only by a miracle that the people on board saved their lives. This could have been avoided had the ships been equipped with a radio telephone service which would have enabled them to contact other ships lying in the harbours nearby. On one particular occasion a doctor and a nurse had to row several miles in a small boat in very rough seas before they could get aid. I have made some inquiries about this matter, and I understand the initiative in this respect must come from the provinces, and my first question to the minister is whether any representations have been made to his department by the provincial government of Newfoundland to have this equipment provided.
My second question has to do with a certificate necessary for boats sailing to foreign ports. I believe it is called a deratization certificate. That means it is a certificate which certifies that the ship is free from rodents, and ships without this certificate are not allowed to enter certain foreign ports. Prior to confederation the provincial authority provided this certificate at St. John's but when confederation took place the province was no longer able to supply it and our ships had to go to Halifax in order to get this certificate to enable them to sail to foreign ports. Sailing all the way from St. John's Newfoundland to Halifax just to get a certificate caused tremendous inconvenience as well as extra expense, as hon. members will realize. The matter was brought to the attention of the former government and steps were being taken to have the situation remedied. My second question to the minister is as to whether these steps have been finalized or, if not, what stage of progress has now been reached.


Mr. Ellis:: Listening to the parliamentary assistant speak I wondered whether he had gone through Hansard for the last few years looking up some of the speeches by the former minister of health and welfare, because the remarks he made had a very familiar ring. They had been brought up to date a little but nevertheless they consisted of extolling the government for the amount of money it was spending on this department, just as the former minister would have done.
I suggest, as my colleague the hon. member for Comox-Alberni has done, that there have been no changes in policy as a result of the so-called change of government resulting

Supply-Health and Welfare from the election on June 10 last. We had hoped that with the replacement of the old government there might be some fresh approach to the question of health and welfare in Canada, but I notice that the estimates we are considering today remain unchanged; to the best of by knowledge I do not think there has been a single alteration in any one of the estimates drawn up by the minister of health in the former government.
I am particularly interested in the fate of the hospital plan. We have had provincial hospitalization in my own province for quite a number of years, and we are very proud of that plan-the first to be instituted by any government on the North American continent. We did not wait a long time after we took office, but we set out immediately to bring in the hospitalization plan at the earliest possible moment. That was done, and any pride which we have expressed, any boasting in which we might have been inclined to indulge, was done after the plan had been put into effect and after the people of the province had been enjoying its benefits. So I would suggest there is a great deal to be done by the present minister of health before he and his colleagues in the house can, for obvious political purposes, boast about what the present government is doing.
We are quite concerned about the question of tubercular sanatoria and mental hospitals, and we hope the government does not intend to proceed with the policy of giving with one hand and taking away with the other hand, and that any sums paid with respect to the hospital plan will in no way affect the general picture in so far as dominion-provincial fiscal relationships are concerned.
The hon. member for York South raised a point which I had long felt had been overlooked and ignored by the previous government, and apparently the present government is also turning a deaf ear to entreaties made in respect of it. I know the present regulations provide for a grant for capital construction of an active treatment bed of $1,000 per bed, and this grant is to be matched or .exceeded by the provincial government, and in no circumstances shall the federal grant exceed one-third of the total over-all cost of capital construction. I ask the minister, since this proportion of one-third is involved, why he does not consider it advisable, and indeed necessary, to make a grant of one-third of the total over-all cost of a hospital bed? As the hon. member for York South pointed out, $1,000 per bed is a far cry from the type of assistance which the federal government ought to be granting. I have not with me at the moment the figures for the cost of construction per hospital bed in different parts

of the country, but I know there are areas in Canada where it costs about $13,000 or $14,000 per bed.
In the circumstances a grant of one-third, which the regulations mention as being the maximum permissible amount which the federal government can provide, in other words a payment of some $4,000 a bed, would not be out of line, and I agree with one of the hon. minister's colleagues on his own side of the house who stated that it is nonsense to think the federal government is making any worth while contribution to hospital construction as long as it is limiting the grant per bed to a mere $1,000.
Hospital construction costs continue to rise. The former minister of health was quite prepared to turn a deaf ear to the entreaties we made over the years respecting this item, but I had hoped that the new minister would see fit to bring in increases with regard to this very important item of construction. The arguments which have frequently been made against a hospital plan for Canada are that there are not enough hospital beds to go around. We heard the same in Saskatchewan; the Liberal party in that province opposed the plan, and the most frequently used argument for doing so was that there were not enough hospital beds available to make it possible. If there are not enough beds, the obvious answer lies in hospital construction. If there are not enough beds in the provinces or in Canada we have to build them. That is the obvious answer and I presume the federal grant was designed to encourage hospital construction in Canada as the parliamentary assistant pointed out. Surely the minister is not going to suggest to hon. members of this committee that $1,000 out of a capital construction cost anywhere from 12 to 14 times that amount is a grant of a sufficient size to actively encourage hospital construction in Canada. I would hope that the minister would give serious consideration to the future program of activities to be carried on by his department.
I note that there has not been too much enthusiasm on the part of the government so a far as a national hospital plan is concerned and I think that is completely understandable. There has been a Conservative government in Ontario for a great number of years now and in spite of that fact there is no hospitalization plan in that province. I suggest that the reason the premier of Ontario decided to have his province become one of the six provinces to ask for inclusion in the national hospital plan was more out of a desire to put the former government on the spot than it was to actively promote the establishment of a hospitalization plan

throughout this country. As long as the provinces of Quebec and Ontario would refuse to participate it gave the former minister of national health and welfare what he considered an excellent excuse for going up and down the country pointing out that the Liberal government wanted to bring in a hospital plan but was being thwarted in so doing by the two major provinces, Ontario and Quebec.


Mr. Morton:: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question. Does he not realize that Premier Frost had to build hospitals before he could make this announcement?


Alfred Claude Ellis: Mr. Chairman, I will admit that hospitals are being built in every province in Canada but that has nothing to do with a national hospital plan. Hospitals are being built because they have to be built.


Murray Douglas Morton: You cannot have a national health plan without hospitals.


Alfred Claude Ellis: I realize that. I have read editorial opinions in newspapers in the province of Ontario by opponents of the hospital plan who argued that you cannot have a hospital plan because there are not enough hospital beds but I remind hon. gentlemen that that sort of reasoning did not prevail in my own province. We wanted to see a hospital plan in effect and so we proceeded to put one in effect. We did not talk about it or attempt to find excuses for not doing so. There is no reason why the province of Ontario, one of the wealthier provinces of Canada, could not have given the people who live in that province a hospital plan many years ago. When Premier Frost put the former government on the spot by saying, "Yes, we are prepared to go ahead," I am sure it caused the former minister of national health and welfare a great deal of acute embarrassment. Mr. Frost's attitude is illustrated by the fact that he put certain limitations on his acceptance. He did not want to bring it in right away and suggested it be done in 1959.
When the government changed I hoped that the new administration would accept the fact that there are two provinces in Canada which have had successful hospital plans in operation for a number of years and which have been urging year in and year out that the federal government fulfil its pledge by bringing in a national health insurance plan. In my own province we look upon our hospitalization plan as being the effort which the province is putting forward in order to encourage the development of a general health plan for all of Canada. We had hoped that when the federal government brought in a comprehensive national health plan we would be able to supply the people in our province
Supply-Health and Welfare with full medical health care, hospitalization, doctor care and the type of treatment all the people of Canada have a right to expect and enjoy but we have witnessed procrastination and stalling on the part of the present government. When we asked the minister whether the provinces of Saskatchewan and British Columbia which have plans in operation would be offered agreements and whether this government would make it possible for those provinces to enter the national scheme on January 1 next we received nothing but evasive answers. I suggest there is no good reason whatever why those two provinces should not be able to enjoy any benefit which might accrue from the hospital plan brought in by the former government and which, since the present government is simply continuing the policies adopted by the former administration, we presume the present government will carry through.
We in the C.C.F. look upon a hospital plan as being merely a part of a general over-all health plan to provide the Canadian people with the type of medical and health care necessary in this day and age. We Canadians boast about our wealth, our gross national product, about the number of automobiles we have and the material wealth that abounds in this country but I suggest that the real yardstick by which to measure a nation's wealth is the manner in which its federal government provides for the social welfare and health needs of the people of that country. It is not the number of people who drive big cars or the number who live in expensive homes that is important. The government must be judged on the basis of the provision of services to the people of Canada and particularly those services in the field of health and education which are so essential to our survival as a nation. I would urge upon the minister that he proceed as rapidly as possible with the implementation of the hospital plan and that he consider it as merely the first instalment on an over-all health plan to provide for the health needs of every man, woman and child in Canada.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, before the minister replies I would like to put one very brief question. When he speaks would the minister give us all the examples of waste and extravagance that the Minister of Finance has been boasting about so much that he has found in his department and would he indicate by how much he has already succeeded in reducing the estimates Mr. Harris placed before parliament earlier this year?


Jay Waldo Monteith: The hon. member for Essex East asked that question this morning. Were you not here?

Supply-Health and Welfare


Jean Lesage: Mr. Chairman, when the
minister replies I would like him to say if he intends to present additional estimates for the current year as did the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources.


Mr. Peters:: Just before the minister speaks, Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words on the need for further research in two important fields. One of the major health problems confronting Canadians and people everywhere today is cancer. All of us, I am sure, personally know people who have died of cancer and, as individuals, I am sure we continually worry about the question of lung cancer. I would like the minister to tell us what research has been done by the federal government into the question of lung cancer and what the results of that research have been.
Another illness into which some research should be conducted is silicosis. In my part of the country where miners are working in hard rock we are continually plagued with the problem of silicosis. No doubt some hon. members have read in recent months that the incidence of silicosis is dropping very rapidly. The Ontario provincial government on a number of occasions has been asked to investigate this situation and it has established clinics and hospitals capable of dealing with the illness but I do not think the question of basic research into the problem of silicosis has been touched.
In my own area a number of years ago the McIntyre mine established a medical foundation for investigating this condition and they experimented with the prevention of contagion through the inhalation of aluminum dust.
It is quite true that in the hard rock mining areas that have an incidence of silica dust the rate of known silicosis has dropped quite extensively; but the miners and the people in those communities are very fearful. We are told-and this comes not from the Canadian government but from governments across the world, including the governments of Australia, Germany, South Africa and many of the other federal and national governments which have done research into this situation-that the only cure for silicosis is the prevention of silica dust in the air and that can only be accomplished by proper ventilation. I am not suggesting that our people in Canada are not worth as much as people in some of the other countries where they have this problem but I do not think we have been facing up to it.
In the years they have been mining the mining communities have spent very little on ventilation. They have been told that

the research work which the McIntyre foundation did on silicosis is preventing silicosis at the present time. The miners do not agree with that. You can go into Kirkland Lake, Timmins, Noranda, Val D'Or, or any of the northern mining communities, and you will see men 50 years of age who can hardly walk down the street because of the difficulties they have in getting their breath. I would suggest that part of this problem is due to the fact that we have added to the dust in their lungs the aluminum dust that is put into the air. You might say that this is not a matter that affects the Canadian government, but I suggest that research has to be done in this field because the same problem is affecting miners from the Yellowknife and Northwest Territories and every province in Canada where there is a silica problem.
The aluminum dust is added to the other dusts that we breathe both in the mines and on the streets of the towns and to that is added the industrial dusts. To these regular dusts, you add aluminum dust. It is true that when you examine the X-ray plates they do not show clear-cut silicosis. They may show an aggravation of tuberculosis, or they may show nothing at all, but we are finding that these people are having more and more difficulty year by year in breathing and in getting blood circulation to take its proper course. They are dying very young, but their death certificates do not say "silicosis" which is a compensatory disease; they show heart trouble or some of the other pulmonary diseases which are not compensatory. I am suggesting-and it has been suggested by people more capable than I-that the aluminum dust which these mining companies are adding is increasing the problem. It is not a case of whether you want to take the treatment; you have to take it if you work in those communities.
Some hon. members may not know how this is done. In a mining operation there will be a dry room. That is a place where you hang up your clothes. You take off your good clothes in one place and you go to another room where you put on your work clothes and in this room there are a number of air lines and in those air lines they insert a small can of aluminum powder. Under pressure this aluminum powder is blown into the air and anybody walking through that air absorbs into his lungs, a certain percentage of the aluminum dust.
When we have discussed this problem with doctors who are supposed to be experts in this field and have asked them to show

us an X-ray plate which has such an accumulation of aluminum that it would be compensatory-and remember, in Germany alu-minosis is a compensatory disease the same as silicosis is in our country-they have informed us they have never seen X-ray plates that had that amount of aluminum dust indicated on them. I suggest these people are taking this as a prophylactic treatment. Many of them are under the opinion that the incidence of silicosis in Canada has not decreased; it has been covered up. I think the federal government should spend more money and time on doing some research in this field. I am sure it would be possible to get X-ray plates from Germany and other countries that are paying compensation for aluminosis and in that way we could find out just what we are doing to the Canadian people when we fill their lungs full of aluminum dust rather than air. We find that the mortality rate among miners working in hard rock mines is probably just as high as it was a number of years ago. We are also finding, unfortunately, that these people are restricted in getting the compensation that would be their right under the treatment that they are now being compelled to take whether they wish to take it or not.
I also think the Canadian government should do some research into the matter of compulsory portable pensions, particularly for the basic industries of mining and lumbering. We know that the wealth of Canada probably depends to a much greater extent on the health and welfare of our Canadian people than it does on any other single commodity we have and therefore I think we should, if we can, implement an industrial type of pension plan which would allow those people to retire before they have reached the very end of the road. Then we would probably have something to help them along.
Another matter that should be studied very extensively by the Department of National Health and Welfare is nutrition. It is true that in Canada we eat as much as we wish. In the main we are not a hungry nation but we can all remember what happened at the beginning of the war. We were surprised at the vast number of people who tried to enlist for service in that war and were turned down because they were suffering from what the authorities at that time called malnutrition. In my part of the country, northern Ontario, we have both Indian and Eskimo populations. They do not live in my particular riding, but in the vicinity and they are undoubtedly suffering from malnutrition because their diets are not balanced by any stretch of the imagination. Something should
Supply-Health and Welfare be done to assist those people to get the right type of nutrition when they are young so that they will have better teeth and better health in later years.
A few minutes ago one hon. member said something about a health insurance program -the wish is father to the thought-a hospital insurance program in Ontario. From my own observations, since Premier Frost made the declaration that Ontario would embark on a hospitalization plan, I have not seen any great addition to hospitals taking place in the province of Ontario. I am sure the same thing will happen in Ontario that happened in other provinces. We do not need to wait until the hospitals are built. We need a hospitalization plan and once we get that, the hospitals will get built that much sooner. The sooner the federal government gives an impetus to the hospital insurance plan the sooner will it come to pass in Ontario.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few remarks. I will be quite brief. Personally, I want to express my admiration and appreciation of the work done by the staff in this most important department. When my wife and I visited England last summer I had the opportunity to see some of this type of work being done by authorities under the municipal, county, and government of Great Britain. On a number of occasions people with knowledge of what was being done in Canada made very complimentary references to the work being done by the staff of the Department of National Health and Welfare in this country.
In order to save time may I say that I support wholeheartedly the remarks made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, that great champion of health insurance, welfare and the needs of labouring people, the underprivileged and every underdog in the country. I also want to say that I think there is a great need for increased grants in aid for the construction of hospitals. The present grant of $1,000 a bed is completely insufficient under present conditions. I was very pleased to hear the hon. member for York South make some reference to the present situation being a betrayal of the needs of the people at this time. I urge that some consideration be given to this matter.
Prior to coming to this larger sphere of activity-I am not sure of whether it is of influence as far as I am concerned-I was for 20 years a member of a hospital board. I can remember that when we opened our hospital years ago I had the pleasure of taking the present prime minister of Great Britain through the hospital and showing him all its magnificent equipment and

Supply-Health and Welfare modern up-to-date arrangements. I think there were three bedrooms with three beds and six chairs. He was then Captain Harold Macmillan of the Grenadier or Coldstream Guards-I am not sure which-and he was military aide de camp to the Duke of Devonshire. Anyway I will not forget that on that occasion the Duke of Devonshire and Captain Macmillan had occasion to make short speeches and they really patted us on the back. Ever since that time I have been most interested in hospitals.
I do urge that serious consideration be given to increasing these grants. There is a growing need and increasing difficulties are being experienced by local hospital boards and authorities. I am confident that only through the government increasing the grant can we be assured of getting the hospital beds that are required.
I shall make a brief reference to another question. I had occasion recently to have two of the department's publications come over my desk and I was very pleased to get them both. One is a synopsis of the services for the aged in Canada, issued by the research division of the department. I think it is a most excellent synopsis of what is being done by the department and I suggest that any member who is interested in obtaining a good synopsis of the history of the matter and the legislation that the department administers should get a copy of the document. The other one is a synopsis of planning for the aged in Canada issued by the director of the research division of the department. I received it in response to a query as to what was being done with regard to studies in connection with the aged so far as the department is concerned. I would also recommend that members who are interested in this question secure a copy of the document from the research division of the department.
That brings me to another point. I noticed that recently the first Ontario conference on aging was held and I mention it because I have always been very interested in the question. I have seen so many people spend a good number of their latter years without any real enjoyment and in many cases quite unnecessarily because of lack of proper diet or in some cases minor medical or hospital treatment. I was very pleased to see that such a conference had been held and I just want to mention its two main objectives. They are set out in an article in the December issue of Canadian Labour published by the Canadian Labour Congress.
The two main objectives of the conference were: (1) to find out what the problems of the aging in Ontario actually were, and how to go about finding

solutions for them, and (2) to provide an opportunity for those working in this field to learn of each other's activities and discuss coordinated plans for the future.
The program was designed to cover five main aspects of aging: (1) Cost of living and retirement income; (2) Housing and living arrangements: (3) Community services; (4) Employment, unemployment and retirement; and (5) Care, treatment and rehabilitation in hospitals and homes.
I think the agenda of the conference and its purposes were very well organized and I suggest that the Department of National Health and Welfare should use all its influence to get this sort of work going in other provinces and supply whatever assistance it can. I am sure if we get a sufficient number of people to understand the problem and secure co-operation at the local level our provincial and federal plans to assist our older folks, as I like to call them rather than senior citizens, will be very much advanced and improved.
I am tempted by the somewhat tempestuous remarks, shall I say, of the hon. member for London, on the occasion of his first speech in the house, to mention a letter that I received this morning indicating what needs to be done yet in order to care properly for the requirements of our older folks. Incidentally I thought the hon. member took a rather boastful approach to the situation. I believe in giving credit where it is due. The present government has done some worth-while things during its short time in office and I give them credit for it but it must be remembered that the work that has been done is laid on foundations established by the previous government over a great many years-


Mr. Hodgson:: Too many years.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: -the mortar and bricks for which were largely supplied by the members of this group.


Mr. Bell (Carlelon):: What about our Social Credit friends?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just a little straw.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I give them credit too. I think on occasion I have heard them say something on this subject throughout the years although it was so faint that my memory fails me at this time. The letter I received this morning comes from a gentleman in Port Hope who is very concerned about the conditions in some of the homes provided in Ontario for our older folks under a Conservative government. He refers to one home. I shall not mention the place but there has been an investigation and a report. He points out in his letter that the federal government provides $3 a day for the maintenance of immigrants, and no one is objecting to that because we have got to care for them, but only 17 cents per meal is provided for the care of these people in

this home. He mentions that there are four to nine persons in a bedroom, that there is absolutely no privacy and that the $9 increase in old age security or old age assistance has been collared by the people who run the home with the result that the poor old folks have not benefited to any extent at all.


William George Beech: Is that a private home?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am not sure whether or not it is. I will show the hon. member the letter if he would like to see it. The writer does not say but he complains very bitterly about it. The letter comes from Port Hope. In another letter I have received he mentions the unfortunate conditions under which some of our old people have to live in the homes provided for them. A week or two ago I visited some friends who come from Russell, I think it is, and they were telling me of the situation in that county with respect to the care of older people and the things that need to be done before they are properly provided for.
I mention this just by way of illustration and rather as a counterbalance to the rather bumptious remarks of the parliamentary assistant and to show that there is a great deal more to be done. I urge the minister and his officers to do what they can to increase the study of the problems of the aging, to develop wider understanding and greater cooperation throughout the country with a view to getting the support of people and worthwhile organizations in the smaller communities for the efforts of provincial and federal governments to do something to improve the present situation and achieve the objectives that have been laid out by the first conference on aging held in Ontario.


Mr. Fisher:: The first matter I wish to draw to the attention of the committee is in relation to the building in Ontario of a number of new homes for the aged and the difficulty these people have in recovering the sales tax refund through the channels, I believe, of the Department of National Revenue. I should like to put on the record an analysis of the situation made last January by the then hon. member for Port Arthur, Mr. Howe. In referring to this matter he said:
The trouble seems to lie in the fact that section 47 of the Excise Tax Act was never really intended to apply to the construction of new institutions. It is worded in such a way as to make it clear that it is intended to deal essentially with institutions that are already in existence and that are operating on the basis of a clearly established policy.
Then Mr. Howe went on to state how the institution qualifies and he wound up with this statement:
Supply-Health and Welfare
It would appear that the only solution to this problem may be to obtain an amendment to the Excise Tax Act. Changes in this act are now being considered-
And he completes the letter.
I understand from the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance that there has been no question of bringing in this amendment yet. I gather also from this file of correspondence that Mr. Cecile of the Ontario government has been in touch with the minister's department in connection with this matter. I just want to impress upon him that we should like to have that change made. What I mean is this. The sales tax for Port Arthur undoubtedly will be coming through. But there are going to be a number of these institutions. Our sister city is planning one. There is no reason at all why they should have to wait so long in order to get this refund and to have such difficulty about certification. This point needs to be especially made because at the present time our new home for the aged is embroiled in a controversy with our local council over this matter and it would have a much better financial position to express at the present time if it had had this sales tax refund in connection with building the institution.
The other two matters I wanted to speak about relate to physical fitness and to sport. As the minister is aware, I know, during the last war there was developed a tremendous concern about physical fitness in this country. An act was implemented that was under the jurisdiction of the former minister and there was a physical fitness division which was designed to give grants to the provinces and generally to stimulate physical fitness. A couple of years ago that just sort of petered out and as I understand it the physical fitness division in the old concept has gone. In looking at the debates at the time when the physical fitness division was disappearing, I find that the general attitude of the house seemed to be that this was legislation that did not work, that there did not seem to be any great need for it. In the interim we have had such series as a very responsible newspaper like the Montreal Gazette has been running recently on physical fitness of Canadians and analysing it from the point of view of the tremendous changes in our society that have created a softness and a slackness in us -through the motor car and other developments like that-that cry for a real physical fitness program in the nation.
We happen to have in Canada a great expert on physical fitness, namely Lloyd Per-cival, who every week for many years has put on a program on the C.B.C. I believe he has had over 500 programs now. It is designed for youngsters and young boys. There

Supply-Health and Welfare has been a tremendous response to that program. He has had several hundred thousand letters. There have been some disturbing conclusions from his correspondence and from his investigations. I would suggest that it might be a good idea if the minister in this particular regard consult with Mr. Percival and get some sort of assurance from him. After all, he is a man who is in touch with this particular field and we seem to be lagging behind.
From a personal point of view, my hobby happens to be the history of sports in Canada. In tracing through the trouble that sports such as hockey and lacrosse have fallen on in the last 25 or 30 years we see there has been a tremendous switch in our whole attitude toward leisure. While there are some magnificent developments in the field of hunting, fishing and that sort of thing that are giving our people a real opportunity to exploit the great out of doors that we have, the fact remains that in straight physical terms we do not seem to be developing enough tough and fit people. Perhaps we can look around the house and see examples of that. Perhaps we can look at ourselves. I know the Minister of Transport has a good idea of somehow creating a small gymnasium right in the House of Commons, on the theory that we are going to continue to have more and more young members, these young keen men especially on the far side. If we had a bicycle machine and some weight lifting equipment here we might stave off a few of these heart attacks and perhaps start at this problem right at the heart of the nation, or we like to think that it is the heart of it.
The problem of physical fitness is not one that you can legislate. It comes in from many directions. It is extremely complicated. But surely the national department that embraces this matter has a responsibility that the minister could well take an interest in. I know, as soon as he does begin to take an interest in it the kind of criticism he is going to encounter. So many people, conscious of the tax dollar, look at it as a very frivolous thing on which to spend money. It does not seem so frivolous if we are as conscious of the Russian threat as we like to think we are. There is a tremendous interest now in improving our educational set-up, especially in scientific fields. Yet if any of you have ever oeen associated with war you have to recognize that physical fitness is the final and deciding factor in so many cases, especially in any sort of war or struggle where you have to hold ground. At the present time our young people seem to be lacking in physical fitness and certainly our middleage people in many cases are not examples to them.

Moving on from that to another aspect of physical fitness brings me into the very touchy field of sport and international sport. In Canada there is a tremendous desire amongst the people as a whole that our sporting representatives at Olympic games, empire games and any sort of team sports with which we are associated with the rest of the world we should do better. There is almost an inferiority complex which has developed in relation to the United States in this regard. If one goes back in our Canadian sporting history to before the turn of the century he will find that Canadians can be extremely proud about their heritage in that regard. Up until the late 1890's Canada used to dominate most of the sporting relationships she had with the United States. Canadians took a great deal of pride in it. I believe over $50,000 were bet on Ned Hanlan back in the 1880's when he was rowing away over in Australia. There was great concern.
All these things go to build up national pride. We saw a reflection of this when our hockey team, several years ago, took a defeat and so many people throughout the country took it as a national disaster. You have seen the recent reaction to the rather victorious Russian hockey visit. We are hurt, although we try to be good sports about it, that this thing has developed. This may seem extraneous and far away from the minister's estimates. But sooner or later if we are going to take our position in the international sporting world there must be recognition by the national government that we have a greater responsibility than we have taken in the past. There is no reason why our lacrosse teams and our other teams going abroad should perform in such a slip-shod fashion, why we should send such unfit teams and why, in the training preparatory to the games at all times, our teams have to have such makeshift arrangements.
Now in Toronto, private enterprise-with which your party is so proud to identify itself-has been doing a good job, largely sparked by the people connected with the Canadian national exhibition and there are some very promising results, but there just is not sufficient interest developed until the games are actually taking place. I think that is another aspect which the officials and the minister might keep in mind. I am sure he is not planning and will not plan to do anything about it immediately, but it does seem to me that is worthy of consideration by his department and that strenuous effort should be made to improve the prestige of this nation which means so much to us all in the

international sporting field by enlightened government support of the various facets of sport.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, first of all I would like to join with all those who have said very kind words about the officials of this department. I walked into the office at the corner of Bank and Slater on the afternoon of August 22 and I had to inquire as to where those offices were. I had had no idea previously as I had never been in them before but I soon found myself being made feel very much at home and the assistance given to me at that time and which is still given to me today, for I am certainly very much in the learning stage, has been tremendous. I just could not have gone along without the excellent help of the splendid members of my staff.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Jay Waldo Monteith: There are one or two questions which I think I might clear up as I go along. The hon. member for Port Arthur mentioned sales tax refunds to county homes. I would like to thank the hon. member for mentioning that subject. However, we do now certify to the Department of National Revenue on these sales tax refunds and I think it is on our certifications that action is taken. Now whether the delay is in our department or not I could not say, although I do not think it can be. When we are asked to certify, the information goes out immediately and I do not think we could be considered responsible for delay. I would also like to thank the hon. member for his remarks concerning physical fitness. I would point out that in my department we have a physical fitness consultant on the staff.
The member for Kootenay West also very kindly mentioned my staff. I might mention that the hospital construction grants, which have been mentioned by several members, are being studied, but that is all I can say in that connection.
With respect to the recent old age increase of $9, several members have mentioned that subject and I have seen newspaper items in this connection. I think all we can do is say that the cheque goes to the recipient. Certainly we give the increase to the beneficiary mentioned. While I am assuming it is the business of county home organizations, or whoever may be concerned with matters of this type, as to what they do about raising rents, at the same time I personally would be very disappointed if the beneficiary did not receive some additional amount as a result of the $9 increase.
The member for Timiskaming made some very helpful suggestions. I would point out
Supply-Health and Welfare to him with respect to cancer research, however, that prior to 1948-1949 the fundamental research on cancer was limited in Canada due to lack of facilities, senior research personnel and assured long-term support. Although national research council did allocate grants for short-term projects, applications received were not commensurate to the extent of the problem to stimulate and co-ordinate basic research. The national research council was established in 1947. Research increased rapidly and in 1948 to 1949 projects totalling 25 were started. In 1954 to 1955, 78 projects as well as 14 research fellowships were started. For 1956 to 1957 the total was 81 awards granted involving some $540,000 in addition to 17 research fellowships for a total value of $65,000. In 1956 to 1957 roughly 70 per cent of the money was provided by the Canadian cancer society and most of the remaining 30 per cent was provided by federal-provincial grants. In all, over the past nine years, a total of $900,000 has been provided in support of research through the health grants program, with an equal amount from provincial sources. It is quite an extensive program and it has been growing very rapidly.
The hon. member also mentioned silicosis and I understand that the provincial authorities actually do look after this matter but we have and will upon request make surveys. I also understand we have made a survey in Nova Scotia and I am not sure about the others but I will be happy to look into that question.
The member for Montmagny-L'Islet asked if I was going to have any increased or further supplementary estimates-


Jean Lesage: Additional.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Additional, yes. There will be some for Hungarian immigration medical and a transfer to do whatever is necessary for old age security.


Jean Lesage: But not for family allowances.


Jay Waldo Monteith: No transfer to the old age security fund.
There have been several suggestions about hospital insurance and I may come to them a little later-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the minister answer my brief question at this time?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Yes, I am not proposing any reductions in the estimates at this time. I do not doubt that the department might be able to find some savings somewhere along the line and I am hoping to keep a close eye on that but I am not making any motion for reduction.

Supply-Health and Welfare


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the hon. gentleman did not quite understand my question. It was not what he thought but what the Minister of Finance thought. The minister boasted several times that he had found extravagances.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Well, you ask the Minister of Finance about that, will you?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Oh, I will.


Jay Waldo Monteith: The member for Medicine Hat inquired concerning certain matters which he considered were problems. Yes, there are some problems having to do with hospital insurance and I will come back to those in a moment.
The member for Burin-Burgeo inquired as to travelling clinics. I might mention that there has been $20,000 approved this year for a radio telephone service based on St. Anthony, Newfoundland, extending the service into Labrador. If an approach is received for a similar service on the four south coast boats already operating by the grant we will certainly be glad to look into the matter.
The hon. member also inquired as to deratization services. This matter has been brought to my attention and I will be happy to look into it and consider the matter further.
The hon. member for Comox-Alberni felt that possibly I should have made an opening statement. I do not see any particular benefit which would have been derived by my doing that. I should like to point out that five pieces of legislation have gone through the house under my sponsorship, with one more at least to come, and these have provided a fairly busy period. He said that probably a new broom might sweep clean. I think I mentioned when I first stood up that I had a particularly good staff. I am certainly finding that the department is well run. There may be some changes; I mentioned in a previous debate I was going to give consideration to a lot of things, such as the regulations under the disability act- a more considered study than possibly has been made for some little time. I have a lot of these things to look into when the house rises and I find the odd moment in which to do it.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, when I referred to sweeping with a broom I was not referring to sweeping out some of the staff; I was referring to sweeping out some of the dusty policies of the previous administration.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I intend to do some of that too. The hon. member for Winnipeg North

Centre mentioned specifically the six provinces, and went on to inquire what we were going to do in this respect. All I can say is what the Prime Minister said at the opening of the dominion-provincial conference:
Unless you express strong reasons to the contrary we are inclined now to recommend to parliament a change in the law to remove the "six provinces" clause and to substitute for it an earlier and more definite date for commencement of the plan.
That legislation is to go before the house as announced.
The hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke was concerned about research, and mental health research particularly. Our total research program this year for mental research amounts to over $500,000. That figure has grown tremendously over the years.
I rather think, Mr. Chairman, that covers most of the specific questions asked, except that there were many statements and questions put with regard to the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act. I should like to assure the hon. member for Essex East that I am firmly of the belief that this act is going to be operative in Canada earlier than it would have been if he had still been holding this office. I believe that very definitely. We have been accused by several hon. members of delay. I do not feel there is any justification for that statement whatsoever. The act was passed-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then show us the evidence.


Jay Waldo Monteith: It was the hon. member's opinion that there has been delay. It is my opinion that there has not been any delay.


John Whitney Pickersgill: How about a few facts?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I am going to give you a few facts. The act was passed in 1957-it was proclaimed on May 1-and the draft forms of agreement were circulated for study together with the draft regulations. Teams of officials visited all the provinces in the course of last summer expressing desire to discuss the bill.
The dominion-provincial conference was held late in November. In the meantime there was discussion back and forth between provincial and federal officials, and then a technical conference was called for December 11, 12 and 13. Technical officials were invited to this conference from all the provinces and I may point out that representatives came from all provinces with the exception of Alberta. By the way, during the dominion-provincial conference I had discussions with the minister from Manitoba, the minister from Alberta and the minister from British

Columbia. I also had a short conversation with the premier of Saskatchewan. I have had conversations with representatives of Ontario, also, and I should like to point out that while Alberta was the only province refusing to come to the dominion-provincial technical conference early in December, I think possibly that province would have benefited if representatives had attended. At that time, many differences of opinion were ironed out, though there are one or two still outstanding. We think the act is administratively possible the way it is. I realize that there has possibly been some disagreement about that, but I do feel this last conference ironed out practically all the difficult points.
I should like to conclude at this point by stating that all the steps necessary toward the implementation of the hospital insurance act have been going forward. It is certainly going to be in operation and the provinces will be receiving federal grants, as the Prime Minister stated in the conference, "at an earlier and more definite date". I do not think I have anything further to say on the matter, but if there are any questions I shall be glad to deal with them.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Did
the minister not take note of the remarks made regarding mental and tubercular hospitals?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Yes, I have. I could say this. It stands exactly where it stood when I was asked a question a short time ago, I think. At any rate it is a matter of government policy and at this moment I am not stating what is going to happen.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the minister accept a question now on this point?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: may say that I do not have on my desk at the moment the record of the open session of the federal-provincial conference but as I recall it the Prime Minister made a statement that day with regard to mental and tubercular hospitals similar to the one he made about the six-province requirement. In other words, up until that time the government and the Conservative party seemed willing to go ahead with the idea of including mental and tubercular hospitals in this legislation but as the minister knows there is no record of what was said at the federal-provincial conference the next day.


Jay Waldo Monteith: But there was quite a divergence of opinion later on the opening day.
Supply-Health and Welfare


Stanley Howard Knowles: Was
it a divergence of opinion that changed the government's mind on this matter?


Jay Waldo Monteith: No, I would not say that. I would simply say there was not unanimity of opinion as there was regarding the six-provinces provision.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Since the minister is talking about what happened on Monday, November 25-in other words I will not ask him what happened in the secret session-will he tell us which provinces expressed a desire for any change in the position?


Jay Waldo Monteith: It is in the record of the proceedings of the open session of the conference.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The
minister has his copy on his desk and I do not have mine here. He can answer the question.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Before the minister answers that question, if the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre will permit my putting a further question, I would ask this. Is this not the situation: the Prime Minister at the dominion-provincial conference announced that the government proposed to include tuberculosis and mental illness in the hospital insurance act thereby committing the federal government to sharing with the provinces the cost of these two coverages under that act, but that the Prime Minister, in contradiction of what he had said during the course of the election and what he had urged along with others when they were in opposition, said that those inclusions would take place but that any money spent by the federal government with respect to these two inclusions representing an estimated expenditure of some $68 million would be deducted from any further grants made under the fiscal agreements. Some of the provinces who were anxious to have mental illness and tuberculosis included were not perpared to accept that particular proposal. Is that not the situation?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I am sorry, but I was examining the record of the dominion-provincial conference to see what the Prime Minister actually said on that day. As I understand the hon. member for Essex East he is suggesting that the amount which might be required to implement the inclusion of mental and tubercular hospitals would be reduced from any additional amount which might be given to the provinces?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes.

Supply-Health and Welfare


Jay Waldo Monteith: I think it is only reasonable to expect that that would happen. An amount of $70 million or so cannot be tossed around casually, you know.


George Carlyle Marler: It was tossed around during the election, though.


Paul Joseph James Martin: But that was not the question put by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. He simply asked if it was not a fact that the government had announced at the dominion-provincial conference a change of policy and that mental illness and tuberculosis would be included and that gave rise to much hope.


Jay Waldo Monteith: If there was unanimity.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not think the Prime Minister said "if there was unanimity". I may be wrong in that particular but in that context I do not think he used those words. In any event if tuberculosis and mental illness were included the amount given by the federal government for those two coverages would be deducted from any increase in further grants made pursuant to the fiscal agreements.
That is not what the Prime Minister said during the course of the election. That is not what hon. gentlemen opposite when in opposition said should be done and said they would do if they were given a chance to bring forward legislation. What I am saying is that having given these assurances during the election and having made these demands when in opposition the government, apart altogether from what may be the financial merits in themselves, could not reasonably take the position which the Prime Minister did take and-


Jay Waldo Monteith: You are so wrong.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister tells me that I am wrong. He always says that but he does not indicate in what particular I am wrong.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I will tell you in a moment.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What is going to happen? The province of Ontario is now making its preparations for its particular scheme and included in that is an insurance arrangement under its plan for tuberculosis and mental illness with a designated premium, I think, of 25 cents. Ontario does not want any change with regard to tuberculosis or mental illness. It wants to get all the money it can out of the federal government, something in the neighbourhood of $100 million. That will also be the attitude of the province of Quebec. And when Ontario gets that money in a subsequent period it will come back to the government and ask that
[Mr. Martin (Essex East) .1
the federal government provide grants under the hospital insurance act to cover those two illnesses. That is the position in which the government has put itself as a result of going back on the promise it made to the Canadian people.


Jay Waldo Monteith: It has not gone back on it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend says that the government has not gone back on its promise.


Jay Waldo Monteith: It has gone back on none of its promises.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I would like to hear the minister explain in a reasonable manner that the government intends to include tuberculosis and mental illness without any conditions, and assure us that the conditions I have envisaged will not arise.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I am not going to say what is definitely going to happen. I am only going to explain what the Prime Minister said at the conference. He used the following words on that occasion:
My colleagues and I have no objection in principle to introducing amendments in parliament to provide for inclusion of mental hospitals and tuberculosis sanatoria which have been estimated will cost $68 million to begin with if all the provinces come in and the cost will mount year by year but we wish to make clear that whatever is offered to provincial treasurers in this matter cannot be provided in other forms, and in particular must be taken into consideration in any revision that takes place of the Tax Sharing Arrangements Act.


Mr. Chevrier:: That is clear.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Now, wait a minute. If there is going to be an adjustment in the tax sharing arrangements act the adjustment could involve $68 million. That is all it amounts to.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It could be that.


Jay Waldo Monteith: That is all it is.


Paul Joseph James Martin: But I say to my
friend with great respect-and I quite appreciate the difficulties of his position-this could undoubtedly be the case but that is not what the Prime Minister of this country said in the election he would do. He said in Saskatoon on May 27, "the Conservative party still believes that hospital insurance should cover patients in mental and tuberculosis institutions". He said nothing whatever about deducting the amounts of money that this particular policy would involve from the fiscal grants. When he spoke in Massey Hall in Toronto in the presence of the premier of Ontario he indicated then his belief in hospital insurance. He said that those items should be included in that measure at the very meeting when Premier Frost himself, turning to the Prime Minister, said, "Ontario

has not had a fair deal from the federal government in the matter of fiscal grants."


Jay Waldo Monteith: Nor had it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: There was the man pointing to the Prime Minister who would rectify this situation and give Ontario the $100 million to which he thought that province was entitled.


Jay Waldo Monteith: The figure $100 million was not used.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It was used by Mr. Frost not only at that meeting but at many meetings all over the province of Ontario including one held in the city of London not far from where the hon. gentleman and I live. The people of this country were led to believe that there would be these generous fiscal arrangements and that there would be no deductions from them for any purpose whatsoever. I say to the hon. gentleman-


Jay Waldo Monteith: You do not know what the ceiling is on fiscal arrangement adjustments.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That may be. The
ceiling is not the point.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Yes, it is.


Paul Joseph James Martin: With great respect, I say no. Suppose the ceiling is only $25 million, not $100 million.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I am not going to get into that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I can well understand why my hon. friend does not want to. Suppose the ceiling is $25 million. What we are saying is that we were told that tubercular and mental illness would be included-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Without condition.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -without any condition whatsoever, and the Prime Minister has placed my hon. friend in a very embarrassing and difficult position.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Far from it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend can say "far from it", but the fact is that although his party advocated the inclusion of tubercular and mental illness, they are not now prepared to take that step in accordance with their promises made in the election campaign. They have added a reservation that was never present and which was offered, I am sure, after they were confronted with the financial situation in which they have got themselves and for which they must accept full responsibility.
Supply-Health and Welfare


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, the exchange between the hon. member for Essex East and the Minister of National Health and Welfare reminds me- and I mention it to make my point-of the reverse of the situation that we had here last spring. On that occasion it was the member for Essex East who was sitting over on the other side as the minister. He was annoyed at what he regarded as delay in connection with the passing of the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Did you say the minister was annoyed? Oh, that one, yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The annoyance of the present minister reminds me of the annoyance of the former minister when the present Minister of Finance, as the member for Eglinton, moved an amendment to third reading of the bill calling for the inclusion of mental and tubercular hospitals.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Without any deductions.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Without any deductions; no strings attached. It was a matter of principle. Those who were here will recall the strong speech made by the present Prime Minister, who was then the leader of the opposition, and who urged that illness was illness whether it was physical or mental, and that it was a disgraceful thing the former Liberal government was doing by failing to include mental and tubercular hospitals within the four corners of this legislation. That was the position the Conservatives took. I realize that the minister did not take part in that debate-his interests were in other subjects in those days-but his colleagues did. They took the position very strongly that as a matter of right and as a matter of principle mental and tubercular illnesses should be included with other illnesses in this particular legislation.
My hon. friend, the hon. member for Essex East, has already referred to the stand taken in the campaign. He quoted from what the Prime Minister said at Saskatoon and referred to what he said at Toronto. Let us look at the report of his speech in another of our major cities which will make it clear. According to the Winnipeg Tribune of May 14, 1957, the Prime Minister said that:
The Conservatives would repair a "serious omission" in the federal health plan which does not include tubercular and mental institutions.
There was no question about it last session; there was no question about it during the election campaign, where the Tories stood. They stood for the inclusion of mental and
2756	HOUSE OF
Supply-Health and Welfare tubercular institutions. I go further, Mr. Chairman. Along with their stand on mental and tubercular institutions, they took a similar stand regarding the removal of the six-province requirement.
Let us get down to this present session. As has already been pointed out, at the start of the session there was silence on the part of the government regarding hospital insurance; but in response to questions on the orders of the day and in response to our presenting a motion of no confidence on this matter, statements got made. Mr. Chairman, up until Monday, November 25, statements made by the government on these two issues, the removal of the six-province requirement and the bringing in of mental and tuberculosis hospitals, were on the same plane. They were both matters that the government was prepared to consider; they were both matters the government was prepared to discuss with the provinces; they were both matters the government was prepared to put on the agenda of the federal-provincial conference that met on November 25 and 26.
I come now to November 25. The Prime Minister said to the federal-provincial conference that the government had no objection in principle to making these two changes, but as the hon. member for Essex East has pointed out, one of them that day for the first time had a string attached to it; namely the inclusion of mental and tubercular hospitals. Therefore, as has been pointed out, some difference of opinion arose amongst the provinces on that day. I confess some of us wonder whether the string was put there deliberately so that one or more of the provinces would take a second look at this proposition. As a result of that, as a result of what happened on Monday, November 25, we have had a different picture ever since. Since that time the willingness to withdraw the six-province requirement still stands. It gets mentioned every once in a while when we ask questions about it or have occasion to do so. But this matter of including mental and tubercular hospitals has now become one of those mysterious matters of government policy on which no statement can be made. Why the difference? Why is it that both of these matters were on the same plane and treated in the same way up to November 25, but since then, one of them is something about which there is going to be legislation, namely the removal of the six-province requirement, but the other is one of those mysterious matters about which there has to be an announcement of government policy if and when the government considers taking up the matter. Mr. Chairman, it looks very clear to some of us as though this whole idea that the Conservatives made the subject of an amendment to


the third reading of the bill last spring, which the Conservatives made so much of during the election campaign, which the Conservatives took to the federal-provincial conference, has been droped so far as this government is concerned.
We contend, Mr. Chairman, that that is a betrayal of election promises, a betrayal of commitments made to the people and of the stand they took in this house during last spring and that they had better consider this very seriously before it breaks them altogether.
There has been an announcement made that there will be legislation to remove the six-province requirement. I do not know why this has not been introduced before this. Other items not as important have reached the order paper. Why has not this one been put on the order paper? But since it has not been put on the order paper it gives the government a chance, when it does bring down those proposed amendments to the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act, to include in the amendment two provisions, one the removal of the six-province requirement and the other the inclusion of mental and tubercular hospitals. I call upon this government, if it wants the Canadian people to have any confidence in the stand it took when it was in opposition, if it wants the people to have any confidence in its election promises, to get back on the rails so far as this important issue is concerned.


Henri Courtemanche: Is item 249 agreed to?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, there were some other questions that the minister did not have very much to say about. When he was speaking about the studying of the hospital grants, I believe he said in reply to one member that hospital grants were being studied. Did he mean by that that consideration was being given to increasing the amount of the grants?


Jay Waldo Monteith: All I can say, Mr. Chairman, is that consideration is being given to their adequacy.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I did not hear what the minister said.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I said that consideration was being given to their adequacy; a study is being made.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Has the minister personally considered the matter?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I made my answer.


William Arnold Peters: With regard to the aluminosis problem, would the minister have the research department obtain some X-ray plates which we understand can be obtained from places where payment is made for aluminosis so that they can be used as a basis of comparison in Canada? We understand that they are available in Germany and if they were obtained we could use them for purposes of comparison.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I would certainly be very happy to look into the matter.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The
minister repeated today the assertion that the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act will be in operation sooner under this government than it would have been had the Liberals stayed in power. I suppose that is what one calls a moveable feast. Can he be more precise?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Not at the moment.


John Whitney Pickersgill: He means the 31st of December instead of the 1st of January.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, at last we know when the Liberals intended to have it in effect.


John Whitney Pickersgill: You always knew that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What year?


John Whitney Pickersgill: January 1, 1959.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We
have it on good authority now that the Liberals had planned to have it in effect by January 1, 1959.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I point out that the act is now in effect. The act is in the law. It rests with the government to implement it and to make agreements with the provinces.


Stanley Howard Knowles: was using the words "in effect" in the same connotation as the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate was using them. After all, he and I, like the hon. member for Essex East, know that the law is on the statute books and has been proclaimed but it is not in operation. No money is being paid out under it, and from what the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate says it was the intention of the Liberals that money would start to be paid out by January 1, 1959.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Provided six provinces had come in.


Paul Joseph James Martin: He did not say that.
Supply-Health and Welfare


Stanley Howard Knowles: What did the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate say?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would be delighted to repeat it. I said December 31 instead of January 1, and that is all I said.


An hon. Member:: What year?


Alfred Claude Ellis: 1970.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Now that we have a precise answer from the Liberals I wonder whether we cannot have a more precise answer from the Conservatives. Surely it is not a responsible position for the government to tell us that they are willing to remove the six-province requirement, that they are willing to pay some of this federal money to some of the provinces before there are six of them with plans in actual operation, and not give us some idea whether that can be expected by January 1, 1958, July 1, 1958, January 1, 1959 or when.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I have mentioned several times that it will certainly be earlier than January 1, 1959. I cannot specify any other date at this time. As I told the hon. member, and I have mentioned this before, there will be an amendment concerning the matter.


Mr. Winch:: British Columbia now has a plan in operation. Is there any reason why British Columbia cannot get a contribution now? I believe the amount is $18 million.


Jay Waldo Monteith: The present act calls for six provinces and six provinces have not actually got legislation in operation.


Harold Edward Winch: British Columbia has. How about paying British Columbia?


Alfred Claude Ellis: What about Saskatchewan?


Jay Waldo Monteith: British Columbia will be able to collect earlier under the revised act than under the present act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I will not press the point as to what date is earlier than January 1, 1959. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate now says that the day before is earlier. I hope it will be a lot sooner than that. Can the minister tell us-


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It
is interesting to hear these remarks from the other side of the house from members who were not here last spring and therefore are not in a position to recall how concerned their Conservative colleagues were about this legislation when the hon. member for Essex East was in charge of it. I should like to

Supply-Health and Welfare ask the minister this question. When the six-province requirement is altered, is it the intention of the government to remove it altogether or to reduce it to some lesser number of provinces?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I think it certainly has been stated that it would be removed altogether. The Prime Minister said in his statement that it was proposed to substitute an earlier and more definite date for the commencement of the plan.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May
we take it then that if the act is amended by writing into it a definite date for the financial provisions to come into operation money will be available at that date to provinces that have plans in operation even if they are only one or two in number.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Yes, that would be my interpretation.


Harold Edward Winch: Is it the intention to introduce the bill after the house reconvenes in January?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I think I have made that statement.


Harold Edward Winch: Pardon?


Jay Waldo Monteith: The statement has been made several times that it is the intention of the government to remove that clause.


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.


Harold Edward Winch: Can British Columbia get its payment starting on January 1?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Can we carry the first item?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Carried.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Six
o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.


The Acting Chairman (Mr. Rea):: Shall item 250 carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: What is the status of item 249? There were several members who called six o'clock.


Harold Edward Winch: Before you rise, Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.


Harold Edward Winch: All I want to do is to say-


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.


Harold Edward Winch: -Merry Christmas and a happy new year. That is all I want to say.


George Harris Hees: We will let you say that.
Progress reported.



Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, it will not be necessary for me to ask the house leader what the business is for the session when we reconvene because he has already given that, but I do want to take this opportunity to tell the house leader how happy I have been on this side of the house to be associated with him in the business of the house in the last two months. I assure him it has been a pleasure to me to work with him in this entirely new position so far as I am concerned, and I should like him to know that the relationship has been very pleasant.
I should also like to extend to him and those associated with him on the other side of the house our very best wishes for Christmas and the new year with the hope that in the new year he will be able to give us in advance at least one week's business. I should also like to add that I hope the new year for him and those associated with him will be a most happy one in all aspects save the field of public life. I venture to hope that during the course of 1958 it will be possible for the house leader and myself to exchange positions.
I would not want to leave this happy note without telling you, Mr. Speaker, how happy we on this side of the house have been to have you preside over the destinies of parliament. You have done a magnificent job. I am sure all of us on this side would want me to say that you have performed your duties fairly and equitably, always keeping in mind the decorum that should exist in the house, and particularly in presiding over the welfare of this assembly with great equity as you have done. I should like to repeat the sentiments I have expressed to the house leader and pass them on to you and wish you a very merry Christmas and the most happy new year.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I join with the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier), speaking on behalf of the members of this group, in wishing the season's best greetings to all our colleagues in parliament, on all sides of the house. May I also have the very real pleasure of joining with the hon. member for Laurier in the expressions that he made to yourself, Mr. Speaker. He put it very well. We have enjoyed greatly your work as the presiding officer of this house. Your good sense and your sense of humour have been invaluable. It is indeed a pleasure for us to wish to you and Mrs. Michener a very merry Christmas and a happy new year.


Solon Earl Low: Mr. Speaker, 1 said on the first day of the session that your good self was a very proper person for the very exalted position you now occupy, very largely because you were born in Alberta where our people have all those qualities that make good Speakers. We have appreciated your fairness and the splendid way in which you have conducted the business of the house. We are not at all disappointed with what you have done. I want to join with all the others in wishing to all our colleagues a very merry Christmas and for the year 1958 an abundance of all those good things that human beings enjoy.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, the events of the last five minutes have illustrated, more clearly than anything else could do, what a spirit of comradeship exists here in the House of Commons. Just before six o'clock we were all yelling and shouting at each other, and no doubt a spectator in the gallery would have thought that everybody was going to go home angry. Yet, thanks to the kind words of the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier), we are back again in our club where there really is such a wonderful feeling.
On behalf of the government may I join in the expressions of appreciation to Your Honour and wish you a very merry Christmas.
I should also like to thank the members of the three other parties for their kind remarks. In particular, I should like to thank those members of the other parties, who have been responsible for dealing with me in connection with the house business, for their co-operation. We are working here in this particular session under unusual circumstances. I feel sure that those circumstances will be brought to an end-


Jean Lesage: Hear, hear.


Howard Charles Green: -before very long-
Adjournment of House


Mr. Harkness:: Hope springs eternal over there on the other side.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Tell us the date of the election.


Howard Charles Green: -but perhaps not in the way the hon. member for Laurier would wish. However, after all, we are in the hands of the Canadian people.


George Carlyle Marler: And you have been in opposition previously.


Howard Charles Green: We have a good opposition across the way now. I think they are playing their proper role in public life in Canada at the moment. However, on behalf of the Prime Minister may I extend to you all very best wishes for a merry Christmas and a happy new year.


Mr. Speaker:: I have always understood that remarks in the house about the conduct of the Speaker could only be advanced by way of substantive motion. I therefore must declare those remarks about myself to be out of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You
are overruled.


Mr. Speaker:: As all of the house is out of order at the moment, I may perhaps be permitted to step out of my role as chairman and say two things. First, I want to thank all hon. members, without exception, for their co-operation and indulgence which have made it possible for me to survive my first two months in the chair. Second, may I wish all a merry Christmas and a happy and healthful new year, without distinction as to party, race or creed. Those who are free to do so will be welcome in the Speaker's chambers after we adjourn.


[Stage Direction]
It being eight minutes after six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, until Friday, January 3, 1958, at eleven a.m., pursuant to the order of the house passed on December 11, 1957.
[Stage Direction]
Questions