1958-08-22

[Stage Direction]
Fourteenth report of standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.-Mr. McCleave.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to report to the house on the emergency special session of the general assembly which last evening adopted by unanimous vote a draft resolution submitted yesterday by ten Arab delegations, including those of Lebanon, Jordan and the United Arab Republic. The resolution welcomes assurances given by the Arab states that they would respect each other's systems of government in accordance with provisions of the pact of the league of Arab states, and calls upon all member states to observe certain principles of international behaviour endorsed by the Afro-Asian conference at Bandung in 1955.
The Canadian government regards the outcome of the session that concluded last evening as satisfactory. The resolution in question follows very closely the text of the earlier seven-power draft resolution of which Canada was a co-sponsor. The Arab resolution requests the secretary general to make such practical arrangements as would adequately help in upholding the purposes and principles of the United Nations charter in relation to Lebanon and Jordan and thereby facilitate the early withdrawal of foreign troops from those two countries.
The new element in the Arab proposal is the reference to facilitating the withdrawal of troops. My understanding is that the formula employed is acceptable to the governments of the United Kingdom and the United States. The resolution, as in the case of the seven-power proposal, also invites the secretary general to continue with steps toward the establishment of an Arab development institution and to report to the general assembly not later than the last day of September of this year.
The Canadian government not only supported this resolution but agreed that it
should have priority over the seven-power draft, which we regarded as a point of departure or basis for discussion for the accomplishment, under United Nations auspices, of an end to inter-Arab rivalries in a form to which all Arabs could subscribe, and in general as a reasonable formula to cover the question of withdrawal and a new approach to the economic problem of the Middle East.
While the resolution is a regional solution for a regional problem, its terms permit a continuing link between the United Nations and future economic and political developments in that area. It should ensure that the cordial relations now established among the Arab states will be carried forward into their individual and collective relations with non-Arab states of the region. The reference in the seven-power draft to a United Nations stand-by force, which received general support from all sections of the house, has been dropped, but I expect that this phase will be given further study at the next session of the general assembly.
To sum up, we have supported this resolution as meeting the essential requirements of a satisfactory conclusion of the discussions in the general assembly. We supported it because of the prospect it affords for peace in the Middle East. The resolution is good as far as it goes, but of course any success in carrying it out will depend upon the further co-operation of the interested countries themselves.
I think it will be generally agreed that once again the United Nations has shown its capacity to deal with crises by the process of reconciliation through negotiation. It is to be hoped that the same spirit will be apparent in the attitude of these states whose co-operation the secretary general will be seeking in the visit to the Middle East which he is about to undertake.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of ihe Opposilion):: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish at this time to add very much to what the Prime Minister has said about the termination of the work of the general assembly. I understand we will have an opportunity to debate this matter, when dealing with the estimates of the Department of External Affairs, but I think we can share the Prime Minister's careful satisfaction at the unanimous passing of a resolution of this kind. It

Canadian Citizenship Act is, after all, satisfying and usually very surprising when any resolution at the United Nations passes unanimously.
I have not had the opportunity, nor have other members had the opportunity, to compare the Arab resolution which was passed unanimously with that of the seven powers, of which Canada was one. I gather that the main difference, however-and perhaps this is of some importance-is that the Arab resolution does make specific reference to the withdrawal of British and United States forces, while the seven-power resolution did not make that specific reference.
This resolution unanimously adopted by the assembly does present at least an opportunity for the finding of a solution to the problems in the Middle East, and we all welcome that. But as I said earlier, there will be an opportunity to discuss this whole question of the work of the general assembly when we have the privilege tomorrow of discussing his estimates with the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, members of this group listened with great interest and certain satisfaction to the announcement just made by the Prime Minister in respect to recent events at the United Nations. We sincerely trust that this is the first hopeful step toward a co-operative and constructive solution to this very serious problem which is of concern to peace-seeking people everywhere.


CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP ACT
Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-58, to amend the Canadian Citizenship Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, the primary purpose of this bill is to remove certain discriminations which now exist against other than natural-born Canadian citizens in relation to loss of Canadian citizenship and, in addition, to make it clear that a person who does not take the oath of allegiance in good faith at the time of acquiring Canadian citizenship is liable to have his Canadian citizenship revoked, subject to the right of such person to a hearing before a commission or court as provided by the act. The bill also makes provision for obtaining a ruling from an independent tribunal if doubt exists as to whether a person has ceased to be a Canadian citizen under the act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister the intentions of the government with regard to the introduction of and action upon a bill of rights during this session.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the attitude of the government is unchanged. The introduction will be made this session, and my hope is that the legislation will receive the support of the house and of the other place.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the Prime Minister if he will give us an opportunity at the earliest possible date to decide whether in fact we can support this bill, because we should like to have it before us before we debate it?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Labour I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance, notice of which I sent to his office this morning. In view of reports that the unemployment insurance fund has reached a critically low point as a result of the heavy drain on its resources during recent months, would the minister advise the house what steps the government intends to take to place the fund on a sound basis so that it may continue to discharge its financial responsibilities in the future?


Mr. Speaker:: That may be a matter of public interest, but it seems to me scarcely the kind of question which could be dealt with on the spur of the moment.


Lester Bowles Pearson: With great respect, could there be anything much more urgent than this particular matter at this time; how to put this insurance fund in better condition than it is at present in view of the forthcoming winter?


Mr. Speaker:: I am not persuaded that it is the kind of urgency which warrants a question before the orders of the day. Undoubtedly it raises an important issue, but it is not something which could be answered briefly, nor is it something which can be

solved immediately. It involves a question of policy, assuming that the question had a sound foundation.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Then may I ask another question of the Minister of Finance which may be acceptable to the house. Is it the intention of the government to introduce amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act in order to take care of the present situation of the fund?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: If any decision in that respect should be taken it would, of course, be communicated promptly to the house.



CANADIAN NATIONAL STEAMSHIPS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: May I address a question to the Minister of Transport. On August 12 last the minister announced the sale of the Canadian National Steamships vessels. While the date of the sale was not actually given, it did appear to have taken place on the day the announcement was made. I have now been informed that the actual sale took place some time in July. Will the minister say whether or not that information is correct?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I must thank the hon. gentleman for having given me notice of his intention to ask this question. The information that the sale took place in July is not correct. The offer to purchase was accepted on August 11.

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



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE

[Stage Direction]
231. Departmental administration, $1,441,494.
['That completes the estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare.\nResolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.']
Hon. J. W. Monieith (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Chairman, before discussing the matter at hand I should like to draw the attention of hon. members to an event of great significance to the health of people throughout the world. I refer to the recent commemoration of the tenth anniversary of the founding of the world health organization. This historic milestone in international co-operation was marked by a special session of the world health assembly held in May of this year at Minneapolis. As Minister of National Health and Welfare I was privileged to represent Canada on this occasion, accompanied by a distinguished delegation of Canadian health experts.
Supply-Health and Welfare
Immediately following the commemorative session the eleventh regular world health assembly was convened. My deputy, Dr. G. D. W. Cameron, led the Canadian delegation at these meetings and was ably assisted by three other outstanding health experts, Dr. Arthur Kelly, general secretary of the Canadian Medical Association, Dr. Jules Gilbert, president of the Canadian Public Health Association, and Dr. R. D. Defries, recently retired director of the Connaught medical research laboratories.
The main task of this assembly was to approve WHO's program and budget for 1959, the latter calling for an expenditure of nearly $15 million. While this amount is three times the organization's first budget, I am sure the committee will agree that it is a modest sum in terms of the tremendous job to be done. It is obvious that in large areas of the world, climatic and economic factors have combined to render extremely difficult the attainment of health standards comparable to those we enjoy here in Canada. Yet despite the obstacles, significant progress has been made through the efforts of WHO in co-operation with other international and national agencies both public and private.
As examples of the advances made during the past ten years through the auspices of WHO the following might be mentioned: over half the estimated 50 million persons suffering from yaws have been treated and cured, with the stage now being set for the complete eradication of this disease in the next few years; several hundred thousand children have received B.C.G. vaccine as a protection against tuberculosis; substantial assistance has been given toward the training of doctors, nurses and other health personnel and opportunities provided for these individuals to go abroad for the study of the technical and administrative aspects of health service administration; and finally, WHO has recently embarked on its most ambitious project, the world-wide eradication of malaria over the next ten years.
These are but a few highlights of the work performed by WHO during its first decade. I am sure all hon. members recognize the importance of its activities not only in helping secure healthier, happier and more productive lives for millions of the world's peoples but also in furthering the cause of peace and understanding among nations. I feel that I spoke for Canadians everywhere when I told the tenth anniversary session that "as WHO enters its second decade, we pledge our continuing and wholehearted support to what we consider is one of the most outstanding experiments in international co-operation ever undertaken".

Supply-Health and Welfare
I want to turn now to the subject of our deliberations today, the estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare for the fiscal year 1958-59. In this period we are budgeting for a total outlay of $1,180,089,181, the highest level of expenditure in the department's history. Of this over-all amount no less than 92 per cent covers statutory items including some $555 million to be expended from the old age security fund. Only $93,272,181 or 8 per cent of the total estimated outlay represents items to be voted by the house.
As a whole, these estimates embody an increase of $184,004,297 over our expectations for the past fiscal year. A full 92.5 per cent of this increase is taken up by statutory items reflecting recent amendments to Canada's major welfare legislation. To be specific, a projected rise of $33,235,000 in family allowance payments is due to a general increase in population as well as to changes in rates of benefit which became effective last September; an increase of $117,464,000 in old age security payments stems chiefly from the new $55 a month level in benefits effective last November; a similarly increased level in maximum benefits largely accounts for the expected rise of $5,700,000 in old age assistance payments, $6,200,000 in disabled persons' allowances, and $700,000 in blind persons' allowances. Finally, an estimated increase of nearly $7 million in expenditures under the unemployment assistance program is due for the most part to the removal of the threshold on federal participation and the entry of Ontario and Nova Scotia into the scheme.
So much for the increase in so far as statutory items are concerned. The remaining 7.5 per cent of the increase in our over-all expenditures pertains to items to be voted by the house. A large proportion of this additional outlay of $13,830,297 relates to the national health program, and particularly to the recent changes in the hospital construction grant which I announced to the house last December.
In this connection, hon. members may recall that the grant basis of $1,000 per unit for active treatment beds or "bed equivalents" and $1,500 per unit for chronic, convalescent, mental and tuberculosis beds was raised to $2,000 per unit. In addition, the allowance for beds in nurses' residences was upped from $500 to $750 per unit, and the latter assistance applied for the first time to beds in internes' quarters. A further new departure under the hospital construction grant was the allotment of $4 million for major renovation projects.
Another significant increase in non-statutory items which I might mention is the additional $1,644,450 earmarked in the two votes for
TMr. Monteith (Perth).]
northern health services. This represents primarily provision for the completion of the new Whitehorse hospital and for its staffing and equipment. Also covered in the increment is the transfer to northern health services of 17 organized field units in the territories formerly operated by Indian health services, and the continuation of construction of a new departmental hospital at Aklavik.
Hon. members will note that the department's 1958-59 estimates do not include provision for federal contributions to provincial hospital insurance and diagnostic services programs. Projected figures in this connection were not available when the main estimates were drawn up, and it is not the custom to provide for statutory items in the supple-mentaries. While government expenditures with respect to provincial plans will be provided for in next year's main estimates, the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act lays down that federal payments are to be a direct charge on the consolidated revenue fund and can thus be made despite the lack of an estimates item.
I might say here that we expect federal outlays on the hospital insurance program to be something less than $70 million for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1959. This will apply to the five provincial plans operating as of July 1, 1958, and those additional plans which it is hoped will get under way as of January 1, 1959.
These, then, are the main items of the projected expenditures of the Department of National Health and Welfare. I will, of course, be happy to answer questions which hon. members may have on the various items.
Before I take my seat, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank all members of the staff of my department for their loyal co-operation and assistance during the past year. I think it is appropriate that I should mention that it is exactly a year since I was sworn in as minister of this department.


Mr. Benidickson:: Mr. Chairman, we listened with great interest to the remarks of the minister. I think the committee might expect there would be a pretty thorough discussion of these estimates at the present sitting, because I believe we have had no discussion of this very important and large department since 1956. It is true that at that time the estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare were reviewed by the estimates committee.
I found, in endeavouring to keep up to date with the department's activities, that it was rather difficult because the last annual report seems to be dated March 31, 1956. I must suggest to the minister that it is not very helpful to the committee of supply

when annual reports are so out of date. Perhaps he might just indicate to the committee when he thinks the annual report for the year ended March 31, 1957 might become available.
I join with the minister in his commendation of the activities of the world health organization. I think we as Canadians are particularly interested in the tenth anniversary activities of this organization because it is an outstanding Canadian and member of the Department of National Health and Welfare who has the honour of being president of this world organization this year. The minister has a great galaxy of talent around him.
We as Canadians are proud also of the fact that his deputy minister on the welfare side was honoured this year by being chosen to preside over the economic and social committee of the United Nations when it met in Geneva. Of course all of us are very familiar with the outstanding talents of the two fine people who are in front of the minister at the moment. One is a lady who has the honour of being the first lady to appear in this house in the role of adviser to the committee of supply and to her minister. As the minister has indicated, Dr. Cameron was head of the delegation that attended the world health organization this year, and his reputation is very wide indeed as an outstanding public health administrator.
The only item that has had any careful review by a committee of this house since 1956 is the item in this year's estimates with respect to civil defence, item No. 256. The minister was exceedingly cautious in giving the estimates committee very much information as to future plans in this respect. He always indicated that as General Graham was about-


Jay Waldo Monteith: May I just point out that I propose to have something to say when we do come to the civil defence item.


William Moore Benidickson: That will be very welcome, Mr. Chairman, because we feel that we could learn so little about the future because of the fact that the minister repeatedly said that the subjects the committee on estimates was interested in were going to be referred to General Graham. I think we all look forward to General Graham's study. In the estimates committee I did urge the minister to impress on General Graham the desirability of not having one of those long drawn out investigations if it could be avoided, in view of the seriousness of the problem of civil defence and, as the committee on estimates pointed out, the necessity for co-ordination and co-operation
Supply-Health and Welfare among civil defence organizations, the Department of National Health and Welfare and the Department of National Defence.
I hope when the minister does report to us with respect to civil defence he will report upon the information that was given to us by the Prime Minister concerning mass evacuation plans, as well as the plans for the erection of shelters and matters of that kind. This is something which I believe is probably foremost in the thinking of the people of Canada today when they regard the question of civil defence. We are all exceedingly alarmed about the consequences of these awful weapons that have been developed.
With respect to new planning for our defence, we have for some time heard largely from certain left-wing elements that probably did not get the attention they deserved. I think we can find a pretty universal feeling registered with respect to this matter, when we consider that no less than the Financial Post last week put as graphically as I think anybody has to date the seriousness of our defence planning.
In its lead editorial on August 16 the Financial Post had this to say, and I think it relates to the question of civil defence as it does to defence policy generally. I am only going to read some excerpts, but the heading of the editorial was "There is No Such Thing as Adequate Defence". It went on to say:
It is absolute and utter folly for our leaders to try to make the public believe there is safety.
We may have all the defence machinery we are willing to pay for. But that is about all we have. And not even doubling or tripling our defence expenditure will give us real security. Nor will gigantic defence and bomb shelter programs.
The article goes on to point out the awful havoc that resulted from the atom bombing of Japan. This certainly shook and impressed me very much indeed. It is reported that of 32,000 children born in Hiroshima not less than 5,000, almost one in six, were deformed or stillborn. This figure includes 1,100 with skeletal deficiencies or serious muscular weaknesses; almost 100 with deformed brains or without brains altogether; almost 200 without lips and the same number without sexual organs; 25 with one eye or no eyes and 4 lacking even eye-openings. This is a report from a recent investigation of atomic bomb fall-out in Japan. Today's bombs, as we all know, are about 1,000 times more deadly than those of Hiroshima. This is the caution of the Financial Post; that our planet could tolerate war as an instrument of national policy when war was a little thing like world war I or II, but it cannot do so any longer.
We, I think, are exceedingly proud to have in Canada at the moment the tenth annual conference of geneticists, who are meeting in

Supply-Health and Welfare Montreal. I was astounded to ascertain that these scientists will have read to them no less than 590 papers, some of which of course will relate to the problems and worries I have just described, this question of the effect of radiation on genetics, even the current effect of radiation from fall-out drift.
I believe that in 1955 the former minister of national health and welfare indicated to a conference of experts on this subject that the minister's department was giving careful consideration to all the elements connected with this ghastly problem. I wonder if later on in the debate the minister would give us some information about what has developed in the department since 1955 in keeping abreast with this problem of radiation. It is a subject that has had very considerable debate in the parliament of the United Kingdom. I think it is most appropriate that we in this house be brought up to date, not only on the effect of fall-out drift but also the best information that is available to the department to date with respect to the predicted effect on genetics as a whole.
As the minister has indicated, there has been a remarkable growth indeed in the importance of the role of the Department of National Health and Welfare across the country. I believe that in the parliament buildings at Fredericton, New Brunswick there is a cairn of which they are very proud because it honours the fact that New Brunswick appointed the first minister of health in the British Empire.
It is remarkable to note just within how many years health has become an important government function. I think the first public health laboratory in North America was developed in Ontario as recently as 1890. About that time I think the total expenditure of the province of Ontario with respect to all health functions was about $4,000, largely for a part-time secretary and some help to the secretary. In Ontario alone I would imagine that the health budget today exceeds $60 million, and I think the administration employs some 6,000 or 7,000 people.
In our own department, as the minister has indicated, there has been a terrific growth. He points out that the estimates before us today amount to $1,200 million. He of course has pointed out, as the Minister of Finance indicated in his budget, that it will be necessary to provide additionally about $70 million for our participation to the end of this fiscal year in the new hospitalization scheme. I had the honour to be one of the federal representatives attending the preliminary conferences with the provinces in 1955 and 1956, and on the basis 
of full participation it was calculated that the federal cost would be in the neighbourhood of $200 million.
As the minister has indicated, only five provinces to date have accepted this offer. My own province, the largest in the land, will become a participant from January 1, 1959. I am hoping that this scheme will have universal acceptance in the not too distant future. I think most of us are particularly concerned about the other large province, namely the province of Quebec; and perhaps the minister could indicate to us just what possibility there is of that province entering into the hospitalization scheme in the near future. The taxpayers of that province, of course, are obliged to contribute to federal taxation, and it seems a pity that that government is not moving very fast to provide to the people of that province the benefits of this additional advance in the health sphere which was introduced by the former administration and which the minister is proceeding with, I know, with great interest and support.
Also, Mr. Chairman, I believe we should like to have a little report from the minister with respect to our Salk vaccine program. I think we all realize that there have been remarkable results from the program that was introduced. Some statistics were tabled in this house, I think it was late last session, which indicated a remarkable decline in the incidence of this dread disease; and I think great credit is attributed to the vaccine that was developed. In fact progress has gone so far that those concerned with the very important campaign for the elimination of poliomyelitis in the United States, which raised tremendous sums of money from the public in the past, through the march of dimes and so on with which we are all familiar-I believe were of opinion that they had recently reached a point of correction and almost of control of this particular threat to health to the extent that they felt they could turn their efforts from polio to the other very dread health threat area, namely that of the arthritic and rheumatic sufferers.
I wonder whether the minister would also indicate to us during the course of our discussion in this committee something about the advances that have taken place in the field of cancer research since we last had the opportunity of examining his predecessor. I believe that under the health program the department, as well as concentrating on cancer research, is giving special concentration in the field of mental diseases. I think it is shocking to us all to be told, as I say, that there are perhaps more hospital beds today occupied by sufferers from mental disease than by sufferers in all the other

general hospitals put together. It seems to me something that is growing at an alarming pace. I think the committee would be exceedingly interested in getting from the minister an up to date report upon the co-operative efforts of his department in association with the provinces in this particular field.
On the estimates before us there is, of course, an opportunity for almost unlimited discussion on matters in which all members of the house are particularly interested. Sometimes we have in committee of supply items with which only a limited number of our membership are familiar with or in which they have a particular interest. But when we realize that in committee this morning we are discussing such matters of wide public political and human interest as family allowances, health insurance, disability pensions, blind pensions and so on, I think we realize that at this stage it is difficult to confine oneself to inquiries that will simply bring out new information and not necessarily be repetitious.
With respect to health insurance, either now or on the item in the estimates I should like to obtain from the minister some information as to which of the provinces seem to be adopting a policy under which there will be, shall I say, a discouragement of putting in the hospitals people who could very well get laboratory X-ray and other services under this scheme without actual admittance to hospital. I feel that if this procedure is not encouraged, our hospitals will simply have a burden upon them of people who do not need to be actually in a hospital but who will demand from their physician admission to a hospital simply because of the free services and so on that might not otherwise be provided in consequence of this national plan.
I have been talking to some doctor friends of mine in the past. I know they at all times feel they must be conscientious, but I understand that the pressure upon them is something fearsome. One can understand that when one realizes that it is more or less left to them to decide. The doctor must recommend that a patient go to a hospital or otherwise in order to get the benefits of the insurance provisions that are now available. I think this is a very important matter, and we would like to know about the various provincial schemes in this regard. Naturally we would like to know whether or not there is any change in the position of the present administration with respect to including tuberculosis and mental hospitalization costs in the scheme.
My hon. friend's party was certainly very forthright on this subject in the 1957 election
Supply-Health and Welfare campaign, and in Winnipeg on May 14, 1957 the Prime Minister left no doubt as to the position of his party in this respect. He was quoted not only in the Winnipeg Free Press but also in the Tribune as saying the Conservatives would repair a very serious omission in the hospital scheme of the former administration and would include tuberculosis and mental institutions in the sharing arrangement with respect to hospital costs.
A short time later, he just happened to be speaking in Saskatoon at the time of the annual convention of the Canadian Hospital Association, and he repeated this commitment. We all know there was a meeting of the premiers during the following November, but from all we can read it has been indicated that while provincial costs in respect of tuberculosis and mental institutions might be shared by the federal government, if that were done then there would be an equivalent deduction from the general provision somewhere else under the dominion-provincial arrangements.
With respect to our senior citizens, an inquiry was made yesterday about when we might expect to receive the Clark report, which is the result of an investigation which we all know was designed to take a particular look at the United States social welfare provisions in respect of senior citizens. This report, of course, has been much longer delayed than was originally anticipated, and I will not press the minister further on that point because yesterday the hon. member for Welland got some information on the subject from the Prime Minister.
I do think, however, that when we come to the question of old age security we could very profitably discuss such matters as further advances in the development of low rental housing for our aged people. I am very disturbed to read that the governmental institution type of shelter for the aged is proving to be exceedingly expensive. There are a great many people, of course, who are unable to look after themselves or to live in accommodation under their own control, but on the other hand there are many who would probably prefer this class of shelter. It is certainly much more economical to assist and promote individual housing accommodation of better quality for our aged people than to accommodate such people in government sponsored institutions.
I read two or three years ago, for instance, that Lambert House in Toronto was calculated to operate at a cost of about $120 per month per patient, and the costs are probably a great deal higher today. We are all aware that the subsidy available on housing accommodation through Central Mortgage and

Supply-Health and Welfare Housing Corporation is certainly very modest indeed. I believe, therefore, that if there were an increase in the effort to co-operate with the provinces and the municipalities in this field this would have very widespread approval.
I wonder if the minister would tell us during his subsequent remarks something about the situation with respect to the training of nurses in Canada. There is a general feeling that nurses, as a group, bearing in mind the wonderful work they eventually do, probably have a harder time to get their training than any other group who have to have a long term of post-matriculation training before they can qualify in their profession. Could the minister give us some information in that respect?
In conclusion I simply want to say that I think we all agree in this committee that there has been great progress in the health field and indeed in the welfare field. As a result, most of us probably know that a lot more should be done in regard to health protection than we actually are doing. Perhaps the minister will just indicate to us later on whether there have been some new developments or increased efforts with respect to publicity in the promotion of good health in Canada through his department. Is the department today in a position to do very much in the way of advertising or promotional work, or can this only be done through the instrumentality of the provinces?


Mr. Martin (Timmins):: I have a few remarks to make at this stage. I would like to first compliment the minister and the government on the measures introduced to improve the various health plans and so forth which exist in Canada at the present time which, I might say, are very inadequate. Steps, however, have been taken in the right direction. We in this group do not feel that all the action has been taken which should have been taken, and certainly we feel that the steps which the Conservative party indicated on many occasions it would take, if given the opportunity, should now be taken.
I listened with interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, who is the first member of the Liberal party to speak on this matter. One or two of his remarks were significant, first with respect to the increased costs in regard to admission to hospitals and so on, but I feel that this is possibly a matter which could be very well left to the discretion of our doctors and the medical profession generally. My personal experience with doctors has been that they are very responsible professional people, and I do not think there is any danger, certainly no great danger, that this


plan is going to be abused by Canadian medical practitioners. In fact I believe that often in the past it has proved quite a burden to doctors when their patients needed hospital treatment and they realized the patients were not in a financial position to obtain it. I feel thoroughly satisfied, and I think I can speak on behalf of this group in this connection, that we should have confidence in the doctors of our country and that they will not abuse this plan when it comes into effect.
One thing that strikes me and this group is that we seem to have a false sense of values in this country today. We see a lot of propaganda-one could call it that-in the newspapers regarding the terrible burden of cost which any hospital plan or health plan would involve. But if we check the estimates of two very important departments, those of the Department of National Health and Welfare and the Department of National Defence, we find that the estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare, including the statutory items, amount to just about 60 per cent of what we are expending on defence, and as had been pointed out on many occasions and as was pointed out by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River quoting from the Financial Post, most of this money being spent on defence is wasted because the defence material on which we are spending this money is obsolete before we get it.
Thus I fail to see why we should have such a spotlight on the legitimate costs involved in a matter so important as the nation's health, while at the same time the waste of money on obsolete weapons passes almost without comment. As a particular illustration of this point I might mention that at the present time the government is faced with a decision whether or not to put a certain type of aeroplane into production. If they decide to go ahead the cost involved will amount to $2 million for each plane. This in the aggregate would certainly represent much more than is presently being expended in looking after the health needs of the entire country.
One of the worst omissions of this government is that the vision which some departments seem to show has not been carried into this particular ministry. We see no such willingness on the part of the government to branch out into new fields in the Department of National Health and Welfare as there is, for example, in the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources. We do not find the drive which has been demonstrated in other fields.

I think this contention can be illustrated by its attitude toward the present hospital plan. All that has been done in the last year or year and a half since this government took over has been to bring in some very minor amendments to a plan which was originally very inadequate. Certainly there has been no sign to date that this government is showing any vision or initiative in developing and planning a health service for this country, although such a plan is badly needed. It is particularly difficult to understand this attitude when we look back over the past few years and note the stand which was taken by some of those who are now cabinet ministers.
This morning, in answer to a question with regard to a bill of rights, the Prime Minister made the statement that the stand of the government now is the same as it was before. I only wish the same thing was true with regard to health insurance and hospital insurance. The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River mentioned one particular statement of the Prime Minister as reported in the Winnipeg Free Press. I should like to give another which was reported in the Toronto Globe and Mail of May 28, 1957. It was reported from the Saskatoon meeting held on May 27:
Mr. Diefenbaker reminded that the Conservative party had consistently advocated health insurance-
This is not only a hospitalization plan; it is complete health insurance, a complete hospital and health insurance plan. He went on to say that the Conservative party still believed that hospital insurance should cover patients in mental and tuberculosis institutions.
It has been said during this session that on occasion newspaper reports cannot be relied upon too heavily. But I think one thing we can rely on is our own record in Hansard as it appears from day to day, and we And that on February 16, 1956, at page 1233 of Hansard, the Prime Minister, then the hon. member for Prince Albert, asked the following question:
I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In the submission of the health plan to the various provinces, were tuberculosis and mental cases included? If not, why were they not included, and is consideration being given thereto?
The answer of the former prime minister was:
They were not included. For many years they have been recognized as a provincial responsibility and the submission that was being made was for the provision of services additional to those already in existence.
Moreover, during the debate on the health insurance bill on April 10, 1957, as reported
Supply-Health and Welfare at page 3385 and subsequent pages of Hansard, again the present Prime Minister said:
Our desire, while giving full support to the legislation as we have throughout, in the amendment moved by the hon. member for Eglinton, is to do our part even at this late hour to improve the legislation in order to make it more effective.
And a little later he said:
The amendment moved by the hon. member would refer the bill to the committee of the whole for the purpose of considering this clause, thereby giving an opportunity, even at this late hour, of including within the ambit of the legislation sanatoria, tuberculosis hospitals and institutions and hospitals for the mentally ill. While tuberculosis is in recession, mental diseases are on the increase.
Further on in the debate the present Prime Minister had this to say:
The goal that all of us have in mind will not be achieved until the two types of institutions to which I have made reference are included within the provisions of this legislation.
The Prime Minister was not alone in taking this stand. We find that many other members of the present government put themselves very clearly on record with regard to this matter. For example, as recorded on page 2657 of Hansard of March 25, 1957 the present Minister of Transport said:
The Ontario government also feel that two very important categories of treatment today are those affecting mental and tubercular patients. They feel, and I think quite rightly, that those costs should be shared by the federal government.
And the present Minister of Fisheries had this to say:
As far as the provinces are concerned there is very heavy expenditure in the fields of mental health and tuberculosis and most people feel, and I think correctly so, that these are illnesses which should not be differentiated from general illnesses and that those who suffer from these diseases should reap as much benefit from the scheme as anyone else.
And of course we have quotations from the late Dr. Blair, who at that time was the health expert of the opposition. I believe these quotations have been given before.
One of the most strongly worded statements on this subject was made by the present Minister of Finance, who has contributed many quotable statements to the debates of this house. He moved an amendment on that occasion, and as reported at page 3238 of Hansard of April 8, 1957 he said:
My purpose is to ask the house to refer the bill back to the committee of the whole in order that this same clause which contains this unjustifiably narrow definition of the word 'hospital' may be reconsidered. I put before the house the ground that there can be no justification in good sense or in principle or in humanity or in the existing facts of life as applied to the financial difficulties of the provinces and municipalities of this country, for this government to try to drive a wedge between general hospitals on the one hand and tuberculosis hospitals and sanatoria and hospitals
3938	HOUSE OF
Supply-Health and Welfare and institutions for the mentally ill on the other hand. It is only by changing the definition that the government proposes in clause 2(e) that this unworthy distinction can be eliminated. I ask the house, therefore, to send this back in order that this clause, unworthy of the Canadian parliament, unworthy of the pretensions of the government that this is a comprehensive scheme, should be reconsidered and that its shortcomings should be remedied and that the scheme should in fact be made what the minister improperly pretends it to be, a comprehensive scheme of hospital insurance.
Certainly the Minister of Finance, who usually expresses himself in definite language, did so on that occasion. At that time he pointed out very clearly the deficiencies in the plan. I am convinced that no one reading his remarks could have received any impression other than that as soon as he had any opportunity of doing something about it the minister would certainly do so. I wonder if the Minister of National Health and Welfare could inform us if by any chance the arguments and criticisms of the Minister of Finance are as strong today as they were then with regard to this matter.
On January 9, 1957 the C.C.F. moved an amendment in the following language:
-and by reason of their failure to announce legislation establishing a comprehensive and nationwide program of health insurance, with provision for provincial participation.
The vote was recorded on January 16, 1957, and the amendment was supported by the present Prime Minister and all the Conservatives in the house on that occasion. The amendment, of course, was defeated by a vote of 135 to 69 as recorded at page 320 of Hansard of that date.
We also find that when the debate was concluded and the vote taken on April 10, 1957 on the amendment moved by the Minister of Finance with regard to this same measure, among the members of the present cabinet who voted for the amendment as reported at pages 3392 and 3393 of Hansard were the hon. member for Three Rivers, the present Solicitor General; the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, the present Minister of Trade and Commerce; the present Prime Minister; the hon. member for Hamilton West, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration; the hon. member for Eglinton, the present Minister of Finance; the hon. member for Kamloops, the present Minister of Justice; the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, the present Minister of Public Works; the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace, the present Postmaster General; the hon. member for Calgary North, the present Minister of Agriculture; the hon. member for Broadview, the present Minister of Transport; the hon. member for Greenwood, the present Minister without Portfolio; the hon. member for Queens, the present Minister


of Fisheries; and the hon. member for Ontario, the present Minister of Labour. It is worth noting that these hon. gentlemen voted for the amendment on April 10, 1957, two short months before the election that brought them to office.
I wish to illustrate how inadequate the present plan is. I have some figures taken from the health and welfare division of the dominion bureau of statistics which show that patients in mental hospitals constitute 39 per cent of all bed patients in this country and patients in tuberculosis hospitals constitute 7.63 per cent of all bed patients in Canada at this time. Of course that 47 per cent is excluded under the plan at the present time, just as it was excluded by the previous government, when it was criticized so severely and justifiably by those who now sit on the government side of the house.
In 1950 and 1951 the Department of National Health and Welfare conducted a Canadian sickness survey which indicated that hospital patients in this country totalled about
1.350.000.	With 47 per cent of the patients excluded from the plan this means that roughly only 700,000 will be covered by the federal contribution and a total of 650,000 will not be covered. But that is only one small part of the health picture in Canada. According to the same survey the number of people needing physicians' services that year was
5.950.000.	The number of people requiring dental treatment was two million. The number of people requiring operations was 500,000. The number of people requiring eyeglass examinations was 450,000. The number requiring miscellaneous health care was 200,000. As far as that portion of the plan to which the federal government contributes is concerned we find that a total of only 700,000 patients out of a total of 10,450,000 patients will be covered, or in other words one out of every 15 patients.
Furthermore, an examination of statistics compiled by the dominion bureau of statistics indicates that the population of Canada has increased by 21.4 per cent since 1950. Applying this increase to the survey made in 1950 and 1951 brings the relationship to about one patient out of every 16. I believe that clearly illustrates the inadequacy of this plan. It demonstrates the need on the part of the department to display something of the vision this government is attempting to apply in other fields. There is nothing more important to a country than the health of its citizens.
The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River dealt with the increasingly important question of radiation poisoning. I too should like the minister to inform the committee just what measures his department is taking to study this matter and what the results of

their investigations reveal. The hon. member also dealt briefly with the question of the United States social security plan, or as we preferred to call it when we have raised this subject on previous occasions, the portable pension plan. We feel this should be part of our social security in Canada. The plan has worked extremely well in the United States, so we are not trail blazing in this regard. We can take lessons from them; we can And out the errors and mistakes they have made over the years, and we can benefit from the experience they have had.
Certainly, Mr. Speaker, the need is very great for this department to show much more initiative than it has shown in the past. The country as a whole will be looking for some lead from this government, particularly from this department, which will indicate that the expectations which the people took from the remarks which were made by the members of the present government before it came into power will be realized.


Mr. Nielsen:: Mr. Chairman, I will not delay the committee very long, but I do wish to draw attention to certain other considerations which may have been overlooked by the hon. member for Timmins. I am sure he wants to maintain the fairness for which most members of his group are noted. In his comments concerning the lack of initiative and the lack of new ideas on the part of this department I do not think he took into consideration the rapid strides the department is making in advancing the cause of the health of individuals in the northern parts of Canada. I believe the department is developing very rapidly plans for mobile and quasi-mobile health units in those areas. Perhaps the minister might explain those plans to the members of the committee.
Just briefly in passing, Mr. Chairman, I might also point out that the trend which was followed by the previous administration in this matter of northern health was perhaps not directed along the proper lines. In this regard perhaps the minister might also explain briefly what the departmental plans are concerning the Whitehorse general hospital, its completion and its staffing, as I personally feel that here in this magnificent structure, this magnificent memorial to past Liberal administration, we have our own printing bureau in the Yukon. Perhaps the minister might explain what use is to be made of the buildings which have been constructed in connection with the main hospital facilities.
I would like to express my gratitude and appreciation on behalf of the people of the north for the vision which this government is displaying in its approach to northern health problems. The mobile health units are
Supply-Health and Welfare the only method by which permanent nursing, medical and hospital facilities can be made available to sparsely settled communities. This is a new, a novel idea, an idea which is being vigorously pursued by the present minister.
Knowing that the hon. member for Timmins wants to be fair in a matter of this kind I would suggest that perhaps he should temper the remarks he has just made in the light of this knowledge.


Mr. Cardin:: Mr. Chairman, since its reorganization in 1944 the department has grown very considerably both in size and in importance, as hon. members who have spoken have said. As a matter of fact, today we are being asked to pass estimates for over $1,735 million to be expended in the field of health and welfare in our country. I believe this is a commendable amount of money to be spent in such a good cause, since it represents roughly about one-third of our total budget. However, like most departments with increased responsibilities in recent years, the Department of National Health and Welfare has also become quite complicated and it has been difficult for members to keep up with all the activities that are taking place in the different divisions of the department.


William Moore Benidickson: A report would help.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Exactly. With annual reports in the past hon. members were able to follow very closely the progress that was being made in the different divisions of the department, and were able to take part in the discussion of the estimates with a clearer understanding of what was going on. But, as the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River has said, this year members do not have an annual report of the department before them. As a matter of fact, as my hon. friend said a moment ago, the last report of the department was tabled by the previous minister of national health and welfare for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1956.
I can quite understand that perhaps we could not expect at this time to have the report for 1958, but I would rather imagine that the report for 1957 should surely be at the disposal of hon. members. I submit, Mr. Chairman, the fact that there is no annual report for 1957 is in direct contravention of section 10 of the Department of National Health and Welfare Act, which states that "the minister shall submit annually a report to parliament in such form as may be prescribed by the governor in council".
When the minister rose to speak a short time ago I expected that he would at least explain to the committee why we have not before us the annual report for 1957. I would

Supply-Health and Welfare have thought that perhaps the minister might have apologized to the house tor having overlooked what not only has been customary in this house and in the Department of National Health and Welfare but for having overlooked something which is a statutory requirement. I submit that this is a very serious omission. It is very serious because the report was not brought down in the first place, and in the second place because neither the minister nor anyone on the government side thought it useful or necessary to advise or explain why there was no report for 1957.
This is a serious omission, but I submit that it becomes more alarming when we consider that in another important department of government it was decided that an annual report would no longer be published and, as a matter of fact, the usual white paper which accompanied the report of that department was completely disregarded.


William Moore Benidickson: Almost two-thirds of the expenditures come under those two departments.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Yes. Therefore the very people who accused the previous administration of withholding information from the House of Commons in regard to confidential material are now not only unwilling to produce the confidential document in its 1958 version, but they are not even willing to put at the disposal of hon. members information which is not only useful but necessary, and which was at the disposal of hon. members during the regime of the previous administration when the department was headed by the previous minister of national health and welfare.
The fact that this and several other similar incidents have occurred within recent months is to my mind a far truer measure of the government's solicitude for the rights and privileges of parliament than is the Prime Minister's self-attributed qualification of defender of parliament. I feel it necessary to repeat that in the true interests of the dignity, rights and traditions of this house we have an obligation to look far more carefully at the actions of this government. We could, I feel sure, discredit a good many of the statements we hear concerning the rights of parliament.
In so far as legislation is concerned, I think one of the most remarkable amendments to legislation that was brought forward by this government was the increase from $46 to $55 in the old age pension. I feel quite sure that the increase was indeed welcomed by all citizens, and that the additional $9 was used to very good purpose by a great number of

these recipients. However, I feel it would be wise and useful to at least stop and think about exactly where we are going in the field of social legislation. I am sure all hon. members realize that the natural law, the physical law and the moral law all indicate that no one really gets anything for nothing. It seems to me that we must be ready to pay for whatever we receive. The government's commitment on old age security, which amounts to about $555 million, and other fields of social legislation should be looked at in the light of the deficit of some $1 billion for this year.
Now, as hon. members know these commitments by government are not made on a yearly basis; they are made on a permanent basis. One does not have to be a prophet to forecast deficit budgets for some years to come. I believe, and I do not think anyone would disagree with me, that the national revenue within the next few years will not be sufficiently high to counterbalance the increases in commitments which the government are now making. Unless the government are willing to face very serious economic difficulties, then they will have to consider increasing taxes, no matter how many promises were made to the effect that it was possible to increase social benefits without increasing taxes.
Another thought which I believe is worthy of consideration is that it is not impossible that inflation, even at a time of recession such as we are now having, whether or not we like it, may cut very deeply into the purchasing power of the Canadian public. This may decrease substantially the benefits of the increase in old age security payments, with the result that the very purpose for which the increases were given would be defeated.
In spite of the increase of $9 in the old age security payments I submit, Mr. Chairman, that the Prime Minister did not fulfil the promises he made during the course of the election campaign. In the Toronto Daily Star of April 26, 1957 the following article appeared:
Mr. Diefenbaker condemned the "mean and niggardly" pension increases offered by the Liberal government and said a Conservative administration would deal with the problem more fairly and adequately.
Old age pensions, he promised, would be set "at a figure high enough to meet the needs of our older citizens" and would be adjusted from time to time in accordance with changes in living costs.
Surely the Prime Minister, as well as the hon. members who are now applauding, realizes that $55 a month is not sufficient to meet the needs of our older citizens, nor is the increase of $9 proportionate to the increase in the cost of living in the past few

years. As a matter of fact, if the Prime Minister had fulfilled his promise he would have had to raise the old age security payment to $70 a month. No amount of oratory on the part of the Prime Minister can make the Canadian people believe that the Prime Minister and this government have actually fulfilled the promises made during the election campaign.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Don't be silly.


Mr. Small:: The people were satisfied with it.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: It is quite obvious that you cannot make the people believe that, and this is the reason.


Robert Hardy Small: We did at the last election.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: You wait until the next one. No matter how much we would like it to be otherwise, in the present stage of our economic development, old age security and other social measures cannot possibly be an end in themselves. They can, at this stage, be only an indefinite form of financial aid which the government may give to certain sectors of our society that need it most, based not on the cost of living, though we would like that to be the case, but based on the capacity of the Canadian economy to pay. I submit that anything above and beyond what the Canadian economy can pay is unrealistic, and is to my mind a dangerous practice which in the end defeats the very purpose for which these social measures were instituted.
I feel sure hon. members will criticize me severely for having said what I have. I shall be considered as rather brutal, but I am sincerely convinced that we must at least realize where we are going and I feel it is my duty to warn the committee of what is happening. I feel that what I say is true, and I feel that eloquent support is given to what I say by the $1 billion deficit for this current fiscal year.
A well balanced social security program also should try to cover as wide a field as possible, so far as our Canadian economy will permit. If it is just and fitting to help our senior citizens, I believe it is equally fitting and right that we should help our junior citizens. I think we, as Canadians and citizens of a new country, should pay particular attention to what we will make of our children. We should do all we can to help families give their children fundamental and minimum standards of food, clothing and schooling in order that they may be able to take part actively, and to the best possible extent, as citizens of this country.
Supply-Health and. Welfare
I do not believe anyone will disagree with that principle. Yet, Mr. Chairman, there was a certain amount of objection, criticism and abuse heaped upon the previous administration when they introduced family allowances. Ever since that time the Conservatives have been extremely cold toward any movement to increase family allowances. At the convention which the Conservatives had some time ago someone in the hall asked the chairman of the resolutions committee to introduce a resolution stating that family allowances would be increased. That request was refused.
In the avalanche of promises that we heard in two general election campaigns not one word about the matter was spoken by members of the cabinet, the Prime Minister or those who control the party. Not one word was mentioned with regard to increasing family allowances. As a matter of fact there is no legislation on the statute books at the present time nor is there any indication from any speech made or any word spoken which would lead us to hope that there may be an increase in family allowances. But the fact that the Conservatives criticized the family allowance the fact that they have been cold toward it and the fact that there is no legislation on the statute books even today did not stop the Prime Minister or members of his party when in opposition from heaping scorn, criticism, ridicule and abuse on the previous administration for having increased the family allowance by $1. I say, Mr. Chairman, that increasing the family allowance by $1 is one hundred times more than has been done by the present government and one hundred times better than not doing anything at all.


William Moore Benidickson: It is $42 million in a full year.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: It is also far more condemnable for the government to sit in cold and stony silence whenever family allowances are mentioned. I wonder what qualification we can give to a political party which, amidst abuse and ridicule, condemns another political party when it has not the courage itself to do even as much. I have certain adjectives which I could use to describe that type of party, Mr. Chairman, but I feel quite sure that I would not be permitted to use them in this house.
Hon. members of the house sitting on the opposite side, including the Solicitor General severely condemned the previous government for increasing the family allowance by only $1 and urged the previous government to increase the family allowance so the children of Canada may be given all the opportunities they deserve. Surely the Solicitor General and hon. members opposite cannot now sit like

Supply-Health and Welfare dummies in their seats. Surely they cannot fail to rise at this time and ask the government to increase family allowances, and condemn it for having ignored family allowances ever since it has been in power. If they do not rise and make speeches of the same type as those they made during the administration of the previous government, Mr. Chairman, what else can we think than that they were not sincere at the time they were making the accusations and at the time they were asking for increases in family allowances?


Mr. Chown:: Where are you going to get the money?


Mr. Bourque:: That is your problem.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Another essential requirement of social security legislation which is well founded is the fact that every Canadian who qualifies under the act should receive the benefits of the legislation regardless of religion, race or politics. I am happy to say that all social legislation which is administered by the federal government follows that principle religiously. Anyone who qualifies for any benefit under any type of social legislation administered by the federal government automatically receives it without any condition. But there are other pieces of legislation, and I am thinking in particular of the Old Age Assistance Act and the Disabled Persons Act, to which the federal government contributes in no small measure but which are administered by provincial governments.
I do not know what happens in the other provinces, Mr. Chairman, but I know that in Quebec both these acts have been utilized for political advantage on many occasions by persons who support the present provincial government in the province of Quebec, either as a threat or as an inducement, with respect to people who should normally receive the benefits of the act without any conditions whatsoever being imposed. I suggest that this type of activity is completely intolerable to members of this house. Because of the fact that the federal government contributes more than a little to the cost of this legislation, the government has a responsibility, as has the minister, to see that all people in Canada, including those in the province of Quebec, who qualify for a benefit under social security legislation should receive it without any conditions whatever attached to its receipt. If we do not do that I submit that we are not living in a democracy.
I am also happy, Mr. Chairman, to see that the hospital insurance plan will be coming into effect. I do not think anyone will deny me the right and the pleasure of saying that the previous Liberal administration worked very hard in order to implement a very complicated but very useful scheme. I can also 
say that the previous minister of national health and welfare also contributed greatly to bringing about this insurance scheme. This is not said to take anything away from the present minister. On the contrary, I think he is to be complimented, today being his first anniversary as Minister of National Health and Welfare. I think he has done a wonderful job. I think he deserves a good deal of credit. I sincerely wish him well in the continuation of his mandate as Minister of National Health and Welfare, which we feel will last about three more years. I am happy to see, Mr. Chairman, that as of January 1 British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Newfoundland have already entered into an agreement-


Jay Waldo Monteith: July 1.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: That is right; July 1. I am
happy to see that as of July 1 those provinces have already entered into an agreement with the federal government and that the plan is now operating; and that as of January 1, 1959, Ontario, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick will likewise participate in the plan. However, I can also say that I am very sorry and I deplore the fact that once again the province of Quebec does not think it wise to enter into such a plan although, as the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River said a while ago, it contributes to funds which are being utilized and from which benefits are being derived in the other provinces of Canada.
I feel very sorry that for reasons better known to himself the premier of the province of Quebec does not see fit to allow the population of Quebec to benefit from this wonderful legislation. Under a Liberal administration, of course, there was no question whatsoever that the province of Quebec might even conceivably come within that act. But with the change of government we are beginning to have a little bit of hope and confidence that Quebec may one day enter into the act. In the London Free Press of May 17, 1958 we read "Quebec Swing Now Seen Toward Hospital Plan". Furthermore, in the Montreal Star of June 7, 1958 there is the headline, "Duplessis Admits Quebec Preparing for Hospital Plan".
May I say that we are very happy indeed that the premier of Quebec should have had such a change of heart, and we are liberal enough to say that we do not care even though the fact that there is a Conservative government at Ottawa, is the reason the premier of Quebec has changed his mind. We are happy, and we hope he will in the very near future communicate with the minister to tell him that he is ready to take part in what I believe to be very beneficial legislation.

I would also urge the minister, because I understand so far he has not done so, to communicate with Premier Duplessis to see if through negotiation it would not be possible to have Quebec join the scheme as soon as possible.
I see that my time has pretty well expired. I may have been rather critical of the Department of National Health and Welfare, but may I say that if this is so I was not being critical of the minister personally or of anyone else in his department. I have brought forward matters about which I feel very strongly, and I hope the minister may be able to give me answers which will help me to understand if perhaps I am wrong.


Mr. Horner (Jasper-Edson):: I would like to compliment the minister on this, the anniversary of his first year in office, and to commend him for the wonderful job he has done. As a member of the medical profession, however, I do feel I should place before him some points of view during this discussion on the estimates of his department.
First, I was quite amazed at the speech made by the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres, which I think points up the dilemma of the Liberal party. They want to go one way but they have to go the other way, so they end up by stripping their gears. There is no doubt about what he has said in regard to social service in this country in that we have to be able to pay for it, but I think the important thing is for the government to decide on how the distribution of available funds will be effected; and that, of course, is where the former government badly fell down.
In our national Department of National Health and Welfare we have a great number of services having to do with the health of Canadians. The department itself looks after the health of our citizens in the north, the Indians and the Eskimos; it also looks after health matters with respect to the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, and provides other medical services. The Department of National Defence provides health service for members of our armed forces, and the Department of Veterans Affairs takes care of health service for our veterans. It might be useful if in future our federal departments could get together so as to provide uniform health service to cover those services now provided by the various departments. I think that is important for the future for several reasons; first with respect to civil defence, second
Supply-Health and. Welfare in order to prevent waste of beds and personnel, and third with respect to medical education in Canada.
I will have a little more to say on that aspect of the matter later, but I would like to turn to our hospitalization scheme, which I am sure we are all happy to see put into effect. There are a great many problems to which we must give very serious consideration; and, as the previous speaker said, our social services depend upon the ability of Canada to pay. I think we should immediately recognize that this scheme is going to cost the country a considerable amount of money.
As the hon. member for Timmins pointed out, under this scheme the responsibility for the institution and operation of the service will rest upon the shoulders of the medical profession; I do not think there is any doubt about that. Although I am just a junior member of the profession I personally have no doubt that the medical profession as a whole will be able to accept this responsibility. If, however, we are asking it to accept this responsibility then surely we should give recognition to the profession, at least in the form of an advisory council. In that respect I feel that all parts of the profession should be represented.
Coming now to the hospital scheme itself, I think all members who have gone over the various provincial schemes will agree that with respect to all those provinces which have now entered the agreement or have signified their intention to do so, the main problem is the lack of uniformity as between the provinces in regard to such things as the drugs which are to be provided and the control which will be placed not only on the hospitals but upon the medical profession generally. For example, the arrangement with Saskatchewan contains quite definite restrictions on the drugs which practitioners are allowed to use and which are to be provided under this scheme.
That in itself is not so bad, but what is wrong is that the provincial governments are going to have control and perhaps will act in a deterrent way in respect of the physician practising his profession, in that it will have some say as to the drugs which may or may not be used. That, I can assure the house, is very wrong and very bad for the future of medical care in this country, because as soon as governments at any level become involved in the treatment of patients, then the standard of medical care will deteriorate.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.

Suspension of Nuclear Tests AFTER RECESS
The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.


The Deputy Chairman:: I understand that the Prime Minister wishes to make a statement. Shall I rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again later this day?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.



The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: Has the
right hon. Prime Minister leave to revert to motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I indicated yesterday that a further statement would be made on the question of nuclear tests. Today the President of the United States and the government of the United Kingdom have issued important announcements with regard to their policy in this field.
On behalf of the Canadian government I, and I think all hon. members, welcome unreservedly the decisions which have been reached by the United States and the United Kingdom governments. Indeed, I hope I can speak for all shades of opinion in the house and in the country in welcoming this major development announced this day, and especially to express the satisfaction of members of this house with the statesmanlike and specific nature of the proposals made by those two counfries.
The house will recall that on several occasions since I became Prime Minister I have advocated the suspension of nuclear tests, but always providing there was adequate international control to ensure the observance of the undertakings made in that connection. The principal powers now have before them the result of the technical discussions at Geneva to which Canadian scientists have made an important contribution. These powers are therefore in a favourable position to proceed on a political plane to negotiate the specific terms of an agreement which I hope will be international in effect.
The readiness of the United States and the United Kingdom governments to suspend nuclear tests for a year is a contribution of the first magnitude toward the creation of a favourable atmosphere for negotiation. The conditions that the suspension agreement be extended year by year only if the inspection system is functioning effectively and progress continues to be made in the reaching of

agreements on major substantive disarmament measures, are prudent foundations on which to build. Such understandings will provide a further incentive to creative efforts for the enlargement of mutual confidence and the assurance of the maintenance of peace, and they would emphasize the political significance of an agreement on the suspension of tests as a first step toward disarmament.
It is my profound hope that the Soviet union will shortly indicate its readiness to enter into negotiations for the general purposes set forth in the United States and United Kingdom statements. For our part I can give unqualified assurances that to the extent that the control arrangements which may be agreed upon might be applicable to Canadian territory, we are prepared to co-operate in setting up control stations and inspection of the kind outlined in the report of the experts. Indeed, on more than one occasion Canada has agreed unreservedly to her northern areas and Arctic regions being made available for inspection in order to ensure that surprise attacks will not take place.
At the proper stage of negotiations, which we hope will soon be begun by the powers engaged in active testing programs, the opportunity will come to put forward our detailed views on this matter and to offer constructive suggestions with respect to the location of stations and the administration of inspection teams within Canada.
Sir, after many years of fruitless discussions on the question of disarmament, and indeed the complete breakdown of the machinery of negotiation last year, the world at last has a prospect of agreement in one specific and important field. An agreement for the suspension of nuclear tests would be significant in itself, and might conceivably represent a concrete start on the arduous process of negotiating a disarmament program and agreements which would increase the security of all nations, diminish the danger and fear of war and lighten the burden of armaments.
I trust that in the near future a further round of talks at the expert level will be held on the problem of safeguards and the provision of the necessary means to ensure the maintenance of confidence in this connection.
What has been announced today will give new hope to all mankind. If the U.S.S.R. will now agree to enter into negotiations as suggested in the statements of the United Kingdom and the United States of America, we may this day be entering a new era for the achievement of world peace.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Perhaps I may be permitted to say a word in regard to the important statement which the Prime Minister has just made. I feel certain that all members of the house will have heard with great satisfaction the decision which has been reached by the governments of the United Kingdom and the United States to suspend nuclear tests for a period of one year. This does, I think, represent one step forward in the effort to bring nuclear weapons of mass destruction under control and, eventually, to abolish them. As such, I am sure we all support the progress which has now been made and which has been mentioned by the Prime Minister.
It remains now, as the Prime Minister has indicated, to work out international arrangements in the United Nations which would confirm and extend the national decisions which have been taken by the United Kingdom, the United States and, previously by the Soviet union. It remains now also to bring this international arrangement which can, I hope, be proceeded with under United Nations control so that public opinion in all countries can be assured that the obligations undertaken in any international arrangement will not be violated. The recent meeting of experts at Geneva which just concluded its work with a positive and constructive report shows that this can be done. It must not be forgotten that a Russian scientist was included in this meeting.
I wish to refer to two paragraphs of that report which certainly have a bearing on what might now be done and I hope will now be done. It is significant to note that these paragraphs were subscribed to by all the scientists there, including the Russian. A newspaper editorial commenting on that portion of the report stated:
The conference of experts reached the conclusion that it is technically feasible to set up, with certain capabilities and limitations, a workable and effective control system for the detection of violations of a possible agreement on the world-wide cessation of nuclear weapons tests.
It was established in this connection that a network of control posts which were equipped with all the necessary apparatus appropriate to the various methods of detection of nuclear explosions should be disposed on continents and on islands, as well as on a few ships in oceans.
I am sure the house will have heard not with surprise but with satisfaction the statement of the Prime Minister that the Canadian government will be happy to co-operate now as it has indicated its willingness to co-operate in the past in any system of control of this kind which requires Canada's co-operation. And so some progress has been achieved, but we must not forget that this is only one step. It is a step taken by nations individually, and it must be made
Supply

Health and Welfare international. There may be difficulties in the way, but I hope those difficulties will be overcome.
The secretary general of the United Nations sent a communication to the conference in Geneva commenting on the report, in which communication was included the following sentence:
It will hereafter lie with the governments concerned and the United Nations to follow through the opening you have created. I have every hope that in due course they will indeed make the necessary constructive effort.
And so, Mr. Speaker, we must all join with the Prime Minister in the hope he has expressed that all nations will follow through in the effort which has begun and which may one day lift this shadow of fear that hangs over the world, the fear that these weapons that could destroy the world might one day be used. Because that fear has been to some extent lessened by what has happened at the Geneva meeting and by the decision announced today in the United Kingdom and the United States, we must rejoice and redouble our own efforts to make further progress.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, without doubt all hon. members of this house and the Canadian people as a whole will be heartened by the good news and the hope engendered by the Prime Minister's statement. As a peace-loving people we respond very quickly to the slightest indication of an improvement in the world situation. I know we all share the wish that the future will justify our hopes in this respect. We trust we may look upon this as a step in the painful progress toward world sanity.
Before concluding I wish to emphasize the fact, particularly on account of the criticism we hear at times of the value of the work of the United Nations, that this present development presents a tremendous opportunity for the United Nations to carry forward the ideas expressed in the Prime Minister's statement.

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


[Stage Direction]
231. Departmental administration, $1,441,494.
Hugh Macarthur Horner: Mr. Chairman, at one o'clock I was in the process of making some remarks with regard to the national hospitalization scheme and the contracts which have already been entered into. I made the statement that it would be to the detriment of medical care in Canada if

Supply-Health and Welfare government became too involved in such care. I should like to make it quite clear that when I speak of government becoming too involved in matters of this kind I mean in terms of interference in the doctor-patient relationship.
There is no doubt that government has a very real responsibility with regard to hospitalization, and that has been shown by the introduction of the national hospitalization act. However, I feel that perhaps the government and the house have not given sufficient consideration to just what this act will entail and what responsibility we will have under the act. When I first came to Ottawa I was surprised to learn that there is not a standing committee of this house concerning national health and welfare. That is an omission which should be rectified in the near future in my opinion, having regard to the amount of money that is going to be spent by this department. In that connection I should like to point out to the committee some of the questions we will have to consider if we are going to make the scheme work as economically as possible.
First and foremost, of course, is the question of hospital beds. There is a shortage of hospital beds at this time, particularly in certain areas. It is not only a matter of making more beds available, but we must derive the best use possible from the beds we do have. Some of the previous speakers have noted that we have to assure that active treatment hospital beds are kept available for people requiring active treatment. We have a responsibility to see that our older people are provided accommodation so they may be released from hospital. We have an equal responsibility to ensure that veterans are cared for without having to remain in active treatment hospitals occupying essential hospital beds.
A second consideration in the responsibility of accommodation is that of making sure we supply the most modern equipment that is available, and make it available to all the people in Canada. I hope this will be taken care of.
The next big responsibility which the federal government has and to which we should be giving serious consideration is the matter of personnel to man the massive hospitalization program and to assure that the Canadian people are getting their money's worth from this expenditure. In that connection we must make sure that Canada maintains her present position in the field of medical education, post-graduate education and interne education. I wish to draw to the attention of hon. members of the committee that interne education is an important field. We are losing a great many internes,


particularly to the United States, for various reasons. Certainly one reason is that they do not receive the necessary remuneration to permit them to remain in Canada. Governments all across Canada are spending vast sums of money subsidizing the education of internes at universities, but we must not stop there. We must assist them to continue to study in Canada and practise here.
There is also the problem of the shortage of nurses. As the hospitalization scheme is implemented across Canada the number of nurses required will be greatly increased. As hon. members know, there is a definite shortage at this time. I think the plea of the hon. member for Athabasca, made in the house some time ago, in regard to the federal government giving consideration to paying a subsidy to nurses, should be acted upon, and I would certainly commend it to the minister for his consideration.
Then there are the other personnel who in this modern day and age have charge of facilities in the hospitals. I refer to the various technicians in the laboratories, X-ray rooms, and so on. We have to take the lead in the education of those people. We have to do it now; we have to supply opportunities to be educated in Canada; we have to make sure that they are properly looked after when they graduate, so they will stay in Canada and help us in this job of hospitalization.
Because this hospitalization scheme is of such national importance and because, as I said previously, the responsibility for its efficient working is going to rest on the shoulders of the medical profession, I believe they should have some help in that regard. I believe the Department of National Health and Welfare has a responsibility to educate the boys and girls in our schools. They should make more material available than has been made available up to now. I commend the department for the books that have been put out, particularly the books on child care and more particularly on the book "Canadian Mother and Child", and also other books that have been put out over the years. They are excellent books. I think more could be done for the junior age group in our high schools. More literature should be available to them, because there is no doubt that an educated public is going to be required to make this hospitalization scheme work.
We can go on from there as far as education is concerned, but certainly the federal government has a serious responsibility in one regard. I refer to medical research. In the past, of course, we have had the Connaught laboratories, but it is going to be more important in the future in cancer research and all other medical research which have to be

undertaken. I am sure the minister is quite aware of this, but I just mention it to bring it to his attention again.
There is just one other problem that I should like to bring to the attention of the committee at this time, namely the problem of the general practitioner in Canada. I feel that something should be done in this regard, because I feel very strongly that the general practitioner is the backbone of the medical service in Canada and will be the backbone of the hospitalization scheme if it is to work. It is vitally important that we do not relegate the general practitioner to the status of a file clerk, because if we do that the whole scheme will break down.
One other thing I should like to say in that regard has to do with civil defence. Probably most hon. members are aware that if-and I say "if"; from the announcement we just heard it becomes a little more remote-we are ever involved in a nuclear war our major medical centres would in all probability be involved in that war and would be of no use to us. We must keep in mind that the backbone of our civil defence in so far as the medical corps is concerned will be the country hospitals in rural areas and our general practitioners in those areas. If we are to make sure that we have the buildings and the people ready to take over that responsibility, then we have to guard very jealously the position of the general practitioner. I am happy to say that in Canada the general practitioners are very fortunate in that so far their position has been recognized.
If I may, I would like to say one other word in regard to the senior citizens of this country, our older people, our pioneers, and their housing accommodation. This has always been a very great problem in all communities in Canada, in that we have always had the problem of looking after our older citizens. Many governments have the idea that all they have to do is build some sort of marble hall and stick those people in there and forget about them. Many of our provincial governments are doing that right now. They are building 400-bed homes for the chronic aged in the cities.
I can tell the committee-and I am sure most hon. members will agree with me-that our old people do not want to go into those marble halls. They want to have some accommodation, yes, but they want to have that accommodation and maintain their independence, because after all they are Canadians. I am a little disappointed that some of the provinces of Canada have not taken advantage of the help which is available under the present legislation through Central Mortgage and Housing to provide the type
Supply-Health and Welfare of accommodation which our old people want and need. I trust we are not going to keep on building huge marble halls in cities or in other areas. Those people want to stay at home with their friends; they want to have some independence.
In conclusion I should like to commend the minister on his work in the past year. My remarks with regard to the hospitalization scheme I would like to be taken as concerning something which will happen and which we are going to have to take into consideration and fulfil as the rest of Canada becomes involved in the scheme.


Mr. Badanai:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to bring to the attention of the minister a matter which is of concern to my constituency, and it is no doubt a condition which obtains in every other constituency in the country. I wish to speak briefly on pensions in relation to health. Under the present legislation an old age pension is not payable without a means test until a person has reached the age of 70, when he or she, by the way, is subject to failing health.
As everyone knows, in most industries now the normal retiring age is 65, and in most instances the employees are retired with no pension or with a very small pension. During the period 65 to 70 most citizens still have to meet fixed commitments such as mortgage or rental payments, which are proving increasingly more difficult with the reduced value of the dollar owing to rising costs; call it inflation, if you like. The fact remains that what was once considered a small pension has now shrunk to a totally inadequate and ridiculously low level, and is certainly not sufficient to meet doctors' bills.
Legislation should be introduced to eliminate the means test at 65. I should like to read a paragraph or two from a letter which I received from one of my constituents, which tells part of the story:
I am a retired C.N.R. man, having been off now for over three years. I have, up until now, been fortunate enough to find work for part of the year but lately I have been unable to secure work.
I thought I had a job lined up with the department of highways at Fort William but I now find I am too old. I want it understood that I have no complaint with the officials of the department of highways. They were very courteous and took my application but later informed me they had instructions not to hire anyone over 65 years of age. That in itself I think is all right as there are many younger people who cannot find jobs.
It is one of the tragedies of our times that retired men and women, most of whom devoted their lives to the public service, are now caught in a vicious cost-price squeeze. Twenty years ago a man could look forward to a fairly comfortable retirement on a few thousand dollars or on a guaranteed pension of say $25 or $30 per month. These people
3948	HOUSE OF
Supply-Health and Welfare are now living on the ragged edge of abject poverty, and that is a condition which should not be tolerated in this great and wealthy country of Canada. Surely it is not too much to ask that pensions of civil servants, who have to pay for medical services, for instance, be brought under review and increased to the point where retirement after a lifetime of service means a peaceful rest from labour and worry.
I am aware that this particular matter was thoroughly discussed on Monday, December 16, 1957, as reported in Hansard, but unfortunately the resolution under discussion at that time was talked out. That resolution had been introduced by my predecessor, Rev. Dan Mclvor. I have practically the same resolution on the order paper, but unfortunately it will go into oblivion so far as the present session of the house is concerned. This resolution reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of introducing legislation to increase the pension of civil servants and Royal Canadian Mounted Police who were retired after long service when salaries were low, so as to bring their pensions in line with those of the present.
The question of pensions is one which should be considered and which should be under constant review in order to prevent the inequalities which now exist in so far as our retired civil servants and members of the R.C.M.P. are concerned. There are other categories, of course, which should receive consideration, not the least of which are the widows and unmarried women. These categories should receive pensions at the age of 60, and the reasons for that are obvious. Everyone knows that a single woman at the age of 60 cannot easily obtain employment, and unless she has independent means she is left to the mercy of charity or cast on the relief rolls of the municipality in which she lives.
I should like also to commend the hon. member for Carleton, who was in the house a few moments ago but is now out of the chamber, for the very creditable presentation he made last December on this question as reported in Hansard. I express the hope that his views on the matter have not changed since he made this statement:
I say the government is not acting justly toward retired civil servants in not granting an increase in their superannuation.
The government has given an indication that they will consider this aspect of the situation, and it is to be hoped that they will do something about it soon.
All persons who require hospitalization, Mr. Chairman, will be taken care of under the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services [Mr. Badania.l

Act, with the exception of those who are placed in nursing homes. They must bear this expense, and if the patient is an indigent such cost must be borne by the municipality. I say that today municipalities are charged with costs of all descriptions as a result of many demands made upon them, to which the provinces and the federal government do not contribute what I would consider to be a fair share. I believe some provision should be made in this health insurance measure to include nursing home care. I would appreciate it very much if the minister would give assurance that nursing home care will be included within the scope of this measure.
I do not want to make a lengthy speech. I realize there are many others who want to speak on this subject, and for that reason I shall make these remarks very brief indeed. However, I want to express my deep appreciation for the consideration which the department has given certain cases that have come within my knowledge. I sincerely trust the department will continue to give the maximum assurance to the people of Canada that their welfare is going to be taken care of, and that welfare benefits will be increased to meet conditions as they exist at this time.
We are moving quickly into a new era. What was good three or four years ago is no longer good. Some people are apt to condemn the former government for many omissions, but I do not believe such criticism is justified because what they did a few years ago perhaps met the conditions at that time. We are living now in a different time altogether. What we are doing today will not be good enough next year or five or ten years from now. I maintain, therefore, that we should keep these conditions under constant review.


Mr. Stinson:: The matter which I should
like to discuss for just a few minutes at this stage, Mr. Chairman, is civil defence. I am sure that all of us heard with satisfaction the statement made a few minutes ago by the Prime Minister to the effect that an agreement has been reached between the United States and the United Kingdom to suspend nuclear tests for one year. I know the details of this agreement have not yet been worked out and the precise control arrangements have not yet been completed; but, as the Prime Minister said and as the Leader of the Opposition repeated, this is probably the first significant step which has been made in recent years toward disarmament.
If we are successful in keeping the peace the measures which might be undertaken here to equip ourselves to try to withstand a nuclear war will not be necessary. But so long as the threat of such a catastrophe

hangs over the world it behooves us to take every intelligent step we can to ensure that as far as possible we are protecting our people from the awful consequences of a nuclear attack.
I should like to commend the Minister of National Health and Welfare for the very clear and helpful statement he made when introducing his estimates this afternoon. I should also like to congratulate him not only on the hard work he has put into the affairs of that department over the past year, but also on the excellent manner in which he has described the activities of his department to people in many communities of Canada. In the last day or two I had the opportunity of reading several speeches made by that hon. gentleman to community groups. I believe he is fulfilling in an admirable way the obligation he has to inform the Canadian public as to the important welfare activities of his department.
Just as there is no such thing as an adequate program of military preparedness, as was pointed out earlier by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, so there can be no really adequate program carried out in the field of civil defence. According to the estimates before us some $7 million are proposed to be appropriated for this purpose. On the other hand, some $1,680 million are to be used in equipping this country either to defend itself from attack or to retaliate against a power which may attack this country.
I am not going to suggest that there should be any ratio or relationship between money appropriated for defence purposes and money appropriated for civil defence purposes. Nor am I going to say that in view of this serious menace that confronts the world we should spend huge sums of money to provide shelter facilities and other means of protecting ourselves against the effects of a nuclear war.
What I do say, however, Mr. Chairman, is that this matter of civil defence is a national responsibility. It is the responsibility of the parliament of Canada. I realize that the work to be carried out in this field cannot be carried out exclusively by the national government. Some aspects of it, of course, must be delegated to the provincial authorities and the municipal governments. But what I do say is this. The time has come in this country for us to get down to the serious business of establishing a positive, definite and intelligent policy in this field. I must say that at the moment we have nothing of this kind. I realize that the minister, under whose jurisdiction this matter falls, has been fully occupied with work in other important fields. However, I hope 57071-3-250
Supply-Health and Welfare that within a very few weeks' time he can direct his attention and that of the officials of his department in a serious way to this matter.
As I understand it, the duties of the civil defence co-ordinator are threefold. He has the duty first of all to co-ordinate federal planning and action; second, to co-ordinate and advise provincial and municipal authorities; and third to maintain liaison with corresponding agencies in the United Kingdom, the United States and other countries. Those are the broad and general spheres of his authority. Of course they will mean very little so far as the Canadian people are concerned unless something is done to implement them.
It seems to me that very little money is required to do the basic things that must be done in this field, and I think they should be done soon. First of all I think there is required to be set up and well publicized by the national government of this country an adequate warning system. I venture to say, Mr. Chairman, that you could go out into the streets of Ottawa today and talk to the first 100 people you met and ask each of them what kind of warning he would expect to have should there be an attack of Russian jet bombers over this country, and you would not get a very satisfactory answer from anyone. I say this thing can be done rather simply, without the expenditure of a great deal of money, and that it is simply foolish to have different kinds of warning systems coming into being in the different municipalities across the country.
The second thing I think should be done right away in this matter, Mr. Chairman, is that the national authorities should make available to the people advice as to the simple activities they should undertake in the event that there is warning of such an attack. The other day I had the experience of going to the civil defence headquarters of this nation not many hundred yards away from this chamber. I went there at the request of an eminent Toronto architect who desired that I seek information with respect to the construction of a shelter under a private dwelling. I was told that the authorities really had not made up their minds as to what to recommend in this field. After a long time there was finally produced to me a single sheet of paper on which was sketched in very rough form a proposed shelter which had some kind of approval of the government of Canada. But when one sought to find out just what kind of approval this was, the answer was very evasive indeed.
I say, Mr. Chairman, that it is simply disgraceful that at this time a citizen can go

Supply-Health and Welfare to the civil defence authorities of Canada and be told that they have really no positive recommendations to make with respect to the kind of shelter one might build under his dwelling house so he might have some kind of chance of surviving an attack of the kind I have mentioned.
The other very few proposals I have in this matter, Mr. Chairman, are simple. It seems to me that the national government should undertake, with the assistance of well-qualified traffic engineers, rather extensive studies to work out the method by which people are to be evacuated from large centres of population. I also believe it would not be a costly thing to set up short training schools, of say two or three days' duration, for people who desire to learn the basic things necessary in order to conduct themselves in an intelligent way in their communities should war occur. I think training of this kind could be given at such places as county fairs, the central Canadian exhibition and the Canadian national exhibition. I believe people across the country would enrol in large numbers if they knew that by taking six, eight or ten hours of training they would gain the basic information which they need in order to do the best that could be done under the circumstances for themselves and their families should war break out.
Finally, I think the government should consider making use of the pilots of this country. I know they are prepared to cooperate with the Department of National Defence and the Department of National Health and Welfare by equipping themselves to assist the civilian population if necessary. I also know that in the United States there are some 80,000 civilian airmen enrolled in a voluntary organization, and that much has been done in this field.
Such pilots could be very useful indeed in the locating of areas of serious damage and in transporting medical and food supplies to isolated communities in the event of war. I am confident that if an approach were made to the flying clubs' association and to the Canadian owners' and pilots' association much could be done in this regard without the spending of very much money.


Mr. Deschaielels:: I would like to say a few words in connection with three items covered by the estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare, and I should like to deal first with the hospital insurance plan. I understand that this plan is now in operation in two provinces, namely in Alberta and British Columbia, and that from January 1 next it will operate in the province of Ontario. I also understand that supplementary estimates will be brought forward

from time to time in order to cover the cost of the federal share of this plan.
I wish to remind the minister that Canadians as a whole are contributing to the operation of such plan and, speaking now as the representative of a Quebec riding, I would point out to the minister and his government how disturbed and disappointed we are at the prospect of paying for this plan yet not benefiting from it in our own province. We all know that the premier of Quebec must be blamed for the negative stand taken on this issue, but I think the Minister of National Health and Welfare is in the same boat, in view of his lack of imagination and initiative and for not having at least taken one step to induce or invite the authorities of Quebec to join in the plan.
To illustrate my point I wish to refer specifically to page 1432 of Hansard for June 19, 1958, where the hon. member for St. Denis asked the Minister of National Health and Welfare the following question:
-does the minister not think that the premier of Quebec is rather late in trying to take advantage of this wonderful legislation?
The minister replied:
I do not think it is for me to say what I think. All I can announce is that there has been no indication from the province of Quebec as to what their intentions may be.
The member for St. Denis then asked the following supplementary question:
There was no letter, no telephone call, no correspondence between the premier of Quebec and the federal government?
To which the minister replied:
No indication.
Next I would like to refer to page 3861 of Hansard for August 21, where I am recorded as having asked the Minister of National Health and Welfare the following question: Would the minister tell us if he has received recently an indication from the government of the province of Quebec as to their intention to join in the hospitalization insurance scheme?
The minister replied as follows:
No, Mr. Speaker.
Whereupon I asked him the following supplementary question:
Would the minister tell us if he has lately contacted the authorities of the province of Quebec, whether by telephone or telegram to that effect?
To which the minister replied:
No, Mr. Speaker.
The admission by the minister that he has not even written, phoned or sent a telegram to the Quebec government inviting it to join in this plan is, in my view and in the view of most members on this side of the house, one of the most amazing features of this

session. Does the minister believe that the citizens of the province of Quebec will willingly pay by way of taxes for a plan which is going to benefit all provinces except Quebec? I say now, and I think this is a principle which the minister cannot challenge, that this is a national plan which must operate on a national scale. Here again we can measure the tremendous need for a federal-provincial conference and the failure of this government to call such a conference as promised. This, in my view, is the reason the citizens of the province of Quebec will once again be the object of discrimination on the part of this government.
If the premier of the province of Quebec until now has refused to enter this plan he has a reason, and it is up to the minister to inquire as to that reason and find a formula to suit the exigencies of Mr. Duplessis, whatever they might be. If the minister is too shy to discuss the matter with Mr. Duplessis, why does he not ask the Prime Minister to pinch hit for him? The premier of Quebec and the Prime Minister are two good friends; they share the same views on many problems of the day, and they are using the same approach to many political issues.
We hope something will be done next session. We do hope that we will not have the same negative answers from the minister and that the minister will not deal with this issue as he has done so far. This is one of the first matters into which we are going to inquire at the opening of the next session. (Translation):
Mr. Chairman, I have something to say about family allowances. The country will always be grateful to the Liberal administration for having introduced them, and everyone will recall that the former leader of the Conservative party, Mr. Drew, had fought against them tooth and nail. However we did introduce them, and they are now on the statute books. Since 1945, various amendments have increased the amounts, and in the budget speech of 1957 the amount was set at $6 per month for children under 10, and $8 per month for children aged 10 to 16.
It is fitting to recall that at that time, in 1957, the Solicitor General (Mr. Balcer) criticized us because he claimed that the family allowances in 1957 did not have the same purchasing power as in 1945. I will, in fact, quote straight from the record. He is reported in Hansard of April 1956 (page 2829) as saying:
From $5 that they were worth In 1949, they have gone down to $3.20; from $6 to $3.84 and from $8 57071-3-250i
Supply-Health and Welfare to $5.10. If their rate of devaluation continues, 10 years from now, they will be worth only $2.05, $2.46 and $3.28.
During the last election campaign, the Solicitor General, who was the Conservative party spokesman in the province of Quebec, vehemently held out the promise that there would be an increase in family allowances. Let me now remind him of the promise he made; it has no doubt been forgotten by him, but not by the electorate in the province of Quebec. May I say also that if, as we were told by the Solicitor General, family allowances were to have gone up in 1957, there is all the more reason they should go up now, considering the marked rise in the cost of living since June 1957, as evidenced by the following figures, obtained from the bureau of statistics, relating to basic family necessities:
June 1957 May 1958
Food:	
117.7	122.7Shelter:	
134.8	137.9Clothing:	
108.4	110.0
Mr. Chairman, I have shown what we have done regarding family allowances, and have quoted the promises in regard to family allowances made by the Solicitor General on behalf of the Conservative party-and which remain unfulfilled. I have, furthermore, shown that the very reasons which could have justified an increase in family allowances in 1957 are all the more impelling today. Let the Solicitor General, who was so vocal during the last election campaign, emerge from his silence and tell us of the government's plans in the matter.
(Text):
I should like to know from the Minister of National Health and Welfare, when he comes to reply, what this government intends to do regarding an increase in family allowances, an increase which was promised by the Solicitor General and by the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys during the last election.
Before ending my remarks I should like to say a few words concerning civil defence. Previous speakers on both sides have touched on this important question and in view of the announcement made by the Prime Minister yesterday that in the case of emergency there would be a plan based on the decentralization of government in this country, and in the light of the present international situation, I think this problem is more acute today than it has ever been in the past.

Supply-Health and Welfare
I remember very well that when the Conservative members were sitting on this side of the house they pressed us strongly for action with regard to civil defence. When we were responsible for the administration we made what we thought was a good start, but I remember that the present Postmaster General was on his feet on several occasions asking the government what they were planning to do for the city of Montreal in case of nuclear war. I do not want to go into detail here, because the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River has covered the ground pretty well, but I say to the minister that if those contentions were true in 1957 they are even more true today. What we need in a city such as Montreal, which is on an island, is a third bridge in case a quick evacuation should be required. It is my intention to bring this matter up during discussion of the estimates of the Minister of Transport, but I wondered when I was listening to the remarks of some of the previous speakers if we should not put this item of civil defence under the Department of National Defence. Both subjects are close together, and should war break out we would all be in the front line.
Anyway, these are suggestions which I make in very good faith and in no way to embarrass the minister or the government. I hope the minister will be good enough to make a few comments on them when we reach the end of his estimates.


Robert Hardy Small: Mr. Chairman, when the debate began this morning I was more or less intrigued with the remarks of the hon. member for Timmins, likewise with those of the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres and the other contributions which have been made, since these followed the same technique and pattern as was followed after we returned in 1957.
In June, 1957, the C.C.F. line of approach was that we had not done it soon enough, and the opposition at that time, the Liberals, said that we did not go far enough. The hon. member for Timmins spent considerable time this morning in repeating excerpts from speeches that were made by the Prime Minister and members of the cabinet and other hon. members of the government when they were in opposition. I would say that there is no intention to retract or retrace our steps from that particular time when we were advocating that certain things should take place.
I am speaking, now, with regard to the hospitalization bill which had been brought in by the previous minister of national health and welfare. We did, undoubtedly, advocate that certain advances should take place with

regard to that particular policy, but when you start to make a resume of what has taken place prior to that you find that the policy of the Liberal party had been such that they had promised the people of Canada from 1919 onward that they were going to introduce a hospital scheme for this country, and election after election they had dished it up to the people that this was going to take place. But the promise was never fulfilled, and even with respect to the program they turned out for the 1919 election it turned out it was only a program formed on the basis of political expediency.
What had really taken place, of course, was that the people of Canada and particularly the people of the province of Ontario had become so fed up with the diet of empty excuses that had been dished out to them for years by the previous Liberal administration that they took the matter in hand. The people were faced with mounting bills for hospitalization. This imposed a heavy burden on them which they simply could not meet. The hospitals in the province of Ontario took it upon themselves to initiate a program under which the people of that province could prepay hospital bills. The idea was welcomed by the people of the province and over 49 per cent of the population subscribed to one program or another through which they could prepay hospital bills. The concept grew in popularity until a need was created for additional hospitals in the province. The demand for additional hospitals and the number of people seeking treatment reached such gigantic proportions that the province decided to take the situation in hand and do something about it. The situation was studied for two of three years and the province come up with a program which it was planned to have inaugurated in that province. They were required to do this on account of the dilatory and lackadaisical attitude on the part of the government of Mackenzie King and Mr. St. Laurent in approaching the problem.


Mr. Habel:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Robert Hardy Small: Certainly.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: Would the hon. gentleman care to remind the committee that in 1951 the Ontario provincial Liberal party included in its platform a scheme for hospital insurance and Premier Frost fought the issue and was violently opposed to it at that time.


Robert Hardy Small: That does not alter the fact that such a scheme was included in the platform of your party in 1919 and still nothing had been done about it as late as 1953.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: Why do we not have it in the province of Ontario?


Robert Hardy Small: That has nothing to do with the policy followed by the previous Liberal administration and the constructive measures that have been introduced by the present government.


Mr. Pickersgill:: This government has done nothing.


Robert Hardy Small: May I remind hon. gentlemen that the only reason the previous Liberal administration brought this matter before the house when it did was because the premier of Ontario was going to inaugurate a hospitalization program of his own. To save your necks and in order to save face, you brought this scheme in yourselves.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: Why was Premier Frost opposed to it in 1951?


Robert Hardy Small: The fact is that it has been brought in and this action sent you scrambling in an effort to introduce a scheme which the people had been demanding for years.


William Moore Benidickson: We have not got it yet
in this province. When did you bring it in?


John Whitney Pickersgill: We have one in Newfoundland but not in Ontario.


Robert Hardy Small: This was brought in because of conditions in the province of Ontario. It does not matter who brought it in. The people of Ontario determined the situation because so many of them had subscribed to Blue Cross and the Ontario hospitalization and physicians' program that it created a need for the construction of additional hospitals. The time came when it could be avoided no longer. The premier of Ontario announced that he would introduce a hospitalization scheme of his own. The previous Liberal administration had to act smartly in order to bring in a scheme to counteract it. Those are the circumstances surrounding the introduction of the hospitalization bill by the previous government.
Hon. gentlemen opposite are now saying that this government has not gone far enough or fast enough. The Minister of National Health and Welfare is to be complimented on the fact that he has undertaken to put this scheme into effect. It is quite true that we have not included tuberculosis sanatoria, hospitals for the mentally ill nor have we provided for depreciation of hospitals, but a great step forward has been taken. And let me tell hon. gentlemen opposite that the Diefenbaker government inaugurated the things promised by the Prime Minister. We have not yet gone all the way but we are making progress. The Prime Minister has
Supply-Health and Welfare inaugurated many of the measures he promised to institute and has succeeded in instilling in the minds and hearts of the Canadian people a full measure of confidence in him and his government. The Canadian people feel that in their Prime Minister they have a man who is worthy of their confidence and who will do something for them. They know he will fulfil promise after promise and unlike his predecessors in office of the Liberal party he will not hold out empty promises. He has already made a splendid start toward implementing many of the programs to which he referred during the election campaign.
But hon. gentlemen opposite have tried to frustrate him. They opposed and balked him at every turn from October 1957 to January 1, 1958, until he said, "Let us go to the people and we shall see who they want". And so he went to the country and the people made their choice on March 31. The Prime Minister won their full confidence again. My hon. friends opposite say the Canadian people have no confidence or faith in the Prime Minister. He went to the people on March 31 this year and the people gave him their answer. He was returned with the largest majority there has ever been in this house.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: And the people are paying for it now.


Robert Hardy Small: And the people are fully satisfied with the performance of this government.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I must remind the hon. member for Danforth not to launch into an election speech. We are considering the estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare for 1958-59.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Not political warfare.


Robert Hardy Small: I shall accept your ruling, Mr. Chairman, but I was merely following the line of argument advanced this morning by the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres in which he made the statement that the people of this country did not believe in the program being offered by the Minister of National Health and Welfare. He dealt with the question of old age pensions in his remarks and said we have gone too far, that the previous government had considered it unsound to increase pensions following an examination of the financial basis of the question. Like my good friend the hon. member for Cochrane did a moment ago in trying to distract me from the line of argument I was presenting, the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres sought to obscure the issue and brought up the question of family allowances and said we had not done enough in that respect. But in the 1953 election we remember that the

Supply

Health and Welfare Liberals said our senior citizens had not been too well looked after but after four years the Liberal government failed to take action and still had done nothing for them. The situation pyramided because of the increased cost of living to the point where the people could stand it no longer.
The present government listened to the pleas of the people and gave them the increase they deserved and required. The previous administration offered them an insultingly paltry amount that did not begin to meet their needs. This government gave the people what they wanted with regard to old age pensions and that is why the present government is in office. The hon. member for Jasper-Edson commented on the fluctuating policy of the Liberals. The hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres said they were following the right course. Yes, they followed the right course; the course that was the perfect one to result in their being relegated to sit on that side of the house. They are sitting where they are now because of the course they followed.
The present government increased old age pensions to an extent that enabled recipients of old age pensions to live in dignity. The Prime Minister promised that the pension would be increased from time to time as the requirement arose. Hon. gentlemen opposite can argue from now until doomsday about whether or not the people of Canada are satisfied with the performance of this government but they will be wasting their time because the Canadian people have absolute confidence in their Prime Minister and his government. The previous administration was so convinced of its own infallibility that it felt it was permanently entrenched on the government benches and could impose any policy it cared to on the Canadian people. That government failed to give the people what they wanted with respect to health and welfare.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I must remind the hon. member again that this is not an election speech and I ask him to return to the subject of national health and welfare.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Save it up for three or four years.


Robert Hardy Small: Very well, Mr. Chairman. I believe I have covered the ground sufficiently in order to prove to the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres and the hon. member for Cochrane that the program inaugurated by this government perfectly satisfies the Canadian people. I must admit I really had no intention of speaking at this time but

their remarks got me so worked up that I felt I had to rise and put them in their place.
I am perfectly satisfied with what has been done by the Minister of National Health and Welfare and I am convinced he will do the right thing for the people in this country with respect to hospitalization and the other things hon. members are worrying about. I would tell them that they can trust to the honesty, fidelity and political sincerity of the Prime Minister of this country to ensure that the people will get what they require and everything they were promised. All promises will be lived up to.
I have taken a great personal interest in the question of civil defence to which reference was made by the hon. member for York Centre. In this field too the blame can be laid on the doorstep of the previous government which failed to take action. We now have a government that has taken the matter in hand. An investigation is being conducted concerning whether civil defence should be under civil authority or under the militia. What will be the result? You will find that it will be the same course and the same procedure that has been followed ever since the present Prime Minister took office, who will decide on the right policy for the people at the right time and give it to them as they want it.


Romuald Bourque: Mr. Chairman, I would like to tell the minister that anything I may say today will not be directed at him personally. It is something I have to say, and I hope he will understand because if I had a wish to make it is that he remain the Minister of National Health and Welfare for the duration of the time of this government. Of course, after that it will be his affair to get elected, but if he gets elected I hope he will sit on this side of the house.
On May 20 of this year I made a speech in this house calling the attention of the Minister of National Health and Welfare to the serious inroads the drug habit was making on the youth of Canada. I also stated, based on police evidence submitted to me, the rapid spread noted in the use of goofballs, the first step to drug addiction among teenagers. Based on facts, as I have said, I asked in this house that the drugs in goofballs be placed under the narcotics act so as to facilitate the arrest and conviction of the drug pushers in order that our youth may be protected against the drug evil.
Following my speech in this house, a certain gentleman by the name of H. R. Hart, an official of the Department of National Health and Welfare, evidently gave an interview to

a reporter of the Montreal Star, which interview appeared in that newspaper under date of Saturday, May 24, 1958. In this interview he stated that there was no goofball problem and therefore the statements that I had made in this house were not true. I believe this man Hart is an old employee of the department and, as such, he should have known that it is not proper for a menial employee of the department to give interviews to newspapers, thereby ignoring his minister who is supposed to answer for his department in this house.
Why this employee was so anxious to deny my statements I cannot understand. The facts I have placed on the record so far would seem to more than justify any statements I made and to show that Hart did not know what he was talking about. Hart not only denied what I had said in good faith in this house, based on sound facts, but he deliberately slandered a group of professional gentlemen without any basis whatever for his accusations. I would say that he is a very unreliable official, and he is also a dangerous man; for although he has deliberately slandered an outstanding group of professional men he has done nothing to repair the damage he did. I refer to the druggists of Outremont.
I hold in my hand, Mr. Chairman, a copy of the July, 1958, issue of "Prevention", the official organ in the province of Quebec of the Quebec police and fire chiefs' association. On page 58 of this issue appears the following article in French concerning what "Prevention" called: "Un Mai Social", meaning in English "a social evil". In other words, they consider goofballs a social evil. I am sorry this is in French. There is no English version therefore I will have to read it in French.
(Translation):


[Stage Direction]
In an attempt to ward off a social evil which is preying on the adolescents of the province of Quebec, the federal Department of National Health and Welfare is calling upon all druggists to put an end to the sale of drug substitutes.
Last week-end alone, the R.C.M.P. received more than twenty complaints concerning adolescents who had taken those tranquillizers or barbiturates popularly known as "goofballs".
Similar representations have been received from people in several parts of the province, including several quarters in the Montreal area. Some of the representations have been made by parents who are concerned over the present conditions and the possible fate of their children if they become goofball addicts. Representations have also been made by various police departments.
It has been established beyond doubt that youngsters are getting into the habit of taking goofballs in such youth centres as colleges, high schools, recreation rooms and dance halls.
Supply-Health and Welfare
[Stage Direction]
An official spokesman of the Social Welfare Court told us: "This evil seems to be taking on increasingly alarming proportions. It seems to have started among our adolescents three years ago, along with the advent of 'leatherjackets'
With an eye on this social evil which plagues the physical and moral health of youngsters, the federal Minister of National Health and Welfare instituted judicial proceedings several weeks ago against 25 Montreal druggists who sold tranquillizers to adolescents without prescriptions. Similar proceedings were instituted against druggists in Quebec, Shawinigan, Grand-Mere, Three Rivers, Valleyfield and other parts of the province. All defendants were found guilty and sentenced to pay a fine.
The authorities take the most serious view of goofball addiction, because, with the black market in drugs at its lowest level for some years past, addicts can take goofballs as a substitute for drugs.
[Stage Direction]
Only a few days ago, two guards at St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary were dismissed for having brought in goofballs for prisoners.
An inquiry was recently held in Bordeaux prison, where goofballs had been brought in at the time of arrival of two prisoners charged with hold-up. One of the men had been arrested by the detectives of the Hold-Up Squad of the Montreal Police Department, and at the time of his arrest, Detective Captain Joseph Bedard noted that the two accused "were in a total drug stupor when they were taken into custody-and were just about to rob a bank".
[Stage Direction]
We are informed by the authorities that, in some areas, the number of teenagers using goofballs has gone up from 40 per cent to 250 per cent in three years.
Inspector Ovila Pelletier, chief of the Youth Welfare squad of the Montreal police, informed us that the matter is the most serious problem he has to cope with at this time. As an example he stated that last week-end a 20-year old girl was taken to Misericordia Hospital in a very critical condition after taking an overdose of goofballs at a teenage party.
The judicial proceedings taken against some druggists by the federal Minister of National Health and Welfare have brought praise from several social groups, authorities of the Social Welfare Court, young people's associations and other groups, in view of the very serious view they take of the problem.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Joseph Portius, special prosecutor in the matter for the federal Department of National Health and Welfare, stated: "We are finding it very difficult to apply the law, and if druggists do not observe the law more closely, a scourge will soon be upon us".
Mr. Joseph Saint-Onge, of the Department of National Health and Welfare, informs us that the government and the College of Pharmacy have advised all druggists of the problem, and reminded them that it is illegal to sell goofballs without a doctor's prescription.
Offenders can be fined from $500 to $5,000, and be sentenced to a prison term of three to six months.
Habitual use of goofballs by youngsters seeking new thrills can seriously harm their health, upset their nervous and digestive systems, and can even result in death.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Health and Welfare
Like narcotics, these capsules, which cost only three to six cents on the open market, fetch a much higher price on the black market.
Thus some of the drug pushers sell them at a dollar a piece.
(Text):
As I said previously, Mr. Chairman, I have just quoted from the official organ of the Quebec police and fire chiefs' association.
I have previously placed on the record a news item published in Time, the Canadian edition of March 31, 1958, entitled "Nova Scotia Goofball Crackdown". It is stated therein that a young school boy, 14 years of age, had died after absorbing goofballs. I also placed on the record another article published in the Montreal Star of March 25, 1958, under the heading "Goofballs Smuggled into Prison". On this occasion a serious mutiny occurred in the jail as a result of goofballs, causing serious and costly damage. I believe I have established that if Chief H. R. Hart of the inspection services of the Department of National Health and Welfare does not know a goofball problem exists, then it is high time he woke up. We are experiencing here a modern version of Rome burning while Nero fiddles. We have a most serious goofball problem in Canada and yet he, the chief, does not know it exists. The Montreal Star stated as follows in its edition of Saturday, May 24, 1958:
Mr. Hart conceded that there have been prosecutions of pharmacists in Outremont for illegal sales of medicinals which can only be sold on prescription, and that $100 fines were imposed, in spite of requests from the federal Department of National Health and Welfare for stiffer penalties.
This, Mr. Chairman, I absolutely deny. It is an outright lie and an unwarranted slander on the druggists of Outremont. As mayor of the city of Outremont, I am proud to be able to state in this house that never, and I repeat "never", has a druggist of the city of Outremont been arrested, brought to court or condemned for having infringed the drug act in any way. Outremont possesses the finest group of ethical druggists on the North American continent. Whatever Hart said about the Outremont druggists was, as I stated previously, an absolute lie. He deliberately slandered these professional gentlemen, and I should like to know what the minister intends to do about repairing the unwarranted damage that has been done to the reputation of these outstanding ethical druggists by the irresponsible official that Hart is.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Owing to my position in the house over a period of 13 years, Mr. Chairman, when the estimates of this department


were under consideration I used to face certain esteemed senior officials of the department. I must express my pleasure at having the opportunity, for the first time, to gaze upon the more attractive features of this department.
I want to again briefly urge the government to consider the early establishment of a complete national health insurance plan. I am not going to repeat the arguments made by previous speakers in this group today and on previous occasions. I just want to emphasize my interest in this matter and the interest of a large number of Canadians. In that connection, before passing on, I want to quote from today's Gazette in which there appears a little article entitled, "N.H.S. A Way of Life".
London, July 11-
Critics of the cradle-to-the-grave health service claim that far from being "free", it is costing plenty in taxes.
But surveys show that the man-in-the-street is solidly behind the plan.
I d rather pay as I go than run the risk of going broke over medical fees," is the typical reaction.
The national health service covers anything from psychiatric treatment to nose-straightening if it is recommended by a doctor.
The criterion is not "what can this patient afford?" but "what would be best for him?"
It is in that respect I want to emphasize my attitude towards this very important question. I do hope that in an early session of parliament we will see some response from the government to this demand for a complete national health insurance scheme.
Before proceeding, I also want to express my support for the representations made by this group and other members who have spoken today for further consideration of the needs of persons who have not reached 70 years of age to qualify for old age security as a matter of right. We have a long way to go in that direction. We have made some advances in recent years. A wealthy country like this can do better than it is doing at the moment to meet the needs and requirements of a large section of the elderly population. I refer to women from 60 to 70 and men from 65 to 70, who are not cared for properly under the present circumstances.
Having said that, and before proceeding, I do want to take this opportunity to express my appreciation of the importance of this department and the excellent work being done by the staff in Ottawa and throughout the country. I have had the opportunity of talking to civil servants and other senior persons from Great Britain who are interested in problems of national health and welfare

I hear nothing but admiration expressed tor the officials of this department. I think we in Canada, generally speaking, have a right to be proud of our civil servants and I say that without any hesitation. I say it as a result of some 13 years experience in this house, which experience provided me with an opportunity to meet a good number of these people.
Having said that, I must say I was pondering this morning how, in order not to be repetitious as accused by the Globe and Mail or unnecessarily taking up the time of the house, I could do the greatest good for the greatest number in the shortest possible time during this debate. I have come to the conclusion that possibly I could do most in the few minutes I wish to take by saying that a good many people in Canada, I judge from the inquiries I have received, want to know the truth about royal queen bee jelly.
I find that this royal queen bee jelly is advertised in numerous periodicals across Canada and the United States. I have seen advertisements recommending it as a cosmetic. In fact, I met a lady today who uses it frequently and who says it is very good in that respect. I have met others who do not believe in it. I have seen it advertised as a skin food. I have seen it advertised as an antiseptic for open wounds. I have seen it advertised as a rejuvenator for old people. I find here in the Ottawa Citizen of August 20, 1958 the following:
Queen bee royal jelly capsules and royal jelly creme for wrinkles, loose and rough skin,-
That would not apply to me.
-now available Thuna Herbalist, 397 Bank, CE-2-6388.
Tlie same advertisement is repeated in the Journal. Strangely enough, while I have made a search of the papers I can only find this type of advertisement with respect to royal jelly in the eastern periodicals and papers. Apparently it is not thought so necessary or required in western Canada. In any event, that has just been the result of my research to date. I have not with me at the present time one of the advertisements but I saw one in a United States paper advertising this royal queen bee jelly as an antiseptic for open wounds. However, I find that it is advertised widely as a rejuvenator for old age. I want to deal with this matter for a moment. This advertisement reads as follows:
Doctors report "Miracle" royal jelly may change your whole life.
I may say that this is a full page advertisement. It continues:
Here is the thrilling story of royal jelly . . . bringing new hope to countless thousands of men and women over 35 ... by William Duval- 57071-3-251
Supply-Health and Welfare An amazing scientific discovery, just recently made available through the combined efforts of scientists who have, after years of testing in medical laboratories, developed this wonderful substance in combination with eight important and essential vitamins in an easy-to-take capsule form. The powers of royal jelly have been tested over many years. Each year has seen new developments, new proof, as men and women from many countries of the world have begun to feel the amazing benefits of this highly beneficial queen bee's food.
Judging from the amount that is being sold today, there must be a great many queen bees in Canada. The advertisement continues:
(The price of royal jelly was quoted as high as $5.00 per ounce in its initial introduction to the U.S.) Now, thanks to the tireless efforts of research scientists, a way has been found to make this wonder working miracle food of the queen bee available to the public in comparatively inexpensive, easy-to-take, oral capsule form.
Then to quote briefly again-it is a very long advertisement and I am not going to go into all of it-there is a paragraph which reads as follows:
Leading medical authorities in France, England and Germany attest that royal jelly contains vital nutritional factors necessary to the health and well-being of mammals. Royal jelly has been acclaimed as one of the richest natural sources of vigour and vitality.
Discoverer of insulin Dr. Frederick Banting- This is the part to which I wish to direct attention. I wonder whether these statements are true. I am raising the matter because I want the department to go into it and to let us know the truth on this question.
The most complete scientific report on Royal Jelly was prepared under the direction of Dr. Frederick Banting, the discoverer of insulin, at the Banting Institute in Canada. Royal jelly was found to be rich in proteins and vitamins, with a particularly high concentration of pantothenic acid, the vitamin of the important B-Complex group, that has to do with increasing the life span in animals.
Then there is this statement:
"Texas A & M College has been conducting experiments on royal jelly-"
"Professor G. F. Townsend of Ontario agricultural college is resuming research on royal jelly-"
If I had known that, I would have taken the matter up under the estimates of the Minister of Agriculture as well. I just discovered it. This last paragraph to which I wish to direct attention reads as follows:
Royal Jelly may mean "new life" after 35. Reports from Europe tell us of an 80 year old gentleman whose physical condition would make a 50 year old envious.
That is what strikes me.
The man regularly partakes of royal jelly. According to a book published in England, when Russian officials sent questionnaires to all the centenarians (people over 100 years old) in the Soviet union, more than half of them turned out to be beekeepers.

Supply-Health and Welfare
If this is true, not only is this matter of great importance to the Department of National Health and Welfare but it would be of great advantage to the Department of Agriculture and to the beekeepers in general. In any event, I am not going to read further from this advertisement, because the further I read the more I find that my years are dropping away like petals from a rose until I imagine I am returning to my budding youth and possibly going back to rompers again.
I bring this matter to the attention of the minister because these advertisements are increasing in number. I find only to a limited extent have the advertisements appeared in western papers or periodicals. This advertisement mentions a small quantity for $5 a bottle, a larger quantity for $10 and a little bit larger quantity for $15 and the full double strength size for $20 a bottle. I know people who are buying bottles of this preparation at $20 a bottle in the belief that it is doing their health a great deal of good. I do not know, nor did the people who have written to me and have inquired, whether or not this is a fraud and whether people are being taken advantage of or whether there is some scientific basis for the claims made in these advertisements that recommend it in some cases as a cosmetic, in other cases as a food for the skin, in other cases as an antiseptic for open wounds and, finally, in the majority of cases as a rejuvenator for older people. I think the public should know the truth.
I mention this matter because the administration of the Food and Drugs Act and the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act comes under a certain branch of the minister's department. I know that department does excellent work. It is concerned about the purity of drugs. It is concerned about adulteration, about poisons and things of that sort. I therefore presume that the Department of National Health and Welfare has a full knowledge of this royal jelly and possibly has thoroughly investigated it. I have raised the matter in the house, Mr. Chairman, in order that the people of Canada will have the opportunity to know the truth with respect to the advertised advantages of royal queen bee jelly.


Mr. Brassard (Lapointe):: Mr. Chairman, at the beginning of my remarks I want to congratulate the Minister of National Health and Welfare on the manner in which he introduced his estimates. It is certainly not an easy task to follow the steps of a predecessor who was in charge of this department for nearly eleven years and who directed its activity with such a high degree of ability, devotion to duty and consideration for public welfare.

The hon. member for Essex East deserves the gratitude of the Canadian people on more than one count. He devoted his great energies as well as his wide knowledge in the field of public welfare to the establishment and improvement of social measures that affect directly all Canadians from sea to sea. I do not wish to imply that everything the Liberal government did was perfect. On the other hand, no one can deny that it was a Liberal government that laid the foundations for our present system of social security. The least we can ask of the present administration, it seems to me, is that they continue to improve upon it.
I do not wish to join the ranks of the prophets but it seems to me that everyone admits today that as we progress in other fields we must at the same time continue to extend our social legislations as our economic conditions warrant.
If the two historic parties of our country refuse to accept that fact I think, and I feel this very strongly, that our influence will be very greatly diminished in the future. Whether we like it or not and whether we share that point of view, there are those in our midst in Canada, as in other countries, who turn their capacities for demagogy to their own profit. The ideas which these people express eventually find their way into the minds of the public and unless they are taken into consideration, at least up to the limit of common sense, we could pay dearly for our refusal to treat them seriously. It is in this spirit that I do not hesitate to say that our Liberal charter for social security must be constantly reviewed to make sure that our social legislation takes into account the current needs of the Canadian people. As is stated in the latest declaration of Liberal policies, "with a basic charter which provides a solid basis for the security of all Canadians, we are now entering upon a new phase of welfare legislation." The social tragedies which still mar our society are difficult cases which cannot completely be eliminated. Nevertheless, we must never cease our efforts to remove these social problems.
For this reason I am very happy that five proivnces have agreed to participate in the national hospital insurance plan. It is, however, most regrettable that the present government decided against affording full protection to Canadians by including medical, dental and surgical expenses. If the government had included these categories it would have prevented many Canadians from suffering owing to the lack of financial means to obtain adequate treatment. I am astonished that the government did not very seriously consider the recommendations and suggestions along those lines which were made by certain

Conservative members when they were on this side of the house. I would like also to express my disappointment that the province of Quebec has not yet indicated an interest in this matter. I raise these points in all sincerity and without political prejudice, because of the many thousands of Canadians in my province who are in such great need of assistance under this legislation. I am told that the authorities in Quebec are at the present time studying a plan which will be suitable for our needs, but time is passing and the citizens of Quebec are already helping through their taxes to pay for health insurance in other provinces, from which they themselves do not benefit.
I am not at all jealous of those who profit from this assistance, but I am anxious to see the money earned in my province to a certain extent benefit the people of Quebec. I am sure that all my fellow members from Quebec will have had the unfortunate experience of finding that many residents of Quebec are unable to secure hospital treatment. Unless a person is exceptionally well off, or exceptionally poor, he cannot afford the luxury of hospital treatment without mortgaging his salary for months and even years to come. This is a tragic situation which must be dealt with.
The province of Quebec should be in a position today to submit its plan to the federal government and to undertake preliminary discussions with a view to ending the uncertainty existing in many cases. I repeat that I am not making these remarks in a political partisan spirit, but simply to assist my fellow citizens of Quebec to use for their own advantage and their own welfare the money which they earn by their daily toil.
I wish to make a few suggestions to the minister concerning other social measures which I feel would be an immense service to thousands of Canadians. I think it is urgent to increase the flexibility of the definition of the words "disabled" and "invalid" when dealing with disabled persons seeking assistance. This should be done from a humanitarian point of view, having in mind that there are people who are unable to work more than a few weeks or months a year and who as a result are not able to earn even their bare subsistence. It is very difficult for them and for their families to understand that the strict application of the Disabled Persons Act prevents them from taking advantage of assistance which they need so greatly and to which, in my opinion, they are entitled. I certainly could not be accused of being in bad company in this respect for the Prime Minister, when he was on this side of the chamber, attacked this 57071-3-251J
Supply-Health and Welfare problem as recorded in Hansard of July 27, 1956 at page 6537 and page 6538:
This act provides for dominion and provincial contributions; it provides for the payment of an allowance to those who are totally and permanently disabled as prescribed by the regulations. In my experience, this act is being altogether too rigidly administered. The joker in the act is the section that provides that the definition of total and permanent disablement shall be that definition determined by regulations.
The situation today, in whatever cases have come to my attention, indicates that the basis of interpretation excludes many persons who should be qualified and who should receive the allowance.
If the minister makes these necessary changes he will certainly win the gratitude of those whom he would assist by such action and he would also carry out the wish expressed by the Prime Minister himself. It must be admitted that even if a person is capable of moving and able to take nourishment that does not automatically mean that he is able to earn a living.
Our blind persons' legislation should also be amended. First, the qualifying age should be lowered from 18 to 16 years. There is no excuse for not acceding to this request for these persons who are so terribly handicapped. The government stops paying family allowances when a child reaches the age of 16 and between the ages of 16 and 18, for two long years, blind persons find themselves without any assistance. I will go even further -it is not just a question of the period from age 16. The parents of blind persons need assistance from the very moment medical science establishes the blindness of a child. The educational training and care which must be given to a blind child are expensive in most cases, and it is in that difficult period that the parents are in the greatest need of government assistance.
It is true that blindness allowances are paid jointly by the federal and provincial governments, but it does not seem to me that it would be very difficult to agree on changes at a conference on social legislation.
I also suggest that it would be advisable to raise the exemption on earnings of blind persons without, however, entirely eliminating the means test. The government could, for instance, grant to blind persons the same exemption as is granted to single or married persons under the Income Tax Act. I am informed this would increase from 500 to 600 the number of persons qualifying for assistance under this legislation, and that the extra expense to the government would be a little less than $300,000.
I would also like to mention that the Canadian institute for the blind is of the

Supply*-Health and Welfare opinion that we should grant special allowances to blind persons to assist them in meeting the expenses of a guide.
It does not seem to me that these are exorbitant demands, and I believe they deserve the serious and sympathetic consideration of the minister. Once again I cannot be accused of being in bad company in making this request, because the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe, when speaking in this chamber on April 18, 1955, as recorded at page 2933 of Hansard for that date, is reported as having said the following words in connection with the qualifying age for blind persons:
I cannot help thinking that the ages between 16 and 20 are ages of uncertainty. They are the time when boys and girls encounter great difficulties, and begin to wonder where they are going and what the future holds for them. Those are the years when their minds are in some state of turmoil. Surely if we can reduce the eligible age from 21 to 18 years we could reduce it to 16 and give those young persons a break, these children whose education is always more difficult and more expensive, these children who many times must travel long distances to get their education, and must be accompanied in their travels.
I offer these suggestions to the minister in the hope that he will give to these requests, which have the support of one of the most distinguished members of the government, careful consideration.
(Translation):
With regard to old age assistance, Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the minister could consider the possibility of making the benefits available from age 60 to widows and single women. In many cases, widows are not entitled to benefit from or cannot get the needy mothers' allowance, either because they have no children under 16, or because their husbands have left them the family house, and nothing else. The widow is then forced either to sell her house, in order to eat, or keep the house and look for a job. Many of them, however, are unable, for various reasons to take jobs. The only thing the widow can do is to sell her house, board somewhere, and in few years spend what little she has got out of property painfully acquired by her husband, and find herself in abject poverty.
While I am aware that the government has asked that a study be made of the pension scheme in force in the neighbouring republic, I should like to point out to the minister that right here in Canada very many people find it extremely hard to get by between their retirement at 65 and the age when they begin
[Mr. Brassard (Lapointe).3

to receive the old age pension, at 70. In the first place, many companies have no pension plan, or persons retiring at 65 have not been employed long enough to be entitled to adequate pension. Since the general practice requires that all employees retire at 65, it is imperative that old age pension be payable from the age of retirement, at 65. The government is perfectly aware of the large number of pathetic cases throughout the country, and it is high time something were done to assist these people. Here again, I cannot be accused of keeping bad company for I am very happy to see that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) is occupying his seat. I shall therefore now quote what the hon. member from Toronto (Broadview), who is today our distinguished Minister of Transport, was saying in this house in 1956, when dealing precisely with this same subject. As I open the official record of July 25, 1956, I see on page 6507 the following passage. I shall of course be unable to read it with the same feeling and eloquence for which our Minister of Transport is well known. This is what he said:
-another very serious problem is that faced by workers who reach the age of 65 and are retired, and for whom no pension plan has been available to which they could contribute during their working years, and by which they could support themselves and their families when they are retired.
Some firms have pension plans but unfortunately the great majority do not, and when most workers are retired at 65, they have only the savings which they have been able to lay aside during their working years, after meeting the many obligations which families encounter from time to time. Often a lingering illness or serious accident has reduced those savings to a point where there is little left to live on after the breadwinner of the family has retired. I think we all agree it is obvious that some better method must be found for bridging the gap between 65 and 70 years of age, and for bringing our old age pension more into line with the needs of the great majority of the people who receive it.
It is a pity that the genial Minister of Transport has not also been appointed assistant Minister of National Health and Welfare. And this grievance could be applied in several other fields. In the opposition, we used to see the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, (Mr. Green), who promised us a merchant navy; but he was appointed Minister of Public Works. The former official critic on financial matters is Minister without Portfolio today. And this is obviously the case of several other ministers.
I wish to conclude, to the great satisfaction of my hon. friends, by adding a few remarks on the unemployment assistance program set

up by an act of parliament given royal assent on July 11, 1956. With the exception of Quebec, all provinces of Canada have now signed agreements with the federal government for participation in this plan. This unemployment assistance plan offers many advantages but there is one in particular which I would like to point out. I refer to assistance which should be given to people who do not or no longer receive unemployment insurance benefits either because they have not worked long enough to qualify under the act, or because they have used up the benefit period.
Considering the very difficult period we are going through, the least that can be said is that it is deplorable that so many unemployed who no longer qualiy for benefits are being deprived of assistance which is granted to thousands of other unemployed in the other provinces.
An even more difficult period is predicted for the coming winter, and I wonder how those who have not found any work before next winter will be able to qualify for unemployment insurance benefits. It is precisely in hard times such as those we are going through that breadwinners really need assistance, and I cannot help repeating that they should not be deprived of an assistance granted to other Canadians and to which citizens of the province of Quebec have contributed by way of taxes. I wonder if the Minister of National Health and Welfare could not take this up with Quebec government authorities and see if it would not be possible to come to an agreement.
Finally, I merely wish to point out the regrettable fact that the government wilfully neglected to raise the amount of family allowances. When we consider that it has raised all other measures of social security, we wonder at the reasons for this regrettable omission.
In conclusion, may I repeat that all that social legislation was instituted under a Liberal government. I know that this program is not perfect but we must nevertheless recognize that the former administration did blaze the trail in the social field and open new vistas in this regard. Between May 14, 1948 when the Rt. Hon. Mr. Mackenzie King first introduced to the country his public health program, and 1957, the federal government paid over to the provinces close to $225,000,000 in national health assistance. Quebec received somewhat better than 68 millions of this amount. True, there has never
Supply-Health and Welfare been a great deal of noisy publicity in our province in this respect. I felt however that I should bring that fact to the attention of my hon. colleagues. I might add, quite objectively, that Quebec has made good use of those millions, and that we have made great strides in this field. There has been an enormous amount of work done in the field of public health in this country, though a great deal yet remains to be done.
In this regard the government must remain forever watchful since the issue is that of human resources, the most important of all resources in this country. Mr. Mackenzie King, who pioneered this system in Canada, understood the issue fully. He stated, as recorded in Hansard on May 14, 1948, as he introduced this new plan to the house:
But of all the nation's resources, Its human resources are unquestionably the most precious. The preservation in health and strength of its population is surely the best of all guarantees of the nation's power, of its progress and of its prosperity. Our greatest national asset is the health and well-being of our people.
The Liberal government has shown the way. This is a challenge to the Conservative government, at least for so long as it can maintain itself in power-


Mr. Mariineau:: That will be at least 50 years.


Augustin Brassard: It must widen the trail which has been broken. I am sure that nothing less is expected from the new administration both by the Liberal party and the Canadian people.
(Text):


Mr. Bissonneile:: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a very important problem for my constituency. Recently we have been told that the hospital of immigration, property of the federal government situated in my riding, is going to be closed.
I have lately received a resolution from the Quebec regional council of the Canadian federation of civil employees and also a telegram from the Quebec board of trade concerning this event. I take the liberty of reading a few of the numerous items of this resolution that will permit me to shorten my remarks:
Whereas Immigration hospital, 300 Boulevard Hamel, Quebec West, P.Q., is the only federal institution within the limits of Quebec West constituency,
Whereas immigration hospital is still today as well as during the last years in a position to

Supply-Health and Welfare
accept for general or specialized treatments some two hundred and twenty-five patients,
Whereas immigration hospital can supply the most up to date and medically advanced treatments,
Whereas the closing of immigration hospital cannot but bring disastrous effects, morally, economically, as well as socially, directly and immediately on the local and regional area and indirectly at the national level,
Whereas the closing of immigration hospital would deprive some one hundred and fifty actual employees of their jobs,
Whereas the salary paid to these one hundred and fifty employees represents the interesting sum of some four hundred and fifty thousand dollars a year,
Whereas the closing of immigration hospital would deprive our local merchants not only of the purchasing power represented by these employees but also the local purchases made by the hospital administration for the needs of the hospital itself,
Whereas these local purchases would mean to our local merchants a loss of business equal to some one hundred and fifty thousand dollars a year,
Whereas the closing of immigration hospital would mean a total loss of some seven hundred thousand dollars a year to the local and regional business trade,
Whereas the closing of immigration hospital in Quebec West is not and cannot in any way be submitted and/or considered neither actually nor in any event as a logical and recommendable means to check the all-over Canada growing unemployment.
Be it resolved that:
To provide the best possible service to the welfare of Indians and Eskimos,
To maintain to the highest level of efficiency experienced services already existing and devoted to these patients of a different and special type, and this at nominal cost,
To maintain to some one hundred and fifty employees the security of a guaranteed job,
To maintain for the local industry and trade the income meant by some seven hundred thousand dollars a year,
Earnest entreaties be submitted to the minister so that:
Immigration hospital in Quebec West, P.Q., not only avoid closing but be guaranteed permanently its existence as the hospitalization and treatment center for eastern Canada Indians and Eskimos.
I inquired, Mr. Chairman, about the reasons to justify the closing of this hospital. The main reason given is the lack of patients among immigrants and Indians. I was advised that the number of patients would not be sufficient to justify the maintenance of this hospital. I want to agree with the reasons given but here I would like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare to delay his decision and allow me to offer a few considerations and suggestions with a view to helping the settlement of this problem to the satisfaction of every one and keeping our hospital open.
The Quebec hospital of immigration is situated in my constituency the population of which comprises 85 per cent labourers and where the unemployment problem is an important one. Consequently this period of unemployment would not be a favourable

time at which to execute such a decision. It would represent a loss in salaries and in all kinds of other benefits to the estimated total value of $700,000 a year. Therefore I urge the minister to take that important economical point of view into consideration.
Let me then offer the minister a few suggestions with the desire of helping him give to my constituency a favourable answer or at least to delay reaching a final decision. I suggest that the hospital of immigration could be used for the centralized treatment of all sick immigrants entering Canada through eastern harbours and of all the Indians of the numerous reserves in our eastern provinces. In doing so the minister could not consider closing the hospital but rather would have to consider enlarging it. I hope this suggestion will be taken into serious consideration but if it is impossible of realization allow me to offer the minister a further suggestion.
In Quebec city, according to a recent investigation, we require at least 1,200 additional hospital beds to satisfy our needs. The problem is particularly serious for our general practitioners and family doctors who can scarcely find beds for their patients in the general hospitals where the number of beds is insufficient for the medical staff of specialized doctors. Consequently, our family doctors often cannot be admitted to attend their patients in our hospitals and may be rather considered as ambulance drivers.
Mr. Chairman, our general practitioners, our family doctors, must still be considered the pillars of the medical profession, those who are always ready to render service day and night, seven days a week, and we should assist and encourage them to continue in the highly important medico-social role they play among our people. In the light of the present trend there is a great danger of seeing them disappear to follow their colleagues into specialized fields. The cost of medical treatment is prohibitive today because of over-specialization. Consequently I suggest to the minister that he keep open the Quebec hospital of immigration and put its unoccupied beds at the disposal of labouring peoples to facilitate their treatment by family doctors in this area.
I take pleasure in mentioning the sympathetic feelings of the premier of the province of Quebec toward family doctors and I dare to say that an agreement should be possible with our provincial government in that direction.
I am very happy to offer the Minister of National Health and Welfare my contribution as a general practitioner and a member of the government party to bring about such an

Private Bills
agreement. In this connection we see on the one hand a lack of patients when compared with the great number of beds available and, on the other hand, there is a lack of hospital beds in comparison with the number of our patients. One should meet the other on the same ground. Is this not a peculiar position to be in when we are trying to take the first step to arrive at an agreement between the federal and Quebec provincial governments in regard to the problem of hospital insurance? We know that the realization of that goal depends upon hospital beds and it will be difficult to realize it when there is a lack of hospital beds. Therefore, I ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare to delay his decision to close this hospital and, in the meantime, let us hear a few words of hope and encouragement for the benefit of my constituents, the patients and the family doctors.
I would like to close my remarks by offering another suggestion to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The difficulty of reaching an agreement with the province of Quebec in so far as a hospitalization plan is concerned is brought about by a lack of hospital beds, as I said a minute ago. The number of hospital beds would be probably sufficient if the beds were occupied by those who need to be hospitalized. Consequently, a patient should not be admitted to a hospital unless the diagnosis is made by a medical practitioner, with the help of the diagnostic service. If we admit all cases then tiresome people will be admitted to the hospitals. According to investigations that have been made almost one-third of our hospital beds are occupied by people who have subscribed to Blue Cross hospital insurance plans or similar plans. The beds are occupied by people who should be treated at home by their family doctors. I suggest that at the next session of parliament we should study the possibility of amending the hospital insurance law to limit hospitalization to people who need to be hospitalized. If there is no control on the admittance of people to hospitals the cost of the hospitalization insurance plan will be fantastic. We will have to build an enormous number of hospitals to accommodate those who would like to be hospitalized for everything and nothing.
To those who are concerned about the position of Quebec in the hospital scheme may I say that I have talked to the premier of our province about the problem of hospitalization insurance under the federal plan. I believe the premier of our province is considering the possibility of Quebec entering into the federal plan. Everybody who knows our province knows that our premier is wise and
prudent. As he said, no man can open a grocery store if he has nothing to put on his shelves. Therefore, we will be ready to enter the federal hospitalization insurance plan when we have beds to offer to the patients. At the present time the province of Quebec is following the policy of building hospitals, regional hospitals, in almost all of our constituencies so that very soon the premier will be in a position to enter the federal scheme. I am sure that the plan will cover not only general diseases but mental and tuberculosis diseases as well, also the infirm and the incurable. I hope that when that day comes our friends who are concerned about the intentions of our premier will be satisfied.


An hon. Member:: Did you get that at one of his press conferences?


Mr. Carter:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to join with my colleague from Lapointe in congratulating the minister on the very clear and lucid presentation which he gave us in introducing his estimates. We know from what the minister said that for the first time the estimates of this department have exceeded the $1 billion mark.
Since it is one minute to five o'clock, Mr. Chairman, will you call it five o'clock.


Charles Edward Rea: It being five o'clock, it is my duty, pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15, to leave the chair in order to allow the house to proceed to the consideration of private and public bills.
Progress reported.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It being five o'clock, the house will now proceed to the consideration of private and public bills, the former have precedence, pursuant to standing order 15, subsection 3.


Mr. Speaker:: Since there are a number of private bills standing for consideration in committee of the whole, is it agreed that they be referred for consideration of the committee of the whole in one motion?


Mr. Peters:: No.


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. SD-258, for the relief of Adrienne Menard Huot- Mr. McCleave-Mr. Rea in the chair.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
William Arnold Peters: For the past two days the committee on miscellaneous private bills has heard a number of divorce cases and has learned many disquieting facts.
3964	HOUSE OF
Private Bills-Divorce
One of these facts that has had a disquieting effect has been the use of investigators. In my opinion, the evidence disclosed in this particular divorce raises a question as to the credibility of the evidence given by private investigators in general. I should like to ask whether, in this case, private detectives were used in the obtaining of evidence?


Mr. McCleave:: The answer is no, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Robert Jardine McCleave: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the third time and passed.


Mr. John B. Hamilton (York West):: Before you leave the chair again, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might suggest that as the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Bigg) has indicated he wishes to speak about a particular bill, if there are any other members who wish to do that we might ascertain their wishes and perhaps shorten proceedings by taking all the others in one group.


Mr. Speaker:: To which bill does the hon. member desire to speak?


Mr. Biggs:: I should like to speak to No. SD-289.


Mr. Speaker:: Are there any other bills that might be reserved from a general consideration?


Robert Jardine McCleave: I should like to ask that Bill No. SD-293 be held out.


Mr. Lambert:: I should like to ask that Bill No. SD-304 in this section be held out.


Mr. Drysdale:: I should like to ask that Bill No. SD-267 be held out.


Mr. Speaker:: If these four bills mentioned are withheld from a general motion, is it the pleasure of the house that the remaining divorce bills standing for consideration in committee of the whole be taken in one motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. SD-275, for the relief of Joseph Ovila Maurice Valentyne.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-279, for the relief of Gweneth Vera Payne Smith.-Mr. McCleave.
[Stage Direction]

Bill No. SD-281, for the relief of Raymond Leslie Larocque.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-285, for the relief of Gordon Kent Lambert.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-286, for the relief of Catherine Doris Dooley Bantey.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-287, for the relief of Monica Frances Fleice Bottomley.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-288, for the relief of Fritz Drechsler.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-291, for the relief of Gerald Leonard Pilcher.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-292, for the relief of Mary Madeleine Dorothy Butler Meaney.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-294, for the relief of Libusa Franic Kotow.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-295, for the relief of Sheila Estelle Rosenstone Lane.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-296, for the relief of Renald Leroux.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-297, for the relief of Pierrette Beauregard Ifould.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-298, for the relief of Marion Brooks McConnell Bienvenue.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-299, for the relief of Patricia Alleyn Burstall Corrigan.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-300, for the relief of Charles Athol Gordon.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-301, for the relief of Margaret Canuel Fraser.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-302, for the relief of Jean Dick Joslin.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-303, for the relief of Halbert James Haldane Kerr.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-305, for the relief of Mary Thelma Bourgeois Gaudet.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-306, for the relief of Jacques Gerardin.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-307, for the relief of Yolande Charron Fiorucci.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-308, for the relief of Fernand Larouche.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-309, for the relief of Mary Pelly Osborne.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-310, for the relief of Leonard Lowrey.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-311, for the relief of Josette Lacaille Johnston.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-312, for the relief of Iona Gertrude Mary Adcock Dolphin.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-313, for the relief of Maurice William Miller.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-314, for the relief of Margit Szilagyi Rojzskies.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-315, for the relief of Rita Jeanne Landry Benoit.-Mr. McCleave.

Bill No. SD-316, for the relief of Maria Eva Dorothe Deziel Lefebvre.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-317, for the relief of Violet Mary Ward Gravel.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-318, for the relief of Jean Phyllis Fensom Kell.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-319, for the relief of Louise Giguere Boisvert.-Mr. McCleave.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. SD-267, for the relief of Martha Ratelle Holtken- Mr. McCleave-Mr. Rea in the chair.
On clause 1-Marriage dissolved.
John Andrew W. Drysdale: In rising to discuss this particular bill, Mr. Chairman, I do not need to emphasize the fact that the problem of divorce in parliament has been a problem for quite a length of time. In this case, I believe, the petitioner was domiciled in Montreal at the time of the marriage, and the respondent was an immigrant from Germany who had just recently come to Canada. In scanning the evidence quickly, some doubt was raised in my mind as to whether or not evidence had been given to establish the domicile of the respondent so, in a sense, the question of our jurisdiction in this particular matter is raised. I say that because apparently the respondent has not taken out Canadian citizenship papers, and so far as I can see no evidence has been adduced before the Senate committee as to his intention of staying in Canada or whether he is planning to return to Germany.
In my opinion, there has not been any evidence to establish whether or not he is actually domiciled in Canada or in Germany. With this particular doubt being raised in my mind, we are faced with the additional difficulty of whether or not parliament should be considering divorce at all in view of its already onerous schedule when we are already sitting every evening and on Saturday all day-


Charles Edward Rea: I must remind the hon. member that he must talk about Bill No. SD-267 and not about the hours of sitting.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: When I was mentioning the hours of sitting, I was doing so in order to highlight the fact that the house has to devote its very valuable time to the discussion of matters of divorce. I feel that the divorce committee, although it is comprised of lawyers who have certain qualifications with regard to this matter, was not in a position to give full consideration to these facts that are before us. I feel that we should again consider this important question of whether or not these bills should be referred at all to parliament because-
Private Bills-Divorce


Charles Edward Rea: I must tell the hon. member that we are discussing Bill No. SD-267, and we are not discussing the question of this procedure at all. I must ask him to confine his remarks to this bill.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: In discussing Bill No. SD-267, may I say that unfortunately in my mind it brings out the difficulties that I am bringing forward. In Bill No. SD-267 we have the usual situation of the investigators this time going into an apartment building and finding the respondent and the woman named in certain, shall we say, unfortunate circumstances. To my own mind, without referring to this particular bill, there is a certain difficulty as to whether the situation is one that we can believe, in a sense; because to my mind it rather stretches the credulity of the average person living in the world when he considers the number of such situations.
We are faced with a situation in Canada where the divorce laws provide the basis, as in this particular case, of adultery, except in some of the other provinces such as British Columbia and the maritimes where the basis can be rape, sodomy or bestiality. Yet if we were to be honest and go behind the actual idea or the reason for the particular divorce we may find a situation where there is actual cruelty, desertion or some other equally logical sociological reason for a divorce. Yet because of the archaic ideas inflicted by the other provinces on parliament we are placed in the situation that two people desiring to get separated must say: What have we to do in order to get a divorce? The answer of the lawyer is adultery. The second question is: How are we able to get that evidence? The result then is that parliament, although it has complete flexibility as to what it could do in the matter of divorce,-because parliament can do anything-has adopted the basis of adultery. It could just as logically take as the basis perhaps the colour of the petitioner's eyes. In other words, if the petitioner's eyes were blue we could, I suggest, with the evidence placed before us and the opportunity we have to investigate it, grant a divorce just as logically. If parliament is going to adopt adultery as a basis, I would suggest that from the economic point of view I fail to see the necessity for two people who are anxious to get separated, and who are going to get separated regardless of any obstacles, having to do anything to simulate adultery if the basis suggested by parliament is adultery. In all seriousness I suggest that we should have a mimeographed form leaving blank a place for the name of the husband or wife, the age of the couple, when they were married, the marriage certificate and perhaps we

Private Bills-Divorce
could leave blank the name of the apartment, hotel or motel where the adultery was committed.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. We are not
discussing the principle of the bill. We are discussing clause 1 which refers to a marriage between two people which it says is to be hereby dissolved and shall be henceforth null and void to all intents and purposes whatsoever. I realize that there should be a little bit of latitude put I cannot allow the hon. member to discuss the principle of the whole divorce situation on a bill in the committee of the whole. I shall again have to ask him to confine his remarks to clause 1.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: Mr. Chairman, I regret having deviated but I feel extremely strongly about these matters. Although we are dealing with a specific divorce bill, if the names of the parties were taken from the front page, by reading through the evidence I think you could almost fit the particular situation to any other one of the particular divorce bills being presented today. The type of evidence varies a little bit because in this situation we had a really unusual case as to the question of domicile.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I sympathize with the hon. member's thoughts perhaps, but we must stick to this particular clause in this particular bill. The principle can be discussed on second reading but not in committee of the whole. I do not want to be in the position of having to ask the hon. member to take his seat. However, I am going to ask him once more to try to confine his remarks to this particular bill.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: Perhaps I can get at the
matter in this way. If I may, I should like to ask the chairman of the divorce committee, the hon. member for Halifax, whether any attempt was made to establish exactly where the husband's domicile was in this particular case.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, the evidence was that the husband was born in Germany, that he came to Canada five years ago, that he applied for Canadian citizenship and that he has lived, during all the time he has been in Canada, in the province of Quebec.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: Is the husband still living in the province of Quebec?


Robert Jardine McCleave: Yes; he is still living in the province of Quebec.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: I thought that in the evidence there was some indication that the wife was not sure exactly as to the whereabouts of the husband and as to whether he intended to return to Germany.


Robert Jardine McCleave: If the hon. member would point out where in the evidence this point is raised I shall be glad to deal with it.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: I regret, Mr. Chairman, that I was perusing this bill rather quickly and am unable to put my finger on the exact spot. But I wonder whether the chairman could answer, in connection with the matter of the actual problem of adultery, as to what there is in the evidence indicating that there actually was adultery or what corroboration there was on the part of the two detectives to establish this adultery?


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, this was not a one-night stand by the respondent with some woman, as perhaps had been suggested in the remarks of the hon. member earlier. The evidence is that the couple were separated, that the husband had gone off to live with another woman and that the two investigators in this particular case had gone to the apartment where they were living in Montreal and verified these facts at a late hour in the evening. This is not the hotel or motel case which gives the committee its greatest difficulty. This is simply the case of a couple separating and one of them taking up another partner.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: The only evidence of any adultery was the fact that the two people were in the same building at the same time. They were both clothed at the time, were they not?


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, the evidence as to the dress of the woman concerned is that she was in bed and was wearing blue and white pyjamas and that the man in question was wearing a kind of dark dressing gown and slippers when he answered the door when the two detectives knocked.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: In your opinion, Mr. Chairman, does the fact that the woman was wearing blue and white pyjamas and that the man was wearing a dark dressing gown constitute adultery?


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, I have been told about the birds and the bees as have the hon. member and all other hon. members of the house. The principles of law that are followed by the Senate committee and by the committee of the Commons are exactly those principles of law that are used in any court in the provinces where they have divorce jurisdiction or divorce practices. That principle is that when couples are found in a position which indicates that it is more probable that they are committing adultery than that they are not committing adultery, and you infer from the evidence that adultery

has been committed. Then you can make a finding of adultery that will justify the dissolution of the marriage.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: Mr. Chairman, would you not find in this particular situation, as in the majority of divorce cases you are reviewing, that apart from the fact that you are in the divorce committee the factors involved would, shall we say, stretch the credulity of a reasonable man as to the question of adultery? Does the hon. member believe that in the majority of these situations-as in this particular case-adultery was actually committed, or is the evidence of such nature that the committee feels that it is close enough so that they can give the couple a divorce, which of course is the objective? I would suggest that perhaps the question of whether or not they had blue eyes or brown hair would be equally as good from an evidentiary point of view.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I would not think that the question of whether they had blue eyes or brown hair would have any particular bearing on the matter, but before the hon. member got to the latter part of his question he did make what I thought was a good point. That is, if you find a couple together in an apartment, motel or hotel on any occasion, you automatically assume that because one happens to be a man and the other happens to be a woman they are therefore going to commit adultery within the next few hours or have just done so before they were discovered. Then, I suppose, there is a fictional inference which has crept into the law, that if people are found living together over a period of time it may be assumed that they have committed adultery on any one occasion.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: If the matter of the committing of adultery is fictional, then does the committee have discretion? I raised the point a moment ago as an amusing illustration of the ludicrous side of the matter when I spoke of the blue eyes and brown hair aspect but if two people do appear before the divorce committee would it not be useful to find out what is the true reason of their wish for a divorce-


Charles Edward Rea: I am sorry, but I must ask the hon. member to take his seat, because once again he is wandering all over the place.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Charles Edward Rea: Shall the bill carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Private Bills-Divorce


Charles Edward Rea: Shall I report the bill?
Som


a hon. Members:: On division.
Bill reported on division.


Robert Jardine McCleave: the third reading of the biU.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. SD-289, for the relief of Robena Sarah Florence Worrell Day-Mr. McCleave-Mr. Rea in the chair.
On clause 1-Marriage dissolved.
Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: This is the petition of Robena Sarah Florence Worrell Day for a bill of divorce from Warren Day. I did wish to speak on the principles involved, but I will confine my remarks to the evidence which came before the committee.
As has been outlined by other hon. members, the rule of evidence in divorce cases is the civic rule of probability, and I find it hard from reading the evidence in this case to be fully convinced purely on the grounds of probability that there was, in fact, adultery free of the three general requisites in matters of this kind. These requisites are firstly, that the adultery should be free of collusion; secondly, that it should be free of condonement; and, thirdly, that it should be free of connivance. I think we can rule out connivance, because I do not see any evidence or suggestion that these two persons ever got together and agreed to adultery on the part of either one. In view of the fact that the husband did not appear to defend this suit, I am led to believe that there was no connivance, because he would have appeared to try to make the case, shall we say, more binding if connivance had existed.
I think, however, that perhaps there was condonement. These two persons lived together, according to the evidence, for some 14 or 15 years, and although the wife claims the marriage was a happy one, I think the evidence shows clearly that it was not happy after the first four years. It is my opinion that moral lapses do not suddenly occur at the age of 40. If this man was continually drinking, was a night hawk and was running around with other women, I think that would have been evident years before this time. The wife is a nurse and she said that throughout her married life she had worked. It appears to me she was an independent woman and that she in fact never did make a home for this man. I would not say she drove him to drink, but he did drink from

Private Bills-Divorce
the early days of his marriage, and there is no evidence that she did anything to try to cure him of these habits. When he stayed out late at nights over a period of years, she apparently made no effort to resolve the differences between them.
The husband was a capable tradesman earning a good income, and the wife apparently never questioned him about his income except in so far as she said he drank too much. She kept on working and I would say she probably supported the home. They therefore lived apart in spirit for many years before they decided to dissolve the marriage.
For this reason I think there was probably condonement for a number of years. There is no evidence before the committee as to the moral record of the woman, which is relevant in a case of divorce, because I think it is against the wishes of the people of Canada to grant divorce where, in fact, people are living immoral lives and condoning it.
I say there is no evidence of connivance, or open connivance, but it does seem strange to me that after these years of married life action should suddenly be taken. They have a daughter 17 years of age who, incidentally, is herself married at that early age, which suggests lack of parental care. After 18 or 19 years of married life they have agreed to disagree.
They were married in New Brunswick and I would not contest the domicile in Quebec, for they have certainly lived in Quebec over a period of years, but here again the evidence is merely negative. I do not challenge the jurisdiction of the courts to try this case, because I understand that a federal statute being involved, it has been the practice to allow the Senate regardless of domicile to hear divorce cases. This is a question, of course, which would have to be decided on constitutional grounds, and perhaps some day we may have a case-and I think we should have-to clear up this problem, because, as all hon. members will realize, a divorce obtained in this manner leads to many domestic problems.
If these two people, having their divorce, were to argue about the future care of the children and the question of their support, this could not be decided in the federal courts. It has to go to the provinces but which province they should go to is a moot question. The fact that they had their divorce as residents of Quebec does not mean to say the Quebec court can necessarily solve those difficulties.
As to collusion-the intentional misleading of the court-I do not think there is evidence here to show that either of these parties intended to mislead the court by the evidence produced, but my objection to this
tMr. Bigg.]
particular case is that the evidence is very scanty, and we appear to be granting a divorce on the very minimum of evidence. I should like to have had some evidence on the living habits, the drinking habits and the moral habits of both these parties. It is difficult to argue about the right of granting these divorces unless we discuss principles, but I should like to suggest that we should be very careful about granting divorces on such slim grounds. The evidence in this case covers only some five pages, and here we are taking it upon ourselves to dissolve the most serious contract a man or a woman can enter into-that of marriage. And though it may seem a waste of the time of the committee or of the Senate or of this house, this is a very serious matter indeed to dissolve a marriage which was entered into, I trust, with all the hope and faith required to make a marriage good. I, for one, were I sitting on a bench, if this matter had been brought before me in a provincial court would, I am sure, have wished to have had more evidence on the grounds I have mentioned before I put my name to the dissolving of this contract.
Again, about condonement I should like to say that I think a woman can condone the adultery of her husband as well by keeping quiet as by giving consent. If she knows that her husband is running around with other women I think it is her duty as a wife and mother to complain on the first occasion she finds this going on. There is no need to wait until 2.30 in the morning before making some inquiries about her husband's habits. I do not think a woman could live with a man for 14 years and not know whether he was committing adultery or not. I do not know that refusing to make a man's home as pleasant as possible can be called condonement, but it is certainly driving a man to seek happiness elsewhere.
As to the evidence whether or not the respondent and the lady concerned actually committed adultery, again I am not convinced. When the private detectives came to the suite the lights were out at 11.30. They knocked on the door and they declared themselves. The husband came to the door. It was true he was barefooted, but that is not any evidence and I should like to suggest-and I think hon. members will agree with me-that the fact that he came to the door after the men rapped and said they were private detectives, and that he was caught in this compromising position, is not without significance because unless he wanted a divorce he would, I think, have got properly dressed. He had no need to come to the door and answer the call of a private detective unless he knew that by opening

that door he would give his wife, for whom he probably had little regard for by then, the usual evidence necessary. So far as he was concerned he was providing the courts with the evidence with the least possible delay or trouble. I cannot believe anything else. I also doubt very much whether the lady in question was in fact there to commit adultery. There is no evidence at all that her dress was removed. She held the bed clothes up to her chin, I suggest, quite possibly to hide the fact that she was still properly dressed just as much as to indicate that she was improperly dressed. She knew that the detectives were coming in, and any young woman who would allow herself to be put into this compromising position need have no great modesty.
A man with the experience I have had in law enforcement knows that when you go into a brothel the young ladies are not at all modest. They are, in fact, generally proud of their profession. I cannot believe, from the limited evidence I have seen in this case, that there was in fact adultery, although I will say that there was certainly every opportunity for adultery. If there was anything to be gained by this man getting rid of a wife whom he had long since ceased to regard, I myself would believe that adultery had probably been committed. But the doubt arises from the fact that both the husband and the wife were anxious to be clear of each other, and this suggests to me that they either condoned adultery or that they were, in fact, behind the scenes in collusion.
The Senate committee has had a great deal of experience in these matters and they are up against a serious problem. I would not ask to have this divorce bill held up because I realize that the committee was not in this case breaking up a marriage in a true sense; we are merely allowing two people to separate legally where no real marriage has ever existed. Therefore, I would not ask to have this bill held up. I would ask, however, that we should take the greatest of care in seeing that we have the fullest evidence possible on every occasion.


Charles Edward Rea: Shall clause 1
carry?


Robert Jardine McCleave: Not yet. I am sorry to see facts brought out in this way, because this is the type of discussion which could more profitably go on in committee behind closed doors so that we do not hurt people, particularly the children involved. But several points have been raised by the hon. member and they are going to be dealt with.
First, the question of domicile. Domicile in the province of Quebec was clearly established for 16 years.
Private Bills-Divorce
Secondly, the support of the children: the husband is paying $40 a month in respect of the child.
Thirdly, the question of the garb of the people found in the suite by the detectives. There was evidence of their underclothing being found under the bed.
I may add that the question of the home conditions and the husband's habits are clearly set forth in the evidence at the bottom of page 10 and the top of page 11.
Then, as to the matter of collusion or condonation, the fact is that the wife has signed and sworn to a petition presented to parliament which makes serious allegations, and the husband has not seen fit to come before the committee of the other place, or before the committee of this house to deny those allegations, and that is something which must properly be taken into account.


Mr. Campbell (Stormont):: Mr. Chairman, I hesitate to disagree with anything said by the hon. member for Athabasca because of his experience in the fields of investigation and police work. But I believe he is requiring a standard of proof that is quite unwarranted. The circumstances in this particular case were certainly incriminating although not conclusive. We never find positive evidence in a divorce case. People do not engage in these questionable activities in public and they take due precautions to see that they do have some privacy. All we can hope for is some evidence from which we can draw a reasonable conclusion that adultery did in fact take place. I suggest there is more than sufficient evidence in this case to warrant that conclusion. I turn to the report of the committee of the other place. At page 14 I should like to read from the interrogation by Mr. Jacobs of the investigator, Mr. Brault:
Q. I show you a photograph which has been filed as exhibit 2, can you identify the person?
A. Mr. Warren Day.
Q. Were you with Mr. Etheridge, on January 9, 1958, when you saw this person you have identified?
Incidentally, Mr. Etheridge was the accompanying investigator. I continue:
A. Yes, I was on surveillance on January 9, 1958 at five o'clock with Mr. Etheridge in the vicinity of 1863 Dorchester west. At 6.15 Warren Day arrived in his car with a woman and parked his car at St. Mark street, and the woman was wearing a muskrat brown coat with kerchief, and he was wearing a brown coat and brown hat.
Warren Day is the respondent in the case. I continue:
They went to 1863 Dorchester in apartment 11. At 7.45 Mr. Etheridge and I left the place to go on some other work, and we came back at 11.30. The car stood at the door, and the light was off, and we parked, and Mr. Etheridge and I went up, and Mr. Etheridge knocked on the door, and Mr. Warren Day opened the door, wearing gray pants

Private Bills-Divorce
only and a shirt, sport shirt open-we could see all his chest. Mr. Etheridge,-we walked in; and he asked him if he was Warren Day. He said, "Yes." He showed him the picture in our possession. He said, "That is my picture."
He admitted that which although not conclusive is suggestive at least. I continue:
And we walked to the side of the bed, and a woman was lying on the bed on the left hand side, and Mr. Etheridge asked her her name, and she said, "My name is Denise Lapointe." She was covered to the neck. Mr. Etheridge told Mr. Warren Day and her that they will both hear from his real wife's attorneys in the near future, and we left the place.
Q. How many beds were in the room?
A. One bed only.
Q. What was its condition?
A. It showed it was all disturbed, and on the left hand side where the woman was lying there was a brassiere, panty and slip; and on the other chair the man's long underwear.
There you have evidence not only of opportunity but the fact that this man was separated from his wife and had been separated from her for a long time would lead one to the conclusion that there was inclination too, and if you have a combination of opportunity and desire or inclination it is not too far-fetched, based on one's elementary acquaintance with human nature, to conclude that there was in fact adultery committed. I believe it was on that basis, which although not conclusive in my opinion is sufficient, that the other place made its report and I suggest it was perfectly in order.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Charles Edward Rea: Shall the bill carry on division?


Some hon. Members:: On division.


Charles Edward Rea: Shall I report the bill?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Bill reported.


Robert Jardine McCleave: the third reading of the bill.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, before this bill receives third reading I wish to say on behalf of this group we are pleased indeed to find that many hon. members of this house, some of them with only a short experience here, have come to the same conclusion we came to years ago that this divorce procedure should not impede the progress of other important business in this house.
I also wish to say that at the conclusion of this session and, shall I say, during the

recess, hon. members of our group are going to give serious consideration to again introducing a bill for the house to consider that will have as its purpose the transplanting of the granting of divorces from parliament to the Exchequer Court of Canada which we believe is the proper place to give consideration to these serious matters.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Mr. Howard:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The hour for consideration of private and public bills having been exhausted, the house will return to consideration of the business that was interrupted at five o'clock.


The house in committee of supply, Mr. Rea in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE 231. Departmental administration, $1,441,494.


Charles Edward Rea: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Chesley William Carter: I had just had time, Mr. Chairman, to extend congratulations to the minister when the committee rose at five o'clock for the consideration of public and private bills. I had, I believe, observed that for the first time the estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare had passed the $1 billion mark. I believe the minister gave the exact figure as $1,180,089,181 to which we must add approximately $70 million more for payments it is expected will be made under the health insurance and diagnostic services plan to those provinces who have put the plan into effect on July 1. Altogether, this makes a total expenditure of approximately $1.25 billion, actually, $1,250,089,181. The minister pointed out that 92 per cent of these expenditures are statutory, but nevertheless they are expenditures and the money must be found to cover them.
The bulk of these expenditures will be made on various forms of welfare services, health grants and so on. I should like to point out to the committee that the Department of National Health and Welfare is not the only department which spends money for these kinds of services. In our estimates we find that the Department of Veterans Affairs is also spending $291,882,345 for services which are very similar to those provided by the Department of National Health and Welfare. These services provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs cover health grants, health services, diagnostic services, welfare payments and pensions, which are very similar to those covered by the Department of National Health and Welfare. If we add the expenditures of these two departments together, we get approximately $1.5 billion which this federal government is spending on these kinds of services, services which we usually include within the term social security.
If we look at our estimates for national defence, we find that we are spending approximately $1.68 billion for national defence. Our expenditures for social security, therefore,
Supply-Health and Welfare are approximately equal to our expenditures for national security. There has been a great deal of concern expressed in various parts of Canada, and in the committee on estimates, as to the capacity of the Canadian economy to support this burden. I think if it is logical to express concern over the burden of national defence, it is equally logical to express concern over the burden of social security, which is approximately equal. Next year, when the full cost of health insurance and diagnostic services is felt, there will be very little difference between what we spend on social security and what we spend on national defence.
One of the large items under the Department of National Health and Welfare is the expenditure on old age assistance. Yesterday the minister, in replying to a question which I had on the order paper, supplied me with information which showed that from July, 1957, to July, 1958 inclusive the payments made under the old age assistance plan exceeded the revenue by $154,098,080. Now, if the royal jelly which our good friend from Kootenay West spoke about this afternoon becomes available to our old age pensioners and they get rejuvenated from 70 years down to 50 years, we are going to be faced with a financing problem of great magnitude to keep this fund solvent. The revenues for this old age security plan come from taxes which have been allocated for that special purpose, two per cent of the corporation tax, two per cent of the sales tax and two per cent of the income tax up to a maximum of $60. However, these revenues have not been sufficient to keep this fund solvent in times of recession. When the corporation taxes and sales taxes decline, the gap between revenue and payments is bound to widen. Some other method, therefore, must be found to keep this fund solvent.
In order to keep this fund solvent now the government has made loans. This cannot be continued indefinitely and the time is not far distant when some other method will have to be found to finance these old age payments. I should like to ask the minister what consideration is being given to providing the necessary funds in order to keep this fund solvent. I should like to suggest to him that this would be a first-rate time to consider the development of a national pension plan, a plan which would be developed through the co-operation of government labour and industry as well as other interested agencies, a plan which would be put on a sound financial basis and which would provide pensions based on contributions. These pensions could be transferred from one occupation to another or from one part of the country to another. I know there

Supply-Health and Welfare is a Professor Clark who is making a study of the old age pension plans which obtain in the United States, but that is not the same thing as I understand it. I think we must revise our thinking on the ways and means of keeping this fund solvent. The present is a very good time in which to set up the necessary machinery to get all the information we require and to see what can be done to bring in a national pension plan.
I should also like to say a few words about the disability pensions. I am going to be brief because they were covered fairly well this afternoon by my colleague the hon. member for Lapointe. However, there is a problem in connection with the administration of these pensions. There are three factors which must be taken into account. The first factor revolves around the interpretation of the term "totally and permanently disabled". That term is subject to a wide variety of opinions and interpretations which vary from board to board and from province to province. Another factor is the financial position of the province which is administering these pensions. As I understand it, the federal government pays only half and the other half must come out of the provincial treasury. If the province is having a difficult time financially and must retrench, then of course they are going to be restricted in the amount of money actually which can be allocated to these disability pensions; and that consideration in turn will restrict the number of people who can receive them.
I think the administration of these disability pensions should be taken out of the hands of the provincial government and should be administered completely by the federal government. I admit that whatever we do it cannot be perfect. We shall always have borderline cases from which we can never escape. Nevertheless, I think more can be done than has been done up until now to set up criteria which will enable uniform administration of these pensions. Otherwise we are going to be faced with a situation where a person who lives in one province might qualify for a disability pension whereas a person with exactly the same disability and living in another province cannot do so. I think that is something that all hon. members in this house would wish to avoid.
Before I sit down, Mr. Chairman, I should like to put to the minister two questions which I hope he will answer, in addition to those which I have already posed. This morning the minister mentioned a sum of money- I did not quite catch it as he read it out- or the expenditure which has been provided

for in connection with unemployment assistance payments; I refer to those to ablebodied persons owing to the removal of the floor. When he replies, I should like the minister to tell us just how much money has been spent on that item up until now and how the money has been distributed among the ten provinces of Canada.
The minister also mentioned his attendance at the world health organization. We were very happy to learn that Canada is taking such a great interest and playing such an important part in the great work of this organization. The minister told us that the budget which had been prepared for the work of the world health organization was, I believe, $15 million. When he replies I should be glad if he would tell us just how much Canada has contributed to that $15 million budget.


William Arnold Peters: There are only a few comments I should like to make. One of them is on a matter which has been discussed by the hon. member who has just taken his seat. I refer to the matter of disability pensions. In the province of Ontario we have a good deal of difficulty in the administration of these pensions and the requirements that must be met before pension can be established. In Ontario it became an act from which very few people ever received any benefit. It is generally understood that in order to receive the disability pension in the province of Ontario you must be permanently and totally disabled. If you have one foot you can put on the floor, you are not classed as being permanently and totally disabled.
The other day a lady who is connected with welfare work in my riding brought to my attention the names of three young girls who are now graduated from school. One is an epileptic, another is a "polio" victim and the third is similarly disabled. These girls are not able to work. In my opinion, they always will be disabled and quite badly so. They are able to look after themselves; therefore they do not come under this disability pension. In a country as rich as Canada I think consideration can be given to persons of this type. They are not completely helpless. In this case two of the girls are quite capable of doing certain types of work, but those types of work are normally not available in the area in which they live. If they go some place else there is going to be the matter of looking after them for at least some time so far as money for living and becoming established is concerned. I think much more can be done in this field of helping the disabled people across Canada, particularly the young people who have no other means of support and who can look forward to 30 years, 40 years

or 50 years of dependence on their parents or on welfare organizations for a livelihood. I think Canada is quite capable of financing a much better deal for disabled persons.
Another problem is in connection with those people 40 years or 50 years old-yes, and some much younger-who are afflicted with a heart ailment which leaves them, as far as investigators are concerned, in a very healthy condition and yet medical advice is to the effect that they are permanently and totally disabled. In many cases they are able to walk down town on good days and to get around and they look quite healthy but from a medical point of view they are completely disabled. In most cases these people do not meet the requirements laid down by the province of Ontario in the administration of this act. I think the requirements by the federal government, in the joint negotiations they hold in setting up the requirements for this act, could be made much more lenient so that more of the people who are deserving cases could see some future for themselves without depending strictly on welfare agencies.
Another problem that has been mentioned by many others-and I do not want to belabour the point-is the fact that we have not yet decided that we are going to keep our social security on a standard in keeping with today's cost of living. The family allowance, the old age pension, the disabled persons pension and the other social security measures that we enjoy in Canada I do not believe were granted before an election or with that event in view. They were developed over many years and have been granted as a fair and reasonable amount in each case. When the family allowance was introduced it was worth twice as much as it is today, and we have not seen fit to tie in our social security measures with the cost of living so that we may maintain the standard of living originally intended, which would be the only way in which the Canadian citizens could receive the benefits which the legislation was originally expected to provide.
The family allowance is limited to children under the age of 16 years, but all parents are well aware of the fact that rather than being able to do without this assistance when their children reach this age, more money is necessary at that time in order to provide for higher education. I think this government would be well advised to introduce legislation to extend family allowances for the benefit of those parents who wish to send their children to high school, even up to the age of 21 years, if they desire to continue their education. Such a measure would do much to alleviate the problems with which many families are faced when
Supply-Health and Welfare their children reach the age 16 or 17. They have to provide them with suitable clothing and all the other things which are necessary to ensure a background and environment in keeping with a desired standard of living.
I would also recommend that more research work be done by the department into such matters as industrial diseases. I mentioned this matter last year and I would emphasize the importance of this question, particularly in so far as mines are concerned. I have in mind those mines containing silica dust and now the mines in the new field of uranium. International organizations are finding that close proximity to uranium ore is causing genetic problems which we did not even realize existed a few years ago. I believe the government has an obligation to carry out research work and to implement recommendations along the lines suggested as a result of investigations. Precautions should be taken, particularly in the case of those companies which have so far not been too co-operative with respect to the welfare of their workers.
In the field of cancer, I think the department should spend a great deal more money on research. We read in the newspapers and in the medical journals that many investigators in this field believe they are now on the verge of solving some of the problems connected with this disease. The scientists are undertaking experiments which are disclosing developments believed to have significant effects upon cancer. In Canada scientists have developed certain protections, particularly at the research institute in Toronto. If more money and assistance could be made available to research scientists in this field by the federal government it is quite possible that this problem might be solved as were the problems of tuberculosis and other diseases. It is to be hoped, therefore, that the government will put its shoulder to the wheel in this respect.
One other matter I would like to raise at this time is a matter which I do not believe should come under the jurisdiction of this department, and that is the matter of civil defence. Unless there are some significant findings as a result of the investigations which I understand are now taking place, I would strongly recommend that the minister transfer the administration with respect to civil defence to the Department of National Defence. Adequate instruction has not been given to the Canadian people with respect to such matters as basic first aid training which will be vital in case of disaster. In the case of first aid training, of course, jurisdiction should remain with the Department of National Health and Welfare, and it will do so, but with respect to the other aspects of

Supply-Health and Welfare civil defence I feel that the administration should be returned to the Department of National Defence, particularly having regard to implications in the event of an atomic attack. The majority of the Canadian people are completely unaware of even the basic requirements for their protection in the case of atomic warfare. The government has seen fit in recent weeks to spend huge sums of money to popularize the idea of the conversion of one type of bond for another, but I believe that this money could be spent in a way more beneficial to our people if we were to give them the basic training for protection against radiation.
If we consider it important to consider such things as moving our national capital from one place to another, then surely we should consider the threat of this type of warfare. As long as this threat is with us we have an obligation to at least give the Canadian people the rudiments of first aid training so that they may have some chance of protecting themselves in an emergency.


Mr. Phillips:: I wish to say a few words in this debate, both in a desire to obtain some information and to point out a few difficulties which I believe will arise in connection with our national hospital insurance plan. I very much regret that the province of Prince Edward Island seems to have lost all interest in health insurance, and I would like to inquire of the minister whether he has recently received any communication from the government of my province.
I would also like to draw the attention of the house to a condition which will affect many of our citizens after January 1, 1959, and that is with regard to those people who are carrying private hospitalization schemes as a supplement to provincial hospital plans. Perhaps we could take Ontario as an example. The Ontario plan provides public ward hospitalization, nursing care, operating room, X-ray, physiotherapy, laboratory and also covers most drugs, but many people find the idea of admission to a public ward rather disturbing, and they therefore attempt to cover the difference in cost by carrying an insurance policy.
As I understand it, if a semi-private patient or a private patient, when this plan comes into effect, goes into hospital, and if by reason of a shortage of beds he has to go into a public ward, he will receive no compensation whatever from his insurance company. Before the Ontario plan was in operation the difference between the public ward cost and private or semi-private ward cost was paid to the patient by the insurance company. For example, let us say a patient
[Mr. Peters.l
had an insurance policy providing $15 a day. If the patient was in a ward which cost $10 a day he would receive the difference between the $10 and the $15 from the insurance company. That is only fair, and it is hard to understand how anyone who has taken out these insurance policies finds that he will receive nothing from the insurance company despite the fact that he has paid the insurance premium could feel that his foresight had been justified.
Another point with regard to health insurance is that the rates vary from hospital to hospital within a province. A number of insurance companies have had plans paying a stated sum per day regardless of the hospital rate. This, I understand, must be discontinued after January 1, as the amount will be cut to the average between ward and semi-private and private rooms, that is, the provincial average, and it appears that some of the insurance companies are going out of this type of business. I do not think the government when it introduced national health insurance had the idea of forcing these insurance companies out of the business.
Several members have already pointed out that the hospital insurance scheme will result in an increased demand for hospital beds. In addition to that, we in Canada have approximately six million people under the age of 20, and a rapidly increasing population. The increased grants for hospital and construction, especially those for chronic care, are a step in the right direction, and I suggest to the minister that he keep a sharp eye on hospital construction costs with the idea that if they increased very much more a further increase will be required.
One matter which is a source of irritation to various hospital boards is the delay when an application is made for a construction grant. One small hospital in my constituency has had an application before the provincial government for almost two years and no action has been taken on it. After they have obtained approval from the provincial government they must obtain federal approval and I should like to suggest to the minister that a joint committee of the provincial and federal governments be set up to try to eliminate these delays.
The cost of hospital insurance for a full year will not be known for some time. I have fears that the final cost will be a bit of a financial shock to the taxpayers, and in order to keep the cost in line with reality it may be advisable to have a patient pay a small sum on admission, say $25 or the first three days toward the cost of hospitalization. This would prevent unnecessary admissions to

hospital and would reduce the demand for hospital beds. In addition it would also be of great assistance to the practising physician as he would not be subject to undue pressure from patients who desire hospital treatment in cases where they could probably be treated equally well at home.
(Translation):


Mr. Loiselle:: Mr. Chairman, near though we are to the end of the session, with each member preparing to return to his constituency, I cannot miss this opportunity of expressing a few heartfelt views on civil defence and family allowances, while we are on the estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare.
Regarding civil defence, Mr. Chairman, I know you will understand my placing special emphasis on the requirements of the Montrealers. As councillor for the city of Montreal-Canada's metropolis-I was in a firsthand position to witness what was done in this field by those then responsible, particularly from 1950 to 1954, when Brigadier Guy Gauvreau was co-ordinator.
As we all know, the world is going through frantic and distracting times as a result of scientific developments which give us Russian sputnik one day, an American rocket another day and today, they are talking of conquering the moon. What lies in store for us tomorrow? Heaven only knows. That is why today government departments must, at all costs, join and work with a common aim, so as to bring home to each and every Canadian the necessity of his making sacrifices in order to organize civil defence, forestall disaster, and save as many human lives as possible

for the enemy is looking for modern methods to annihilate us.
Montreal, with a population of over a million and a half, is entitled to federal aid to supplement its contribution. As I was saying a few minutes ago, some progress has already been made in this direction; in fact, Montreal municipal authorities placed a $100,000 fund at the disposal of the civil defence committee.
Unfortunately indeed, Mr. Chairman, I say this pointedly, between 1944 and 1957 a new administration took over in Montreal and deliberately abolished the civil defence committee under the pretense that $100,000 was not enough for a city like Montreal. I admit it was not very much but at least something was being done, citizens were learning how
Supply-Health and Welfare to evacuate homes, factories or public buildings in an orderly way and without panic.
The most simple definition of civil defence, which some find complicated, was given to us by Lieutenant R. Forand, co-ordinator for the city of Granby, in a talk he gave on February 8, 1954. Here is what he said about it: "Civil defence is the means whereby lives and property are safeguarded under atomic, biological or other attacks".
As you know, Mr. Chairman, Montreal is situated on an island. I therefore need not tell you that it would be a very attractive target for enemy air forces and you can imagine what would happen if Montrealers were not prepared to defend themselves, and what would be the responsibility of the federal government who would not have supplied Montreal citizens with the necessary and appropriate means of protection.
At the present time, the problem facing Montreal is the evacuation of the island. Present bridges are inadequate and this can easily be realized on week-ends when part of the population takes to the country to spend the two days of the week-end or to visit relatives. Bridges are crowded and you can only cross them by dint of patience, as traffic crawls along, when it is not altogether at a standstill.
Since 1957 Montreal has had an administration which has in mind a revival of a civil defence organization. Indeed, the appointment of a co-ordinator for the metropolis will no doubt be made soon.
Scientific developments brought about by nuclear warfare are such that the government should give civil defence an importance equal to that of national defence. I feel that if we are right in spending more than half of ' our national income for national defence, the government would certainly be well advised to spend in this regard more than the $7 million appearing in the estimates under the heading of civil defence.
A conference of municipalities will be held in the near future. This should provide the government with a fine opportunity to lay a civil defence plan before the municipalities. I must say at this point, speaking as a municipal councillor, that the minister may expect from the present mayor of Montreal co-operation of a kind which the former administration failed to receive from his predecessor.
This is a national program which should be financed by the federal government.

Supply-Health and Welfare That is why I submit that all expenses incurred by the municipalities in the implementation of a civil defence plan, should be met entirely by the federal government.
Before passing on to the next subject, Mr. Chairman, may I express a few thoughts on family allowances.
I would not like to miss this opportunity of suggesting once more to the government, as I have already done more than once during the present session, the possibility of increasing the amount of the family allowances. The minister knows that it was the Liberal government which instituted family allowances in 1945 and that these were raised on various occasions since that time, the more recent increase having been made, in fact, in the 1957 budget. During the last campaign, the leader of the opposition had undertaken to extend payment of family allowances to children still attending school until such time as they have reached the age of 18.
It is the least that we could do for our families and I would like to ask the minister, in his comments, to tell us what the government intends to do about increasing family allowances.
We must bear in mind that the cost of living has increased considerably since June 1957, especially for the three items of food, clothing and housing.
As there is unemployment in my constituency, a raise in family allowances is absolutely necessary. It would moreover be most welcome by all the citizens of Canada.
I hope, Mr. Chairman, that the minister has noted my suggestions and that he will at once take them into consideration.
(Text):


Mr. Denis:: Mr. Chairman, may I be permitted to say a few words in this debate especially regarding the hospitalization insurance plan. The minister may well remember that on June 19 I asked him a question as reported at page 1432 of Hansard at which time the following exchange took place between the minister and me:


Azellus Denis: With respect to Quebec, can the minister say whether the province of Quebec has said no, yes or maybe? I know that when there was a Liberal government the premier of Quebec said no, but there was an election and the Tory party came into power. We have seen reports in the newspapers that maybe he will enter into an agreement. I saw in the newspapers recently that he was supposed to be preparing some kind of agreement to submit to the federal government. As the legislation before us will come into effect on July 1, does the minister not think that the premier of Quebec is rather late in trying to take advantage of this wonderful legislation?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I do not think it is for me to say what I think. All I can announce is that there has been no indication from the province of Quebec as to what their intentions may be.


Azellus Denis: There was no letter, no telephone call, no correspondence between the premier of Quebec and the federal government?


Jay Waldo Monteith: No indication.
It seems that the situation is the same two months after that question was put in the House of Commons. I observe that yesterday the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont asked a similar question. I have in my hand Hansard of yesterday's date, at page 3861 of which the following exchange occurred between the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont :


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare before we reach his estimates. Would the minister tell us if he has received recently an indication from the government of the province of Quebec as to their intention to join in the hospitalization insurance scheme?


Jay Waldo Monteith: No, Mr. Speaker.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Would the minister tell us if he has recently contacted the authorities of the province of Quebec, whether by telephone or telegram, to that effect?


Jay Waldo Monteith: No, Mr. Speaker.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Exactly.


Azellus Denis: It seems very clear there is no degree of relationship between the province of Quebec and the federal government.


Jay Waldo Monteith: No, but there is a considerable amount of repetition over there. I have heard that statement before this afternoon.


Azellus Denis: Yes, but I think it is good to repeat that the federal government exists for the ten provinces, not only for nine. I find it very strange that with respect to legislation of this importance which will be helpful to every Canadian nothing has been done on the part of the present government to get in contact with the province of Quebec.


Mr. Ricard:: What did you do in your time?


Azellus Denis: Always late, as the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot used to say.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: What did you do?


Azellus Denis: We knew something about the premier of Quebec and we knew about the Quebecers who are here tonight. The hon. member knows that every time good legislation is introduced by the federal government the provincial government of Quebec is always in the rear and the same thing is happening today as far as the hospitalization insurance scheme is concerned. The same situation was illustrated last week when we had before us legislation of which Quebec could not take advantage with respect to the free gift tax for husbands and

wives. On two or three occasions since the present government came to office it has introduced measures of which Quebec could not take advantage. It happens every time nice legislation is introduced.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: How long did we wait for old age pensions?


Azellus Denis: The previous administration was always in contact with the premier of the province of Quebec.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I would ask the hon. member for St. Denis to come back to national health and welfare.


Azellus Denis: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I regret that I was interrupted by my friend the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot. I shall gladly abide by your ruling.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: That is what I wanted.


Azellus Denis: En resume, I simply attempted to draw some kind of comparison. As you know, there are many comparisons we could make tonight. But as the Chairman has said, I should return to the subject under discussion and I will accept his ruling because he is usually right. I would point out, however, that the hon. member for Quebec West argued about this very same thing this afternoon. I rather liked the way he talked. If I understood him correctly he was serving as sort of a porte-parole from Quebec in order to tell the minister they were short of hospital beds but that they were prepared to accept his will. If the hon. member for Quebec West thinks it is a good way of running a province to be always late and to be not prepared to take advantage of good legislation, I regret I cannot agree with him. Mind you, this legislation was passed by the former Liberal government and I congratulate the minister for not doing away with it.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: But it was brought into force by the Conservative government.


Azellus Denis: It is easy to blame the Quebec provincial government for not being in touch with the federal government, but I wonder if the minister is not himself to blame, for not doing anything about it. He appears to think the premier of that province does not exist. He treats him as a stranger. There has been no letter, no exchange of correspondence, no telegram. Nothing has been done. The result is that in the province of Quebec we pay taxes and do not get the advantage of the legislation, while the other provinces take advantage of it. The premier of Quebec, in the name of autonomy, is causing us to lose millions of dollars. We
Supply-Health and Welfare are going to pay for it and the province of Ontario and the other provinces will benefit from it.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Did Quebec not get $19 million last year?


Azellus Denis: The hon. member for St.
Hyacinthe-Bagot gives me an idea. I remind him that the deputy minister of Quebec, Dr. Gregoire, said that 80 per cent of the population of Quebec could not take advantage of the hospitals in Quebec because they were too expensive and that there were only two types of people-


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: It is no different from the other provinces.


Azellus Denis: -who could take advantage of them, namely those who had nothing and the rich. In the case of those who have nothing, their expenses are paid by the province and, of course, the ones who have money pay their own way.
According to the hon. member for Quebec West, the province is short of hospital beds and therefore cannot take advantage of this legislation. If the province is short of hospital beds it is because the hospitals are already full. If we take advantage of this legislation those who are already in the hospitals will also take advantage of it and besides that the hon. member's taxes will be used in his own province as well as in the province of Ontario. Therefore, I suggest to the minister that if they have no agreement or no contact with Quebec, let them put money aside as the former government did with respect to university grants. Before long we may have a new government in Quebec who will take charge of the province and accept the grants.


Mr. Kucherepa:: Mr. Chairman, I take this opportunity to say a few words on this very vitally important matter. First of all, I should like to congratulate the Minister of National Health and Welfare on the way he has directed this very important department of our government. I believe at the present time this department is the second highest spending department in the dominion, being superseded in this respect only by the Department of National Defence.
This department, Mr. Chairman, which is responsible for the welfare of so many of our citizens today, particularly the senior citizens of this country and the children, is now undertaking very great responsibility in the field of hospitalization. This is a major change which is taking place in our daily lives. Although the previous Liberal administration worked many years on this legislation it did not reach the point where

Supply

Health and Welfare the federal government became actively engaged in this field of endeavour. It was left for a Conservative government to expedite and to achieve this great social measure. In that regard the present minister has made a very important contribution, even toward advancing the effective date during this present session.
It is indeed regrettable that some members of the Liberal party saw fit to criticize this scheme which they themselves were promising for so many years-since 1919, I think- forgetting that the Liberals themselves were the architects of the present legislation and when they condemn it they merely add another nail to the coffin of the previous Liberal government and its inactivity and indifference toward this problem. The problem which the previous speaker mentioned is not a matter which has emanated from anything that has taken place in recent days; it is the result of something which was put on the statute books of this country by the previous Liberal administration, and the hon. member must realize that it was brought about by that regime.
As I said before, this is an excursion upon a new and untravelled road for the Canadian people. In the past there has been a state of affairs where people were content to obtain medical care in their own homes or by visiting their doctor's offices. Now the trend will be toward obtaining medical services in hospitals. I believe this is an important point because, in the past, many insurance companies, if not all, did not recognize the principle of hospitalization for investigation, a procedure which was undoubtedly responsible for keeping insurance premiums down to their present levels, although I must say that the medical profession was not altogether happy with this policy because undoubtedly there were many patients who required hospitalization for the purpose of finally and entirely ruling out the possibility of existing serious disease.
It is admitted that the hospital bed situation is not all that it could be, and just what the effect of including this extra service, this so-called investigation service, will have on the hospital facilities and on the insurance premiums only time will tell. Undoubtedly, there will be a great demand for the construction of more hospital facilities. These are problems which will become evident as time goes on and as the scheme is developed more fully. I believe the government is following a wise course in this regard, having in mind that some of the provinces have not as yet chosen to participate in the plan.
The Ontario scheme, which will become effective on January 1, 1959, includes all the hospital services necessary for the treatment
[Mr. Kucherepa.l

of an insured person who is admitted to hospital as an in-patient or, in an emergency.
I was very pleased to hear the remarks of the hon. member for Jasper-Edson who touched on some vital problems dealing with the internal difficulties which face us in the hospitals across the country and to which I believe we must pay some attention lest the scheme should not function properly.
There is something else which I should like to bring to the attention of the minister and of the committee, a matter which has given me some concern in the past. Over the years I have seen hospitals enlarged by additions of hundreds of beds to existing structures. Those buildings are located in what we might describe as the centrally populated areas of urban centres or they might be described in the field of civil defence as target areas. Although we were pleased with the developments in the last few days in international affairs, nevertheless, Mr. Chairman, I feel that we should undertake a long-range planning policy of decentralization of our hospital facilities, especially in our larger urban areas.
In the future we should take into account the problems of modern living. Yesterday we heard of plans being formulated for the removal of our government from this centre at a time when developments might take place which would necessitate that. Surely, Mr. Chairman, this principle applies just as much to the vital service of hospitalization which may mean the difference of life or death for many of our Canadian citizens. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I should like to bring to the attention of the minister the possibility of looking into this matter of whether we can in some way or another control the location of those hospital facilities in the future, having in mind that in the older cities of this country where there is a large development of hospital buildings we find that industrialization has taken place in those areas which might be construed as so-called target areas in the event of any future disaster.
I should also like to bring to your attention, Mr. Chairman, the problem which faces our people in the northern part of the country, especially the Eskimos. From what I can ascertain, the main problem in those areas which are so sparsely populated is to provide basic living conditions suitable to proper development of health measures. Our department does spend considerable funds in those areas. However, the results do not seem to be in keeping with the expenditures. It seems to me the basic problem here is to provide shelter for these people, especially for the children. The weather conditions there are severe, and thus housing becomes a major consideration, if we are to attain those

standards which are desirable, and which have indeed been obtained in other countries with a similar climate.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words regarding the contribution which Canada is making to the world health organization. I was gratified to hear the minister's statement in this regard. I believe that in this field of international relations we are not only making marvellous strides but we are also creating the kind of understanding which will bring about greater respect between the various countries of the world.


Mr. Muir (Cape Breion North and Victoria):: I should like to take a few minutes of the committee's time, Mr. Chairman, to bring to the attention of the minister a matter of extreme importance. I refer to the Disabled Persons Act. The administration of this act in the different provinces has rather confused me, especially in the province of Nova Scotia. It has been said that the regulations pertaining to this act are the same in all provinces, but from what I have seen and the information I have obtained, I feel this is incorrect. It appears that each province has its own idea of the definition of a permanently disabled person. It is quite true that there possibly would be some differences in the administration of the act because, as I understand it, each province has its own medical board which may interpret the clauses of the act in a different manner.
It seems that in some cases in the province of Nova Scotia the definition of permanently and totally disabled means that the individual concerned must be helpless or. in other words, practically a living log. A case in point comes to my mind at the moment. There was a person in my constituency who suffered a paralytic stroke about a year ago. He was confined to the hospital for a period of months, but eventually was discharged and returned to his home. There was not anything further that could be done for him so far as hospitalization or medication was concerned. The man was paralysed all down one side of his body, and his other arm was affected to the extent that he had to be fed. He was confined to bed in his own home. However, in spite of his condition, his application for a disabled person's pension was rejected. I still have his file, but it will not be necessary to give it any further consideration because unfortunately this poor man passed away a few weeks ago.
Just what is a disabled person? I have another case of a young man, 34 years of age, who suffered a severe accident with his father's mowing machine when he was four years old. He is unable to walk. Today he is
Supply-Health and Welfare able to crawl around with iron straps on his legs in order to support his ankles. The extent of his capability is that if he is carried out to the fields he can sit down and pull some weeds with his hands. This man has tried for two years to obtain a disabled person's pension without success, despite his tragic condition.
I do not wish to take up too much of the committee's time, but I should like to relate another very sad case. This concerns a man I have known since we were boys together. His left leg and arm have been withered since birth, so he has a difficult time in getting around. This is bad enough, but he is also subject to epileptic fits and has, on occasion, been found on the streets suffering from these fits. He has not any parents living and is surviving upon what sympathetic friends have been able to give him. His application for a disabled person's pension has been rejected on several occasions.
Since the cost of this pension is borne jointly by the provincial and federal governments, I feel that the instances which I have just related should be brought to the attention of the committee. I should like to ask the minister if it would not be possible to have a conference of provincial medical boards and his department with a view to having this act more uniformly and more leniently administered. In my opinion the act is interpreted too stringently in Nova Scotia so far as the definition of permanently and totally disabled is concerned. I think I have illustrated this fact in a small way. In closing, I would appeal to the minister for a relaxation of the regulations governing this act so that many people in these unfortunate circumstances such as I have mentioned would benefit thereby.


Mr. Rouleau:: I want to say only a few words to bring to the attention of the committee, and of the minister in particular, the work done by the society for emotionally disturbed children. According to a pamphlet published by the society, until quite recently many of these children were considered mentally retarded because of their lack of response to people. However, medical science now diagnoses these children as suffering from a psychosis.
The society for emotionally disturbed children was formed in 1956 in Montreal by a small group of parents of such children. It has since grown to include many persons who have no personal interest but who do recognize that without the aid of public authorities these children would be doomed to a tragic fate. The society needs more funds to help fulfil its objectives. There are no quick cures or methods to help emotionally disturbed children. They usually

Supply-Health and Welfare require long term therapeutic treatment in a private environment. In order to provide these conditions special schools and specially trained personnel are needed, both of which are difficult to obtain. Because of the nature of this illness many of the children cannot fit into classes in the public schools and are, therefore, left without any schooling whatever.
I submit that the Department of National Health and Welfare should find the means to give financial support to this work of the society for emotionally disturbed children. I am sure the minister will take this request into consideration, and in the name of the society and the children involved I thank him.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I should like first of all, Mr. Chairman, to thank the many members who have spoken this afternoon and this evening for their helpful ideas and their kind words. I will admit that sometimes 1 have received congratulations, while at other times there have been differences of opinion expressed. I hope to answer satisfactorily those questions which have been asked of me, and I trust I do not answer them in too political a manner. If, when I am finished, I seem to have missed certain questions which members may have asked, I can only apologize for that. I trust that they will bring them up on the items to which they apply. I do feel, however, that there has been a good study of the department's estimates this afternoon. This shows that hon. members are interested in the department, and for that I am grateful.
May I say, first of all, that I am going to leave unanswered those questions having to do with civil defence until that item comes before us. I think I mentioned at the start of my remarks this morning that I did have a short statement to make on civil defence when that item is reached. As a consequence, I would prefer to get to that point before discussing civil defence any further, and at that time I will endeavour to answer the questions which were asked.
The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River and the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres -those two in particular-mentioned the fact that the annual report for my department had as yet not been tabled. That is quite true. That delay is accounted for by the simple fact that there are two unavoidable and unexpected vacancies on the senior staff of the information services division of my department. I fully expect that this report will be tabled within two or three weeks. It is my regret that it has not been done thus far, I might add that there were some difficulties also in having the report printed.


The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River spoke about Salk vaccine. I would point out that the government is now prepared to extend financial assistance in the provision of Salk vaccine to adults. As in the past, federal contributions would amount to one-half the cost of the vaccine, the remainder to be met by the province. Incidentally, I may say I have noticed a couple of newspaper reports recently which would seem to indicate that the provinces were possibly footing the full cost of this vaccine. That is not quite so. The government is sharing this cost 50-50. Since information on the number of children vaccinated is incomplete, particularly with respect to some of the larger provinces, it is difficult to specify a firm figure of those vaccinated. It is estimated, however, that more than 5,200,000 persons have received at least one or more doses of poliomyelitis vaccine by June 1, 1958. I think that is rather commendable.
The hon. member also inquired about cancer research. I would make a short reply in this respect. Prior to 1948-49 fundamental research on cancer was limited in Canada owing to lack of facilities, qualified research personnel and assured long term support. Although the national research council allocated grants for short term projects, applications received were not commensurate to the extent of the problem. I should like to point out that in 1957-58, 75 grants and 16 research fellowships were awarded totalling $630,000. For the current fiscal year 83 grants and 17 fellowships and associates have been awarded totalling some $820,000.
Hospital insurance has been in many members' thinking this afternoon and this evening. I think that during the discussion of amendments to the act some weeks ago this subject was covered fairly fully. I would express again my opinion as to the definite situation that exists. If all the provinces come in there will be ten different, distinct hospital schemes. As long as these schemes come within the context of the federal act, nothing else is required. As to the situation with regard to T.B. and mental hospitals-I was asked this question earlier-I have replied many times in the past. The situation is still unchanged. As far as the government is concerned, these ten schemes which would be in force if all ten provinces were within the hospital scheme would be different for special reasons. There are different forces in effect in different provinces. We do not wish to dictate to the provinces exactly what scheme they should institute. As long as their scheme is within the over-all context of our act, that is all that is required.

I would point out-I think hon. members on the opposite side of the house might realize this fact-that this act which is in force today is exactly the same act which was brought in by an administration which at that time was a Liberal administration in April, 1957. The only change that has been made since then is that we have moved forward the possible starting date from January 1, 1959 to July 1, 1958. In other words, this act is exactly the same in its approach to the problem of hospital insurance across Canada. As for myself, I feel that it would ill behoove us at this stage to try to dictate to the provinces exactly what they should have. We are leaving it open to them to present their scheme as they see fit provided it meets our over-all act.


William Moore Benidickson: Would the minister permit a question at this point?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Yes.


William Moore Benidickson: I indicated to the committee this morning that I was privileged to be one of the federal delegates with the then minister of national health and welfare -I was representing the finance department at the time, I think-when we were meeting with the provincial officials, I think the provincial treasurers and ministers of health, in 1955 and 1956 in two conferences. At that time we had certain maxima of costs in mind of which we would contribute 50 per cent. My recollection is that roughly the annual federal contribution, if all the provinces had adhered to the proposition that we were advancing, would be about $200 million. I have in mind certain increases in the costs of this, that and the other thing. Has the department from year to year escalated this thing? Would the minister care to say, if all the provinces take advantage of the situation that now exists, what the federal contribution on an annual basis might be.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I think our estimate at the moment is that if all the provinces were in the actual cost would be in the neighbourhood of $210 million. I may say quite frankly that we shall be able to tell you a great deal more closely after one year of operation. There is no doubt about that.
The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River inquired about nurses' training. I would just mention that under the national health grants federal assistance in an amount of over $900,000 annually is being provided in support of provincial programs for the train-ning of nurses and nurses' aides, while 9,400 nurses and over 2,600 nurses' aides have received federal training assistance since the 57071-3-252
Supply-Health and Welfare beginning of the grants program. The construction of over 12,800 nurses' beds has been approved for federal assistance since the beginning of the program.


William Moore Benidickson: But those grants, of course, do not necessarily apply to nurses in training, do they? They are graduate nurses in hospitals as well as trainees?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Yes; quite so, and the equipment and the instruction.
Schools of nursing in hospitals will receive support under the health insurance program. The cost of operations for these schools are shareable under the hospital insurance program. Health grant assistance is also being provided for post-graduate training and for selected studies on the methods of nurses' training. I would mention also that the dominion council of health, which meets twice a year, is being asked to consider nurses' training in the over-all picture at its next meetings.


Mr. Caron:: Would the training for nurses be only in those provinces which accept the plan?


Jay Waldo Monteith: This is under the health grants which go to every province. This is not necessarily under the hospital insurance plan.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Does it have to be accepted by the province itself?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Projects under all these health grants are proposed to us by the provinces and then we generally accept them. There are times when rejections take place, but they are very infrequent because only those are proposed which are logical.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Has it been requested by the province of Quebec?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Oh yes.


William Moore Benidickson: Is this in addition or part of the vocational training opportunities under the Department of Labour?


Jay Waldo Monteith: No, it has nothing to do with it.


William Moore Benidickson: Is there a form of nursing training under the vocational training?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Under the Department of Labour?


William Moore Benidickson: Yes.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Frankly, I have no idea.


William Moore Benidickson: Is the minister able to make that assertion?


Jay Waldo Monteith: No, I am afraid not.

Supply-Health and Welfare


William Moore Benidickson: Does the minister believe they are all in his department?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Yes. The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River inquired about the advertising by our department, and I would point out that there is $550,000 in the primary for educational and informational materials. There were other comments this afternoon with respect to publications, particularly the child training booklets which are distributed mainly to hospitals and schools throughout the provinces. There is no active advertising campaign as such. This is purely an endeavour made in the form of booklets and other educational media.
The hon. member for Timmins said that in his view at least the department had no vision, and he appeared to think that this is illustrated by our hospital insurance plan. My approach, and that of the government, to this plan has been a very simple one. This act was brought into being as at April, 1957, and when I took office one year ago today, I said that it was my ambition to put this legislation into effect. This has materialized purely by the fact that five provinces now have it in force and we expect greater participation as of January 1, 1959. I wish to repeat a statement I have made on previous occasions to the effect that after this scheme has been in force for a year or two I will be very happy to consider whatever suggestions are made to me for possible amendments. I do not think any piece of legislation as complex as this one could be perfect as a result of our first effort, and I am convinced that amendments will have to be made. Some adjustments have already been made in the agreements between the provinces-not the agreements themselves but the regulations- in order to meet certain conditions. We will be quite happy to consider further amendments to the legislation when it is shown that there are weaknesses in the act as it presently exists.


William Moore Benidickson: Just on that point, my hon. friend and his associates some time ago made up their minds, of course, with respect to the desirability of including in the 50-50 share the cost of operating tubercular and mental institutions. Would the minister make some comment on that?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I have said that the situation in that respect has been unchanged since the time when the amendment went through, at which time I made my last statement on the subject in this house. The advancement of the date of the possible starting from January 1, 1959 to July 1, 1958 was at that time and, as I said earlier this evening, the situation remains the same. Mental and tuberculosis hospitals are not 
under consideration at the moment. I think that answers my hon. friend's question.


William Moore Benidickson: Does the minister think that the fact that this matter has been shelved is in any way responsible for the fact that to date the province of Quebec does not appear to be very interested in participating in this scheme?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I do not think so, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member for the Yukon mentioned the use of mobile health units in the north, which units are actually trailers. These are a new experiment and, despite the remarks of the hon. member for Timmins, I believe this experiment does show that there is some imagination in the department. It is proposed that these units be used at various spots and I believe in fact we are experimenting with one at Watson Lake shortly. I believe the hon. member also mentioned the Whitehorse hospital which I understand is going to be opened in November and which will give complete hospital service.
The hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres spoke of the annual report, and I trust I explained the absence of this report satisfactorily when I spoke about the matter a little earlier. He seemed to suggest we were withholding information, which of course is not correct. There is no intention of so doing and, as mentioned, the report will be in the hands of members within two or three weeks. I found that hon. member's speech just a little bit political, and I think I am entitled to reply-


William Moore Benidickson: Remember the hon. member for Danforth-we were very patient with him.


Jay Waldo Monteith: There was another political speech following that one, but I think I am entitled to reply to the remarks of the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres with respect to our party having increased the pension from $46 to $55, by simply saying that if his party had been re-elected the old age security pension would still be $46 per month, and I do not think the public would like that.
There has been quite a bit of discussion, and I am not dodging the issue, with respect to suggestions for increases in the family allowances made by members of the opposition-


William Moore Benidickson: No, it was the Solicitor General who was referred to.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I do not know who was referred to. All I know is who said it this afternoon, and in that respect I can simply say that those members had ample

opportunity to mention it to their government when it was in power.


Alexis Pierre Caron: It was increased.


William Moore Benidickson: By $42 million in 1947.


Jay Waldo Monteith: In connection with family allowances, I think it is well to note that these suggestions made on the floor of the house are sometimes made in what might be described as a rather carefree spirit; such as, "Well, what does it matter, we will just mention it", and that sort of thing. I should like to point out that there are at present 5,850,000 children whose parents are in receipt of family allowances. For every one dollar increase monthly there would be required an additional annual outlay of $70 million. I hope the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres can balance his request for increased family allowances with the suggestion that perhaps we had increased old age security benefits too much.
Another point which I thought was interesting from a financial standpoint was this: The hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres spoke of paying family allowances on behalf of children 18 years of age and under but I point out that if this was done it would mean adding approximately 550,000 children to the rolls which would represent an additional annual expenditure of $52 million. He seemed very concerned about the extra amount which it was costing the Canadian people to pay pensions of $55 a month. I am just mentioning this extra amount which it would cost the taxpayers if family allowances were increased.
I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Jasper-Edson for his definite interest shown in the hospital insurance scheme. I welcome his remarks. We all accept the fact that the medical profession has accepted its responsibility in regard to the hospital scheme. The hon. member mentioned uniformity. Here again I mention that I do not feel that we should have complete uniformity across the country. I do not think we could have the same scheme in Newfoundland as in Manitoba or in Ontario; I think we have to make some allowance for situations as they arise in the various provinces.
I would point out that we have avoided any interference with the practice of medicine. I will be happy to talk with the hon. member personally if he has any particular situation in mind but I can assure him, as I have assured the public of Canada from the platform, that there is no interference with the doctor-patient relationship under this act.
57071-3-252$
Supply-Health and Welfare


William Moore Benidickson: The point was that you would only pay for certain drugs, and perhaps that was an interference with the doctor's judgment.


Jay Waldo Monteith: That, again, is one of those decisions which are made at the provincial level and, as a consequence, the scheme in Alberta or in Saskatchewan might be different from Newfoundland.
We have spent a great deal of money in our grants for equipment in hospitals. We also have a professional training grant of $516,000. I thank the hon. member for his remarks concerning the pamphlets which are gotten out. I have taken note of his other suggestions. I would point out that our medical research budget under the grants program amounts to about $2 million a year.
The hon. member for Fort William was this afternoon, I think, a little out of order when he was discussing civil service pensions. These do not come under my department and as a consequence I think I am incapable of replying in that respect. However, I would point out that the Minister of Finance did announce an increase in civil service pensions fairly recently. I appreciate the hon. member's remarks about the hospital insurance scheme and the study he has given to it.
The hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rose-mont made quite a political speech. I do not intend to reply to it in kind. He referred to my reply to questions yesterday. I gave an honest reply, and I can reply in one word. I do not think anything more need be said in this respect. The province of Quebec has been mentioned this afternoon, and some Quebec members seem to blame the federal government for the fact that so far that province has not seen fit to come into the hospital scheme. If I may put it this way- I have repeated this, and I have mentioned it before from the floor of this chamber- the province of Quebec has shown an interest. It has had observers at two technical conferences we have held in Ottawa. However, it has not as yet indicated a definite intention to us of coming into this scheme, but I do hope that this will come about.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Would the minister permit a question at this point?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Certainly.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: I gather from the minister's remarks the impression-and I think it is a fact-that there is no identical plan for all the provinces, that the plan varies according to local problems in each province?


Jay Waldo Monteith: The basic plan is the same; some of the details differ.

Supply-Health and Welfare


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Then why did the minister not at least get in touch with Quebec to discuss the problem? It may be that the authorities of the Quebec government have a special problem and perhaps if the minister would discuss it with them he could come to an arrangement which would permit Quebec to enter the plan. We do not ask the minister to force Quebec into this plan, but we blame the minister for not having made one telephone call, for not having sent one telegram-


Jay Waldo Monteith: The hon. member can blame the minister as much as he likes. I did not approach any other province, either. This has been a matter of co-operation. If and when a province has made up its mind that it is prepared and can afford and wishes to participate in this hospital scheme, all it has to do is say so. It does not fall upon me to go out and ask the provinces to come in. Who am I to tell the provinces what they must do or what they should do? They have every right to make up their own minds.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Would the minister permit a further question?


Jay Waldo Monteith: If you do not make a second or third speech, yes.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: I will put a very good question to the minister, and I hope to have a good answer. I want to know if the minister has received from the 50 Conservative trained seals of the province of Quebec any representations-


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


Jay Waldo Monteith: There was only one group of trained seals here and that was two years ago.
Getting back to my answers to the questions asked by various members I should like to refer to the remarks of the hon. member for Jasper-Edson. In replying to the hon. member's questions I neglected to point out to him that during all the preliminary talks leading up to the development of hospital insurance as it exists in Canada today there have been consultations in which I have participated with an advisory committee of the Canadian medical association. These consultations took place on several occasions and we remain in active contact with them to get their views just as we are in touch with the many hospitals and other associations that are vitally interested in this project.
I do not think I shall concern myself any further with the remarks of the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont except to say-
The Depuiy Chairman: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the minister but I must advise him his time has expired.
IMr. Monteith (Perth).]


Jay Waldo Monteith: Oh dear; it has gone so quickly.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, I think he took his seat several times and we are perfectly happy that he is replying to the questions in some detail.


Charles Edward Rea: Does the committee give unanimous consent to the minister continuing?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Thank you very much. The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River intimated earlier that he would like a rather extensive reply and I am trying to comply with that request.
I should like to reply to the hon. member for Kootenay West on the subject of royal jelly. It had been brought to my attention earlier that there might be some discussion of this during the course of the estimates and so I had a study made of it and have a reply which I should like to read.
Royal jelly is a natural product which is fed to the larvae of all bees for the first few days of life and continued feeding to a larvae will result in the development of the queen bee. There is undoubtedly some virtue in royal jelly for the development of bees. To date no satisfactory evidence has been received of any physiological or therapeutic effect on man. There have been many articles written on the subject which are contradictory. However, none of these stand up under critical review. Under the circumstances the food and drug directorate of my department has not accepted any claims and has required clinical evidence to support proposed schemes. To date no satisfactory evidence has been submitted. However, we are keeping an open mind on this subject and will continue to review the evidence.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, the minister will appreciate the fact that I asked the question on a strictly non-partisan basis.


Jay Waldo Monteith: The hon. member for Lapointe spoke highly in praise of the hon. member for Essex East and, of course, I am entirely in accord. Apparently the hon. member wishes to see medical, dental and surgical services included in the hospitalization scheme. Possibly this might well have been thought of before the act was brought in by the previous Liberal administration in April 1957. The hon. member mentioned the interpretation of "disabled" as being at some odds with this. He quoted certain remarks made by the present Prime Minister in 1954. I would point out that an amendment was made in May 1957 and another in November 1957 in an effort to simplify and

clarify the interpretation. By the way, I happened to be minister of the department in November 1957 and at that time I promised that full consideration would be given to these interpretations and definitions and I repeat that assurance now.
The hon. member for Quebec West inquired about the immigration hospital in his constituency. I have seen the resolution to which he referred. I am pleased to have his suggestions as set out in his remarks and in the resolution. The possibility of closing this hospital apparently has been discussed for more than two years in my department and I am aware of the question but I might point out that neither myself nor the government has made any decision or recommendation in this regard. We are postponing any decision and in any event no decision will be taken before next summer at the earliest. I agree with everything the hon. member said about the medical profession and I am extremely pleased to have his suggestions for consideration in connection with the hospital.
The hon. member for Burin-Burgeo referred to the world health organization budget. I understand that Canada's share of the budget for 1958-59 is $425,060. I believe he also asked if the old age security fund was solvent.


Chesley William Carter: No. I referred to that because you had given me that information. What I did ask about was the unemployment assistance payments to able-bodied persons who are out of work.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Did you wish the total figure or a breakdown for the provinces?


Chesley William Carter: I asked for the total payment and a breakdown by provinces.


Jay Waldo Monteith: This information is rather lengthy, Mr. Chairman and I understand it has already been tabled and is available.


William Moore Benidickson: Was it tabled this session?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Yes. I might point out the total for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1958, for all provinces is $6,553,188.36.


Chesley William Carter: That is for the end of the fiscal year. I was seeking a more up to date figure than that.


Jay Waldo Monteith: The figure I have given is a total figure. I would be glad to obtain the information the hon. member requests and give it to him at a convenient time.


Chesley William Carter: I would be quite happy to receive it at a later date.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I appreciate the remarks of the hon. member for Timiskaming
Supply-Health and Welfare who mentioned cancer research to which I have already replied. He also mentioned silica dust. He brought that up when my estimates were before the committee a year ago. I am keenly interested in the matter and will take it under consideration.
The hon. member for Prince mentioned hospital construction. Approval of hospital construction grants is purely a provincial matter. They do not require to ask for the full $2,000 per bed which we are making available. It is available if they wish to match it.
I have no knowledge concerning private insurance schemes which may be in effect over and above the basic hospital insurance protection which is being offered under the present act. I fully expect those private insurance schemes will be so worked out as to make protection available to the residents of Canada as a whole. I appreciate his remarks concerning hospital costs. I know there are going to be several adjustments in insurance company plans which are available to the public as a result of our entry into this field.
Again, I would point out that there was a speech which I felt was somewhat political. The hon. member for St. Denis I do not think particularly expects me to reply to his speech. I do not wish to get into a controversy.


Azellus Denis: On a point of order, I know that the minister seems to like me very much but I think I should have an answer to my remarks. The minister said it was a political speech. I think that is far from the truth because I talked about the health of our people and about the province of Quebec not having a chance to share in this legislation. I do not think that was a political speech. What I wanted was the minister to get in touch with the province of Quebec to try to come to some kind of an agreement so that Quebec would benefit from this legislation. That is all I said.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Very well. I am quite happy. It just occurred to me at the moment to be somewhat political. If the hon. member says it was not political I am quite happy to accept that. As a matter of fact, I think I dealt with the Quebec situation in previous remarks.
I hope I have covered practically all the questions. The hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria mentioned the Disabled Persons Act and said maybe there were some inequities. Incidentally, a new disability evaluation manual was issued which had the prior approval of all the federal and provincial medical officers. There were two conferences at which those officers were present.

Supply-Health and Welfare If he has any particular instances in mind where there has not been full and equitable treatment I would be very pleased to have him present them to me.
One member spoke this afternoon to whom I have not replied. I should like to say a word in this respect, and I refer to the hon. member for Outrement-St. Jean. I would point out that our department and he agree entirely as to the objective desired in respect of what he might call goofballs. First of all, I might mention that goofballs have quite a variety of interpretations. I have heard them described-and they have been described-as even being made of sugar and coca cola, and so on. I presume most anything can go into them. I am not denying the fact that other than innocent drugs are going into these things. I realize he feels

and I am sure we all feel-that we wish to protect young people in this country and as a consequence I am sure we are quite in accord in that approach. However, I should like to say that I cannot agree with him when he undertakes to criticize an employee of my department, a man who has been with our department for many years, and in whose ability, experience, and his integrity I have every faith. I am convinced that somewhere along the line there has been a misunderstanding as to how a certain write-up got into a certain Montreal paper and I do not lay any blame whatsoever on this particular employee for the interpretation, or for the quotations, whatever they may have been, that appeared in the Montreal Star. I am convinced that this man acted in the best of good faith. He is very understanding of the peculiar situation, one might say, in which a civil servant finds himself. His hands are tied; his tongue is tied and I am quite convinced that certain remarks apparently attributed to him were not uttered by him. I wish it to be understood completely that I have every faith in the way in which he conducted himself. Aside from that, I would also like the hon. member to understand that I am completely in accord with his over-all thinking concerning the problem.


Chesley William Carter: Mr. Chairman, I did not wish to interrupt the minister when he was about to refer to the solvency of the old age pension fund. I notice it is ten o'clock, and I know he is anxious to get this item passed but I would be grateful if he would refer to that when we come to the item in question.


Orville H. Phillips: In my remarks I asked the minister whether Prince Edward Island had indicated any recent desire to come into the hospital insurance scheme.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I am sorry; the hon. member for Prince did ask me that question

and I neglected to reply to it. I understand that for a considerable time Prince Edward Island has not indicated any desire to come into the hospital insurance scheme. They did indicate their intention, I think-using dates that are somewhat in people's minds-prior to June 10 last.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does the minister not mean June 10 before last?


Jay Waldo Monteith: June 10, 1957; the hon. member is quite right. I think they had indicated their desire to enter the scheme at that time but there has been no indication since as to if, as and when they do anticipate entering.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
251. Grants to health and related organizations, as detailed in the estimates, $212,450.
Mr. Cooper:: Will the Minister of National Health and Welfare indicate how much federal health grant assistance is being provided to the University of Saskatchewan for psychiatric research?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, I think my answer would be that during the fiscal year 1958-59 federal assistance under the national health grants, which is under way at the University of Saskatchewan under the supervision of Dr. Hoffer and his associates, has been approved in the amount of $75,100.
Dr. Hoffer and his associates are outstanding for their research in certain aspects of mental disease, particularly schizophrenia. I wish to say that my department is prepared to consider submissions of projects where federal assistance is required for desirable extensions to their work.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Welfare Branch-
Family Allowances and Old Age Security-
253. Administration, $3,031,361.
Chesley William Carter: Under vote 253, can the minister now reply to the question I raised about the solvency of the fund?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I think I gave the hon. member some figures yesterday on that, did I not?


Chesley William Carter: Yes, I am sorry.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Frankly, I do not believe the fund has ever been solvent because the consolidated revenue fund has to make up a deficit every year.


Chesley William Carter: My point was that the gap is bound to widen or appears to be widening, and some other means of financing this fund will have to be found. What I asked the

minister was whether or not any consideration had been given to alternate methods of financing.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Well, as a matter of fact, that is for the Minister of Finance to consider as to whether or not any different method of financing should be found.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
255.	Grant to Canadian Welfare Council, $32,000.
Chesley William Carter: Would the minister undertake to table tomorrow the figures that I asked for, the up-to-date figures on this unemployment assistance?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Yes, I would be happy to, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Civil Defence-*
256.	To provide for the civil defence program, $7,027,721.
William Moore Benidickson: Just on that item, when does the minister think General Graham will likely complete his report to the minister?


Jay Waldo Monteith: He has informed me, Mr. Chairman, that his study should be completed somewhat earlier than we had originally expected. We had hoped for the end of the year. He is going to travel across Canada. I am of the opinion his report will be ready considerably earlier.
I do not wish to hold up the proceedings of the committee. As we all know, we would probably like to get through with this department this evening, but I did promise earlier to make a statement on civil defence. If it is felt desirable I still would be very happy to do so.


An hon. Member:: Will it be a political speech?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Anything but.


Charles Edward Rea: Is the committee agreeable, then, if the chair keeps its eyes off the clock for a few moments?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Before vote 256 carries, Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a brief statement on Canada's civil defence effort during the past fiscal year.
At the outset, I would remind hon. members that the dominion government has felt it advisable to take a new look at our plans and activities in this field in view primarily of recent changes in the nature of the threat confronting this and other countries of the world. As I announced to the house on June 11, Lieutenant-General Howard D. Graham has agreed to undertake a comprehensive survey of all aspects of Canada's
Supply-Health and Welfare civil defence policy and program with particular reference to the implications which intercontinental ballistic missiles may have on these arrangements.
As far as the fiscal year 1957-58 is concerned, I believe it is fair to say that steady progress has been made in civil defence planning and training. In the matter of overall policy we have continued to follow the previously established approach of developing and testing plans for the orderly evacuation, on short notice, of certain urban target areas in the event that a nuclear attack should appear imminent. At the same time, advances in space travel and missile techniques have been watched closely and their possible impact on civil defence preparations kept constantly under review. While our planning in this field is still based on meeting the present threat of the piloted bomber it has also looked forward to the time when the ICBM can be expected to alter the strategic pattern of enemy attack.
Turning to specific developments, I might mention the initiation of a national civil defence day which received substantial public support last October and which will again be observed on September 19 next.
Another advance worthy of note is the increased emphasis which has been given to armed service co-operation with civil defence authorities. As hon. members are aware, the training of the militia during the current year is being concentrated on civil defence. In this connection my colleague, the Minister of National Defence, has explained that this shift of emphasis does not mean that the militia will take over civil defence or that civil defence will take over the militia. It simply represents another step towards implementing the established policy that the armed services, co-ordinated by the army, will come to the aid of civil defence authorities in the event of a nuclear attack. Since civil defence is of necessity organized on a local basis of self-help, with few, if any, mobile reserves, the main tasks of the armed services will be to provide mobile support groups and assistance with technical units and equipment to local civilian effort, both during evacuation and for subsequent operations.
The problems associated with armed service-civil defence co-operation were discussed in March of this year when a special conference was held at the national civil defence college at Arnprior. The results of these meetings, which were attended by senior officers of the three armed services, officials of federal, provincial and municipal civil defence organizations, as well as by representatives from other federal departments, were most encouraging and are now under careful study.
3988	HOUSE OF
Supply-Health and Welfare
A further indication of increasing armed service-civil defence co-operation can be found in the mounting numbers of military personnel being trained at the Arnprior college. As against some 200 attending courses in 1955, more than 800 members of the armed services have received some kind of training at the college during the first six months of 1958.
As far as other training is concerned, I might say that more than 3,500 instructors and key workers attended courses at Arnprior during the past fiscal year, bringing the total of such persons trained under federal auspices to over 17,000. These, in turn, have provided instruction to over 135,000 additional persons in the provinces or municipalities.
In the realm of financing of our civil defence program, I would draw the attention of hon. members to two points. First, of the $7,054,085 originally budgeted for 1957-58, only $5,885,738 was actually made available. This was due to the fact that in the absence of parliamentary appropriation the money had to be provided through governor general's warrants which were limited to estimated cash needs. This explains what might appear to be a substantial increase in our civil defence budget for 1958-59. While representing an increment of $1,141,983 over the estimated cash needs for last year, our current estimate of $7,027,721 is, in fact, $26,384 less than was originally budgeted for 1957-58.
A second point which should be mentioned in this connection is the lapsed balance of $1,896,134 of the $5,885,738 made available last year. This resulted largely from unliquidated commitments in the medical stockpiling program and from the fact that most of the provinces underspent their quotas under the financial assistance program. In budgeting again at the $7 million level, the government is hopeful that the provinces will be in a position in the current fiscal year to take full advantage of the federal funds available.
With respect to the financial assistance program-which at $2 million is the second largest item in the civil defence estimates- an important modification was introduced effective April 1, 1958. Prior to that date municipalities were reimbursed for only 25 per cent of their expenditures on approved civil defence projects if the province did not participate. As a result of the change the federal government may now contribute 50 per cent of municipal expenditures regardless of whether or not the province makes any contribution. In taking this step the government hopes to give new impetus to


local civil defence efforts which, of course, form the underlying basis of all action in this field.
There have been two developments since the end of the last fiscal year which I should also like to mention. Early in May, a nationwide exercise entitled "Co-operation II" was carried out with a good deal of success. Involving most of the provinces, many municipalities, the armed services, the R.C.M.P., as well as the United States civil defence headquarters at Battle Creek, Michigan, this project afforded an excellent opportunity to analyse much of our civil defence planning. It also brought to light situations requiring further study with a view to improving the effectiveness of organizations at all three levels of responsibility.
At the end of May, I had the pleasure of taking part, with Governor Leo A. Hoegh, head of the newly-formed United States office of defence and civilian mobilization, and other United States civil defence officials, in the sixth meeting of the joint United States-Canada civil defence committee. I found this a most satisfying session at which substantial progress was made in such matters as plans to ensure the continuation of government in the event of an international emergency, technical developments in the provision of shelter against radioactive fallout, and practical application of the "no border" policy.
Looking to the future, I have already mentioned Lieutenant General Graham's far-reaching survey of civil defence policies and programs. Another forthcoming development of note will be the meeting of the federal-provincial civil defence advisory committee which has not been convened since 1954. The dominion government is most anxious to revive this important body and feels that the session scheduled for next October should prove extremely useful, particularly in view of the fact that new ministers responsible for civil defence have recently been appointed at both federal and provincial levels. Co-operation between federal and provincial governments is, of course, one of the key elements in Canada's civil defence activities and we are convinced that this committee can play a really vital role in furthering progress in this regard.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
The Chairman:: That completes the estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.



PRIVILEGE


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask the indulgence of the house to raise a brief question of privilege on behalf of the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) who cannot be here this evening.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member leave to raise this question?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In tonight's Citizen there is an article by Charles King of the Southam news services which contains a passage which reads as follows:
Mr. Chevrier, a former minister of transport who left politics in 1954 to head the St. Lawrence seaway authority, returned to the St. Laurent cabinet shortly before the 1957 election.
Although he had no seat in parliament, he was given a $17,000 salary as a cabinet minister-without parliament's sanction-and proceeded to run for election in the Montreal riding of Laurier.
He drew the minister's salary from April 25, the date of his appointment, until June 21,-
Press Reference to Mr. Chevrier
I will not read any more. Of course we all know in this house that that salary is provided for under the Salaries Act and that it was a perfectly proper situation from a legal point of view for the hon. member for Laurier to draw the salary of that office.


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: Except for one thing; it was not voted by the house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No. It is a statutory item and is never voted by the house.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the house leader what the business will be tomorrow?


Mr. Green:: Tomorrow we shall commence with the estimates of the Department of External Affairs and then we will take those of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. The business for Monday will be as I announced last night.


[Stage Direction]
It being fifteen minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to the order of the house passed on August 4.
57071-3-253
[Stage Direction]
Questions

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

Mr, Carter: 1.	How much money has been paid into the old age security fund per month since June, 1957?
2.	How much has been paid out of the fund each month since June, 1957?
3.	What is the balance remaining in the fund at the present time?
Answer by: Hon. J. W. Monieith (Minister of National Health and Welfare):
	1	2
1957	Tax revenues	PaymentsJuly 	$ 34,673,528	$ 37,243,491August ..	
27,532,716	37,404,202September	
27,347,745	37,603,839October .	
33,113,957	37,772,572November	
27,948,318	45,103,858December	
26,989,134	45,130,8101958	January .	
37,223,344	45,069,461February	
26,519,543	45,238,234March . . .	
35,383,973	45,819,368April ....	
29,435,999	46,397,139May ....	.... 38,434,850	46,565,376June ....	
28,872,232	46,198,244
Supplier
Arnfast Coal Co. ... H. R. Large & Co. .. W. D. Gillis Co. Ltd. Alexis McQuaid ... A. Pickard & Co. ...
Malone's Coal	
Bonar Dalziel	
City Coal Co	
1 2
1957	Tax revenues Payments
July	 34,208,007	46,234,831
Total payments	$561,781,427
Total tax
revenues______$407,683,347	407,683,347
Excess of
payments over
tax revenues	$154,098,080
The excess of payments over tax revenues is met from time to time by temporary loans made by the Minister of Finance under the authority of section 11 (3) of the Old Age Security Act.
3. As of July 31, 1958 payments had exceeded tax revenues and temporary loans by $4,069.38.


COAL TENDERS, S.S. &quot;BRANT&quot;
Mr. Robichaud: 1.	Have public tenders been called for the supplying of coal for the S.S. Brantl
2.	If so, who submitted tenders, what was the amount of each tender and the grade of coal in each case?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister
of Transport):
1 and 2. Tenders were invited from the following potential suppliers in Charlottetown for the supply of 950 tons bunker coal for delivery as required during the fiscal year period from April 1, 1958, to March 31, 1959:
Grade of coal	Tender price
"Springhill"	Coal	$16.50	ton11	11	16.90	1111	11	17.35	1111	11	17.65	1111	11	18.50	11
Did not quote
ii	ii	iiit	11	it
The order was placed with the lowest tenderer, Arnfast Coal Co., of Charlottetown, P.E.I.


SAINT JOHN HARBOUR COLLISION
Mr. Bell (Saint John-Albert): 1.	Did a collision occur between the C.P.S. ferry Princess Helene and pilot boat No. 6 off Saint John harbour on August 8, 1958?
2.	If so, what is the official report of the Department of Transport regarding responsibility and damage?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):
1.	A minor collision occurred in the approach channel to Saint John harbour on August 8, 1958, between the C.P.R. ferry Princess Helene and pilot boat No. 6.
2.	Both vessels were proceeding with caution in dense fog so that contact and resulting damage were very light. Repairs are estimated to cost about $330 for pilot boat No. 6 and about $700 for Princess Helene. The seaworthiness of neither ship was affected.

[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:


DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE
[Stage Direction]
A-Department-
231.	Departmental administration, $1,441,494. National Health Branch-
232. National health	branch-administration, $230,370.
233.	Administration of the Quarantine and Leprosy Acts, $578,051.
234.	Immigration medical services, $2,789,628.
235.	Sick mariners treatment services, $952,827.
236.	Laboratory of hygiene, $892,723.
237.	Public health engineering, $289,183.
238.	Occupational health, $588,418.
239.	Civil service health, $382,723.
240.	Epidemiology, $72,197.
241.	Administration of the Food and Drugs and the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Acts, $1,792,365.
242.	Administration of the Opium and Narcotic Drugs Act, $220,795.
Indian and Eskimo Health Services-
243.	Operation and maintenance, $19,404,348.
244.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $962,200.
245.	Grants to hospitals which care for Indians and Eskimos, $295,000.
Northern Health Services-
246.	Operation and maintenance, $736,944.
Supply-Items Passed
247.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $2,288,500.
248.	Special technical services, $717,131.
249.	Health insurance studies and administration of the general health grants, $162,402.
250.	To authorize and provide for general health grants to the provinces, the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory upon the terms and in the amounts detailed in the estimates and under terms and conditions approved by the governor in council including authority, notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act, to make commitments for the current year not to exceed a total amount of $63,286,820, $48,000,000.
251.	Grants to health and related organizations, as detailed in the estimates, $212,450.
Welfare Branch-
252.	Welfare branch administration, $56,110. Family Allowances and Old Age Security-
253.	Administration, $3,031,361.
Old Age Assistance, Blind Persons and Disabled Persons Allowances-
254.	Administration, $115,240.
255.	Grant to Canadian Welfare Council, $32,000.
B-Civil Defence-
256.	To provide for the civil defence program, $7,027,721.
Indian and Eskimo health services-
579. Operation and maintenance-further amount required, $61,875.
57071-3-253J
[Stage Direction]
Saturday, August 23, 1958

[Stage Direction]
Fourteenth report of standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.-Mr. McCleave.