1958-06-18

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make an announcement at this time regarding the establishment of the green belt around the city of Ottawa. The government has now decided to recommend to parliament the necessary measures to make it possible for the crown to acquire ownership of what is known as the green belt around the nation's capital, so as to do what is possible to ensure that the development of the capital area over the long-term future will be in accordance with the national importance and significance of this city. To achieve these ends will require suitable general powers in a bill to establish the national capital commission, as well as to set up the authority over a period of several years for the crown to lend money to the commission to be invested in the purchase of the requisite lands for the purpose.
This project, as the house knows, was considered by a joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons two years ago and approved by that committee, with the suggestion that the possibility of achieving this purpose by the use of provincial legislation should be further explored. The government has reached the conclusion that only the acquisition of the land by the crown under the authority of parliament offers any assured hope of achieving this important long-term objective which we believe the committee had in mind.
It has been suggested that the legislature of Ontario might pass legislation to establish this green belt, which would have the effect of taking from private owners of the lands, particularly within the confines of the green belt, the values they could get by developing it for purposes inconsistent with the restrictions necessary to achieve the purposes and aims of setting up the green belt. Such legislation might well give rise to valid arguments that the owners had a legitimate claim for compensation from the province of Ontario because of the effects on them of action taken to accomplish this national purpose. Such problems do not arise under the plan which the government proposes to
place before parliament, under which the crown will buy the property and lease it subject to the restrictions necessary tc accomplish the purpose.
The details concerning the areas to be included in the green belt, the limitations of the use to which lands therein may be put, will be worked out for the approval of the government by the federal district commission after consultation with the local authorities concerned. Broadly speaking, the area and uses will be those placed before the joint committee in 1956. Some modifications will be desirable which have regard to the developments which have occurred since that time. The government wishes to be sure that local views as to the precise details shall be taken into account.
I should like to emphasize that this is a long-term project undertaken in the national interest. It is not a short-term one nor one that has been undertaken at the request of the local municipalities. Experience has shown that unless effectual control is exercised, cities tend to sprawl out into suburbs, resulting in what is called ribbon development, in a manner that is quite contrary to and inconsistent with the long-term planning that is necessary and essential if the capital of Canada is to be preserved and developed so that it will be a capital city of which this generation and succeeding generations can and will be proud.
By investing a reasonable sum now to acquire title to the lands on the boundaries of the city the people of Canada, through parliament, can be assured of that control which is necessary before further developments take place which may indeed result in action being taken too late. During the early years after the land is acquired the rents received for it may not be as much as the interest on the funds borrowed to purchase the lands in question, but the government is confident that over the long-term period the investment will be found to be worth while financially, as well as being necessary to achieve the important purpose which we and the people of Canada as a whole, I believe, have in mind and desire.
I would suggest that the details concerning this matter can best be discussed when the national capital bill is before the house, which I hope will be at a very early date.
1382	HOUSE OF
St. Lawrence Seaway-Tolls Mr. G. J. Mcllrailh (Ottawa West): Mr. Speaker, I am sure the house will welcome the statement made by the Prime Minister. I know that those who have taken an immediate and direct interest in this problem will be very pleased with the action now being taken. This matter has been receiving attention for some considerable time. To see the realization of the green belt in concrete form is something that will, I am sure, meet with the approval of all who are concerned with the problem.
I should like to ask one question by way of clarification. I take it from the statement that it is intended that this matter be dealt with in the new bill replacing the Federal District Commission Act and not as a separate piece of legislation. Is that right?


John George Diefenbaker: That is the purpose we have in mind.


Mr. Mcllrailh:: Thank you.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, we in this group welcome the very important announcement just made by the Prime Minister. As do other Canadians, we look forward to the building of a planned national capital of beauty which all Canadians will be proud of in the future. We will wish to look at the bill in detail when it is before the house to see that the legitimate interests of all property holders are maintained. We also express the hope that in the work as it goes forward attention will be given to the removal of slums within this area, and the development of the whole area not only in the interests of the people of the country generally but the residents of the national capital area.


Mr. J. O. Gour (Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Prime Minister for this decision. It was decided in 1956 that this would be the best thing to do. I should merely like to ask whether the owners of land will be reasonably well paid for lands within the green belt that are purchased or expropriated.
I also wish the name "green belt" would be changed.



ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY ANNOUNCEMENT OF PROPOSED TOLLS

Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the St. Lawrence seaway authority of Canada and the St. Lawrence seaway development corporation of the United States in a simultaneous announcement today are making public the proposed tolls which may form the basis of recommendations to their respective governments to meet the 

requirements of the legislation of each country. The recommendations which were submitted by the Canadian tolls committee and by the United States tolls committee are in complete agreement.
The main features of the proposed toll structure are as follows: For each passage through the entire seaway, Montreal to or from lake Erie, a vessel will be assessed 6 cents per gross registered ton of vessel and in addition 42 cents per ton of bulk cargo and 95 cents per ton of general cargo carried. For each passage, Montreal to or from lake Ontario only, a vessel will be assessed 4 cents per gross registered ton of vessel and in addition 40 cents per ton of bulk cargo and 90 cents per ton of general cargo carried.
For partial transit of the new seaway facilities between Montreal and lake Ontario, where there are seven locks, the user will be charged 15 per cent of the applicable toll for each lock transited.
For each passage through the Wellanu canal only a vessel will be assessed 2 cents per gross registered ton of the vessel, and in addition 2 cents per ton of bulk cargo and 5 cents per ton of general cargo carried. In the Welland canal a partial transit will be assessed 50 per cent of the toll irrespective of the number of locks used.
The unit of weight for the collection of tolls on cargo will be a ton of 2,000 pounds.
Commercial vessels carrying passengers will be charged 50 cents per passenger for each lock transited between Montreal and lake Erie in addition to the vessel charge.
The charging of tolls on the Welland canal as part of the seaway in order to defray the capital cost of deepening as well as operating and maintenance expenses is a requirement of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority Act passed without dissent by the parliament of Canada in 1951. The act pertains to a deep waterway between the port of Montreal and lake Erie.
The suggested tolls, according to the tolls committees, should be sufficient to meet all financial requirements as the anticipated traffic develops. It is believed by the members of the tolls committees that the revenue derived will provide for the annual cost of operation and maintenance of the new seaway facilities and of the Welland canal, and meet interest charges and amortize borrowed moneys over a period covering the next 50 years. They have estimated that in the first year of operation the traffic through the new portion of the seaway would approximate 25 million cargo tons but would rise gradually to 50 million tons by 1968. The latter figure has been used

for the 40 years after the development period, since this is considered to be the workable capacity of the facilities presently existing and under construction between Montreal and lake Erie. For the Welland canal the Canadian committee estimates the tonnage of cargo at 40 million tons in 1959 with a gradual increase to 60 million tons in 1968.
The traffic estimates of the committees anticipate a developmental period extending to 1968, that is a period of 10 years during which there may not be sufficient revenue to meet all the annual financial requirements. However, with the proposed tolls and the level of traffic which is anticipated beginning with the year 1968 they say that the annual revenues will be sufficient to compensate for the deficiencies incurred during the development period, and that all other financial requirements will be taken care of within the period of 50 years.
A simple method of toll collection is proposed based on the necessity of non-interference with prompt passage by any user. Provision is made for prior registration of any vessel and satisfactory security being given for the payment of charges either with the St. Lawrence seaway authority or with the St. Lawrence seaway development corporation, subsequent to which passage will be permitted. Toll collection and invoicing of accounts as well as the preparation of statistical data is proposed to be assigned to the St. Lawrence seaway authority. The St. Lawrence seaway development corporation has agreed to participate and share in the annual cost of these services. Charges will be billed to the owner or agent promptly and will be payable within seven days after the passage of the ship.
For through passage to or from Montreal and lake Ontario, the invoice will show two amounts to be paid: (1) in Canadian funds to cover the proportion applicable to the St. Lawrence seaway authority, which has been determined at 71 per cent of the total charges; and (2) the balance of the account, or 29 per cent, in United States funds, representing the proportion applicable to the St. Lawrence seaway development corporation, payable at any designated bank in Canada or in the United States. Tolls collected for use of the Welland canal will be for the St. Lawrence seaway authority account and payable in Canadian dollars. The committees stated that the division of tolls indicated above is based upon current figures of estimated capital and operating costs, and can be subject to variation as actual costs are determined.
St. Lawrence Seaway-Tolls
The reports stated that the projection of traffic volume and financial requirements has been made, bearing in mind the legislative requirements on the one hand and on the other the desirability of establishing tolls which in the early years will be conducive to the development of traffic. If future events should indicate that traffic conditions or future financial requirements have been either overestimated or underestimated, the necessary adjustments can be made in the toll structure.
Bulk cargo as defined in the proposed tariff will include such commodities as grain and grain products, loose or in sacks, ores and minerals as described, liquids in ships' tanks, pulpwood, poles and logs, woodpulp, waste paper, iron and steel scrap and pig iron. Domestic package freight of each country will also take the bulk cargo rate. All commodities not included in the definition of bulk cargo will be classified as general cargo.
The recommendations of the Canadian tolls committee, together with supporting statistical data, are being made public concurrently.
In accordance with the requirements of their legislation, the St. Lawrence seaway development corporation will hold public hearings at Washington on August 6, 1958, at which interested parties will have an opportunity to express their views on the proposed charges. The St. Lawrence seaway authority, as a matter of policy, will hold public hearings at Ottawa commencing the same day.
Those intending to appear at Ottawa should advise the acting secretary of the St. Lawrence seaway authority, Ottawa, of their intention to make representations, and should also submit 10 copies of their briefs at least 10 days before the date of the hearing.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that hon. members will wish to know the total effect of this levy per bushel of grain or per ton of iron ore, etc. On a cargo of wheat moved from Fort William to Montreal we expect that savings of at least 4 cents a bushel will be realized after allowances for the toll charges. For the movement of iron ore, as there are no published freight rates it is impossible to state the exact saving which will be made. However, the evidence is that the savings through the avoidance of transshipment, and use of large ships, will be far in excess of the levy of 46 cents per ton.
For all the wide range of other commodities that will be carried on the seaway similar savings will be realized, varying with the commodity and the particular conditions of its transport. These include bulk commodities such as coal, pulpwood and petroleum products, package freight-which as
1384	HOUSE OF
St. Lawrence Seaway-Tolls domestic traffic is to be charged tolls at the same rate as bulk freight-and direct overseas traffic in general 'merchandise. Here again I can only point to the opportunities for savings which the seaway will provide, which indicate that the amount saved over and above the toll charges should be substantial.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, may I congratulate the minister and more particularly, if he will allow me to do so, the St. Lawrence seaway authority for the establishment of a tariff of tolls at this time. When the St. Lawrence seaway authority was established it had two things to do. The first was to build a 27-foot navigation canal from Montreal to lake Erie. The second was to establish a tariff of tolls, the latter being a matter of great importance and one which was extremely complicated.
That is why I would now like to say that I believe the St. Lawrence seaway authority as well as the St. Lawrence seaway development corporation should be commenced for the establishment of that toll in co-operation with each other. I am not in a position, of course, to pass judgment on the matter of tolls; that will require some study, but I would point out to the minister that I am glad he has made this statement because just on Monday of this week my colleagues the hon. member for Welland (Mr. McMillan) and the hon. member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Houck) complained about the fact that we were being given little or no information concerning the seaway, concerning the imposition of tolls and concerning the manner in which those tolls would be imposed. Now, while we have not been given all the information for which we have asked, we have been given some information and for that I am grateful to the minister.
I would also like to say that as I listened to the information on the various tolls mentioned by the minister, while I am not in a position to comment upon them they did appear to me to be attractive. However, whether they are low enough to be nondiscriminatory to the industries which will be established along the seaway is a matter which will have to be studied by the bodies to which the minister has referred.
As the minister has said, the toll must be high enough to amortize the capital expenditures in connection with the seaway and must be low enough to encourage traffic. Are these tolls low enough to encourage traffic to move freely? I hope they are.
The questions which now come to my mind are, first, will the government seek the
[Mr. Hees.l

approval of the United States government with respect to this tariff of tolls; and second, will the board of transport commissioners hear applications-I now refer to complaints made on Monday by the two hon. members I mentioned previously-with respect to an industry which is being discriminated against? In other words, will the board of transport commissioners have jurisdiction to hear such cases, as outlined in section 15 of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority Act, or will such cases fall under the jurisdiction of the St. Lawrence seaway authority?
There is one other point which I would like to raise, and this is by way of complaint. I made a complaint on Monday that unfortunately many of the statements which have been emanating from Washington should have emanated from this House of Commons. On at least three different occasions there have been complaints in this house on the part of both the hon. member for Welland and myself that the minister and the government should have given the information to the house and, instead of giving it to the house at the appropriate time, it came from Washington. I am informed on reliable authority that the statement which the hon. minister has just made was given to the press in Washington last night, and that newspapermen in the United States telephoned newspapermen in Canada asking them for their views on the tariff of tolls. The newspapermen in this country had not seen this tariff and were therefore not given an opportunity to consider the tolls. I know this is not the fault of the government but it is certainly the fault of someone, and it is a pretty serious fault because, since the tolls are so complicated, it barely gives our newspapermen a chance to report authoritatively on them.
I would therefore ask the minister why Canadian newsmen did not have the same opportunity as their colleagues in the United States to obtain information on these tolls at least 12 hours before the announcement was made, in order that they might have had an opportunity to prepare their reports.


George Harris Hees: I would like to answer the hon. member on that point. It was arranged between the Canadian and United States authorities that this release would be made simultaneously at 2.30 this afternoon. It was my understanding that this release was not to be handed to the press of either country until that time. It was our intention to give this release to the press in Canada simultaneously with my announcement in the house. However, the authorities in the United

States released copies last night, I understand. I was told of that this morning, and was advised that the release bore a release time of 2.30 p.m. today. As soon as I learned that this had been done, which was at about a quarter to twelve this morning, I immediately made arrangements that the statement should be released to the press of Canada at that time for their information with a release time firmly stated upon it of 2.30 this afternoon.


Lionel Chevrier: I am just wondering,
Mr. Speaker, if my hon. friend realizes that this is about the third time within the last two or three months that this has happened.


George Harris Hees: I might answer the hon. member in this way. Any time that reports have come from Washington I have been as surprised and disturbed as he and other hon. members have been. I have made inquiries upon each occasion, and have been told that the statements have not been official statements and have not been connected with the members of the tolls committee or the American seaway development corporation, and I have accepted the explanation of the United States authorities in good faith.


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, we welcome the statement by the minister. A reading of the Congressional Record in the last several months, especially the portions emanating from the House of Representatives, indicates there has been a great deal of misinformation in the United States house as to the part that Canada has played in the seaway and the respective weight of the burdens borne by the two countries, and concerning the whole definition of toll charges.
I hope the government will take the action which seemed to be called for in the remarks of the hon. member for Laurier, and that is to issue an aggressive statement on Canada's position in this whole question of tolls and the role we have played. In other words, the government should do something in the way of a public relations job in the United States and especially in Washington, to let them know the part Canada has played.
I take it from the minister's statement that any possibility of discriminatory clauses against foreign shipping has been completely ruled out. Of course I do not think this is a dead issue, and I hope some of the groups who present briefs to the meeting on August 6 will bring up that matter again, because it is a question that is not completely settled to the satisfaction of many people, especially those along the lake, despite the report of the royal commission on coastal shipping.
18, 1958	1385
Estimates of Department of Transport TRANSPORT



REFERENCE OF ESTIMATES OF DEPARTMENT TO STANDING COMMITTEE

Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works):: 
Mr. Speaker:: Order. As I understand the motion which the minister is making it is under standing order 57 and is not debatable. If the minister feels it necessary to make an extended explanation I would feel obliged to permit at least equivalent debate from hon. members on the other side of the house, so I warn the minister that the motion is not debatable.

Estimates of Department of Transport


Howard Charles Green: I am very sorry, Mr. Speaker. 1 will say no more.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I was certainly under the impression that the motion could be debated, and I would like to say something at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: That is not my understanding of the standing order under which the motion is made. Perhaps I should read the motion, which is as follows:
That Items numbered 414 to 430, inclusive, items numbered 433 to 441, inclusive, items numbered 444 to 472, inclusive, and items numbered 512 to 516, inclusive, as listed in the main estimates 1958-59; and items numbered 628 to 634, inclusive, items numbered 636 to 651, inclusive, and items numbered 661 and 662, as listed in the supplementary estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1959, relating to the Department of Transport be withdrawn from the committee of supply and be referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, saving always the powers of the committee of supply in relation to the voting of public moneys.


Lionel Chevrier: Before
Your Honour proceeds with the matter may I say that I am under the impression that this is a motion which requires notice, and I was rising not to protest against notice not being given, but to take advantage of the fact that notice was not given and to ask for permission to make a statement. The leader of the house has already made a rather lengthy 'statement, and I should like to be allowed to say something in reply, with the permission of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: With the permission of the house it would be possible. As I understand it the motion comes under standing order 57, which reads:
A motion, to be decided without debate or amendment, may be made without notice during routine proceedings by a minister of the crown withdrawing any item or items in the estimates from the committee of supply and referring the same to any standing or special committee and, upon report from any such committee, the said item or items shall stand referred to the committee of supply.
This is a new rule in the last amendment and presumably it was designed specifically for the present purpose. Perhaps the minister did not understand when he made his statement. I daresay in the circumstances he and the house will agree to hear a brief statement from the hon. member for Laurier. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lionel Chevrier: I thank Mr. Speaker and the house. My purpose in rising, Mr. Speaker, is to object to the estimates of the Department of Transport being referred to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. It seems to me that is a standing committee of the house established under one

of the rules for an explicit purpose, namely to deal with matters concerning railways, canals, waterways, civil aviation and the like, which are referred to it from time to time by this house. It would seem to me that we should deal in the House of Commons in the committee of the whole with the estimates of the Department of Transport, which is a large spending department, as is the Department of Public Works.
That is one of the reasons why I think the estimates should remain here. Another reason is that I am afraid this committee is to be used for purposes other than those for which it was established. The suggestion was made very innocently the other day at the committee meeting that perhaps there could be called before that committee such witnesses as Mr. Donald Gordon, president of Canadian National Railways, and Mr. Gordon McGregor, president of T.C.A., to discuss matters concerning the affairs of the Canadian National Railways and T.C.A., when for years it has been the practice to deal with these matters in another committee.


Howard Charles Green: May I point out it is the intention this year to have the Canadian National Railways and the T.C.A. dealt with by another committee.


Lionel Chevrier: I am glad to hear that is the intention. It will give the house its usual opportunity of discussing these matters when the committee is established. But then there is another thing to which I feel I must strongly object, namely the intention of the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines to establish itself as a study group and call officers and officials of the Department of Transport. I think that is getting away from the purpose of standing committees of this house. They are not established for the purpose of being used as study groups. If there are members in this house who feel that they want information there are several ways in which they can get that information other than by turning the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines into a study group.
In conclusion, because I realize I am trespassing on the time of the house, I should like to quote just one short statement which may be found in Hansard of 1955, volume I, at page 968, when the house was dealing with the motion to refer estimates to the special committee on estimates:
I shall conclude with this observation. I believe it would be a mistake-and again the minister may correct me it I misunderstood him-to have a committee of supply examining departmental estimates in this chamber and at the same time a committee on estimates examining some other department in some other part of this building. We would have the main House of Commons and a minor house of commons operating at one and the same time.

It seems to me that would detract from one or the other, and my preference is to retain the discussion here in the House of Commons.
These were the words of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill). I could read the words of the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and of the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) but I will not trespass on the time of the house. All I need say is that at that time strong objection was taken to a motion of this kind. I do not believe it is possible to deal with these estimates properly in the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, which is set up for one purpose, rather than deal with them in the House of Commons which is the proper place for them. I ask the minister and the Prime Minister to recall what, if not he, at least the present leader of the house said on one occasion, namely that it was the responsibility of the committee established at the time to decide whether or not estimates would be considered by it. Now it is the house that is deciding without the consent of the committee. Apparently the purpose-


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the hon. member a question? Will he not admit that this referred to the committee on estimates?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, but the principle-


Howard Charles Green: It is an entirely different thing.


Lionel Chevrier: Oh, no; the principle is exactly the same. What was being done at the time was to refer certain estimates to the committee on estimates. What is being done now is to take various departments and send their estimates to other committees established and not functioning. In other words, eight or ten departments will go to eight or ten different committees; whereas I respectfully submit that the estimates, particularly of the larger departments, should remain in the House of Commons where they can get better consideration and better study can be given them. That is the point I am trying to make. I ask the minister as well as the Prime Minister to reconsider this motion.


Howard Charles Green: How does the hon. member differentiate between the course we are now advocating and the course followed in connection with the estimates of the Department of External Affairs?


Lionel Chevrier: It was the only department.


Mr. Speaker:: The matter is before the house, and I cannot even ask if the house is ready for the question. It is not debatable. It is my duty to put the question unless the mover and seconder request otherwise. Shall I dispense with the reading of the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Dispense.
57071-3-88J
Questions


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it. I declare the motion carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, on division.


Mr. Winch: 1.	Since July 16, 1955, has any research been undertaken under instructions of the Minister of National Health and Welfare by the Charles Best Institute in Toronto, or the research committee of the department into any aspects relating to natural health resources in Canada?
2.	If so, will the reports be made available to the house?
3.	If no research has been instituted, is same being considered?


Hon. J. W. Monfeifh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: The answer to the first part of the question is no; but it must be understood that a former minister of the department may have invited outstanding research centres and the provinces to submit suitable projects for federal assistance on behalf of such research-


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: That is right.


Jay Waldo Monteith: -under the terms of the national health grants, but there is no record that the research centres or their sponsoring provinces have done so to date.
Question No. 2 is answered by my answer to question No. 1. In answer to question No. 3, I would say that it is not proposed at this time to undertake such research within the department, but the provinces will continue to be encouraged to submit projects under the national health grants for federal assistance for research dealing with all aspects of the health of the people of Canada.



FAUTEUX REPORT


Mr. Winch: 1.	Have any of the 44 recommendations contained in the Fauteux report been implemented?
2.	If so, which ones, and was such implementation made by federal or provincial authority?
3.	Has the Department of Justice entered into negotiations with the various provincial governments relative to joint action?
4.	Have steps been taken to call a dominion-provincial conference of attorneys general in connection with such recommendations?


Hon. E. D. Fulion (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to part 1 of this question is yes. In reply to part 2 I would say that

Questions
the following recommendations have been implemented, in whole or in part, by the federal government: 20, 21, 23, 24, 28, 35, 38, 39, 41, 42 and 43. I made a sincere attempt, Mr. Speaker, to prepare, for the information of the hon. gentleman who asked the question and of the house, a short summary of the actual content of those recommendations to which I have referred by number, but I found it was not possible to condense it into a short space. However, if the house would consent I would be prepared to table at this point, so that it may form part of the answer, a written statement showing in detail just what the recommendations were and what has been done in connection with them.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house agreeable that the statement to which the minister has just referred be tabled and made a part of Hansard at this point?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Fullon:: The recommendations that have been implemented, in whole or in part, by the federal government are as follows:
20.	The federal and the provincial governments should give serious consideration, in expanding their systems of penal institutions, to the establishment, on a medium security basis, of such additional institutions as may be required.
Joyceville is being built as a medium security institution and the new Quebec institution will also be of that type.
21.	In the women's prison at Kingston, Ontario, a more intensified system of varied forms of treatment should be instituted.
The commissioner of penitentiaries informs me that additional professional staff has been added.
23.	In relation to the operation of all penal institutions in Canada, more reception centres should be established to which inmates may be initially committed for classification and ultimate committal to the particular institution that provides the most useful form of treatment in their particular cases.
Reception wings have been put in operation in the penitentiaries at Montreal and Prince Albert.
24.	Classification staffs should be provided for all penal institutions in Canada and, where they already exist, they should be increased to an appropriate size.
Classification staffs in the penitentiaries are being increased regularly in size.
28. Every penal institution in Canada should institute an appropriate pre-release program for the benefit of inmates.
Each of the penitentiaries has instituted, by way of experiment, pre-release programs for inmates serving long sentences.
35. As soon as possible, a system of automatic parole review should be instituted for Canada,

thereby dispensing with the present system which requires an application for parole.
The remission service has instituted a system of automatic parole review which is 40 per cent completed.
38.	Some means should be found to provide specialized after-care for particular types of parolees, such as sex offenders, drug addicts, alcoholics and psychopaths.
The remission service, in conjunction with the after-care agencies and with the co-operation of certain clinics, is increasing the amount of specialized after-care that is available for persons of these types.
39.	The federal and provincial governments should increase their financial grants to voluntary aftercare agencies in order to enable them to work more effectively in the correctional field.
There have been annual increases in the amounts that parliament has been asked to appropriate by way of grants to voluntary after-care agencies. The amount for the current fiscal year that is asked is $120,000, divided between the penitentiary service and the remission service.
41.	The annual conference of after-care agencies and government services should be continued in the future.
The conference of after-care agencies has been held annually since the Fauteux report was presented to the government.
42.	A national parole board should be established as recommended in chapter XI of the report.
The speech from the throne forecast a bill to establish a national parole board at the present session of parliament.
43.	The administration of federal correctional services should be organized as suggested in chapter XII of the report.
In partial implementation of this recommendation we have established a committee consisting of the deputy minister of justice, the commissioner of the R.C.M. Police, the commissioner of penitentiaries and the director of the criminal law section of the Department of Justice for the purpose of considering and advising on questions of policy or general concern in connection with matters under our jurisdiction in the correctional field.
The answer to part 3 is no and the answer to part 4 is yes. I should like to state by way of amplification that I answered 3 in the negative because we have not actually commenced the conference, and part 4 in the affirmative because we are taking steps to call that conference this year.



HEALTH INSURANCE


Mr. Marlin (Essex East): 1.	Have representations been received from the Canadian Hospital Association by the Prime Minister or the Minister of National Health and Welfare, urging the administration to allow depreciation and interest on debt, and to be included as

hospital service costs under the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act?
2.	If so, what reply, if any, has been made to these representations by the Prime Minister or the Minister of National Health and Welfare?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the answer to number 1 is yes and the answer to number 2 is that the representations made are about to be considered on the expert level to ascertain the implications inherent in them.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: May I ask
the Prime Minister if he has considered the reply made the other day by the Minister of National Health and Welfare? I do not think it can possibly be regarded as consistent-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would ask the hon. member for Essex East to defer his question until the orders of the day.



RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ROADS

Mr. Benidickson: What offers, if any, for sharing costs of roads for resources development has the government made to the provinces since July 1, 1957, beyond the offer set out in appendix "C" to Hansard of January 3, 1958 (forest access roads)?


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, in addition to the offer made to the provinces, as set out in appendix "C" of Hansard of January 3, 1958, letters were sent to the premier of each province on February 12, 1958, offering them the opportunity of participating in the roads to resources program. The program in each province would be on a five year basis, and the federal government would be prepared to provide up to 50 per cent of the cost of constructing resource roads falling within an agreed program up to a maximum contribution by the federal government in any one year of $1,500,000 in each province or a total of $7,500,000 for the five year period. The provincial government would be responsible for the maintenance of any roads constructed under the program.
With the permission of the house I shall now table copies of the letters sent to the premiers of the provinces outlining the proposals of the federal government. The premiers of Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick received identical letters to that sent to Premier Matheson of Prince Edward Island. I am also tabling a copy of the letter dated February 14 sent by the deputy minister of my department to the premier of the province of Alberta advising that the proposal need no longer be treated as confidential. Identical letters were sent to the premiers of the other provinces on the same date.
Questions



CANADA COUNCIL


Mr. Fisher: 1.	What value and percentage of the grants of Canada Council awarded to universities in the last operational year went for residences or dormitories?
2.	Is it a requirement set by Canada Council that such residences contain a library?
3.	If so, what requirements are there as to size, type of bookstock and catalogue facilities?
4.	Has Canada Council a classification of the kind of university capital expenditures to which it will consider awarding grants?
5.	If so, what is the classification?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, these questions have to do with the Canada Council. Last autumn, on November 27, a question was asked by the hon. gentleman respecting the Canada Council and I refer to the answer appearing in Hansard at page 1558, where these words in particular are found:
Paragraph 23 of the act clearly specifies the manner in which the council is to report to parliament annually.
I should like to remind the hon. gentleman that when he asked that question last fall concerning the Canada Council it was pointed out that the council is not an agent of Her Majesty and that the Canada Council Act clearly specifies the manner in which the council is to report to parliament annually. The hon. member communicated with my office in order to ascertain how the information that he desires to secure might be procurable. I felt that it would be possible to make the request for the information to the council and for the council to be able to furnish it. However, the government does not have in its records the information requested, nor does it consider that it has the power to request information from the council other than that which will appear in the annual report.
It is impossible to give any answer to the several questions asked. Under the circumstances I trust that the hon. member will not press the government further for information of this nature. The annual report of the council will probably be tabled later this month, at which time hon. members will obtain detailed information as to the operations and policies of the council. I again say that I hoped we would have been able to secure this information but that has proven impossible, having regard to the legislation in effect.



CARSON STROUD

Mr. Pickersgill: 1.	Is Carson Stroud of Glovertown, Newfoundland, employed in any capacity by the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources?
2.	If so, what are his duties and what is his remuneration?

Orders for Returns
3.	If not, does he select persons to be employed in the Terra Nova national park?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, the answers to these three questions are as follows: 1, no; 2, answered by No. 1; 3, no.



FISHERY GUARDIANS, NEWFOUNDLAND

Mr. Batten: 1.	What were the names and addresses of all fishery guardians employed on salmon rivers by the Department of Fisheries in the province of Newfoundland in 1957?
2.	For how many seasons had they been employed in each case?
3.	To what rivers were they assigned in each case?
4.	What are the names and addresses of all fishery guardians employed on salmon rivers by the Department of Fisheries in the province of Newfoundland in 1958?
5.	To what rivers have they been assigned in each case?


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, to answer all parts of this question requires long lists of names, addresses and locations, 122 of them in one case. I think I should not take up the time of the house reading these lists. Perhaps it would meet the hon. member's purpose if I were to ask that the question be made an order for return.


Mr. Speaker:: Question No. 19 is made an order for return.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Batien: 1.	What were the names and addresses of all fishery guardians employed on salmon rivers by the Department of Fisheries in the province of Newfoundland in 1957?
2.	For how many seasons had they been employed in each case?
3.	To what rivers were they assigned in each case?
4.	What are the names and addresses of all fishery guardians employed on salmon rivers by the Department of Fisheries in the province of Newfoundland in 1958?
5.	To what rivers have they been assigned in each case?


HIGHWAY BRIDGES, ONTARIO-FEDERAL ASSISTANCE
Mr. Houck: 1.	What are the names and locations of highway bridges in the province of Ontario to which the federal government has contributed financial assistance in building or repairs from July 1, 1957 until May 1, 1958?
2.	Which of these bridges carry both highway and railway traffic, indicating railway in each instance?
3.	What was the total expenditure on each bridge for the above-mentioned period?
4.	How was the cost shared?

.	PROHIBITED BOOKS	.

Question No. 73-Mr. Fisher:
1.	How many books were prohibited entry into Canada in the year ending June 1, 1958?
2.	What were the respective countries of origin, the authors and titles?



HEART DISEASE AND CANCER


Mr. McMillan: 1.	During the last five years how many persons in Canada, by provinces, have died each year (a) from heart disease; (b) from cancer?
2.	Are grants provided annually for research into the causes of cancer and heart disease?
3.	If so, (a) what amounts are appropriated for such purposes and in what manner have such amounts been distributed; (b) which institutions are entitled thereto?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 3-Mr. Fisher:
For a copy of all correspondence and other documents exchanged between the Minister of National Revenue or any officials of the department, and officials of the United States, concerning the Consolidated Premium Iron Ore Company, the Premium Iron Ore Company, Cyrus Eaton, and F. Daley, from January 1, 1948 to May 12, 1958.
Hon. J. M. Macdonnell (Minister without Portfolio):: In the absence of the Minister of National Revenue may I make the following statement. The Minister of National Revenue has had several conversations with the hon. member who has asked for these papers, and as a result they have agreed as to what documents should be produced under the terms of the order, certain restrictions being necessary because of the secrecy provisions of the Income Tax Act.
I want to emphasize, however, the minister says, that all of the correspondence exchanged between the deputy ministers of the Department of National Revenue (taxation) and the United States officials has been produced. Subject to that qualification, and also to the usual one respecting the obtaining of the consent of the United States government to such production, the order may be allowed to pass.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion, subject to the explanation and limitations set out in the communication from the minister?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 6-Mr. Pickersgill:
For a copy of "The Canadian Economic Outlook for 1958" as prepared by the Department of Trade and Commerce.

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, the government finds it necessary to oppose this motion, on the ground that "The Canadian Economic Outlook for 1958", is a confidential document.
Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George James McIlraith: Take the cover off it.


John George Diefenbaker: If my hon. friends will wait a moment they will hear the rest of the answer. It is believed that the publication of the report-


Mr. Pickersgill:: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. May I draw Your Honour's attention to standing order No. 47, which reads:
Notices of motions for the production of papers which the member asking for the same intends to move without discussion, shall be marked by him with an asterisk and shall be placed by the Clerk on the order paper under the heading "Notices of motions for the production of papers". All such notices when called shall be forthwith disposed of; but if on any such motion a debate be desired, it will be transferred by the Clerk to the order of "Notices of motions".
Now, sir, if the Prime Minister would undertake to give us an opportunity for a debate on this motion, I would ask the Clerk under that rule to have this motion transferred to notices of motions. If the Prime Minister is not willing to do that, I do not think he should have privileges that are not accorded to other members of the house.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: On the point of order?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes. I was just following the course that the hon. gentleman himself followed on January 20, 1954, when he set forth the reasons for his objection to certain productions. I was going to say we will produce it immediately after this year ends. It is a current report, publication of which would be detrimental until January, 1959.


Mr. Speaker:: The point of order raised by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is, of course, in accordance with the rules, a point of order. It is not a debatable motion. It can be transferred for the purpose of debate. Is that at the request of the house or the government? It is not a debatable motion. The only thing that remains is to dispose of the motion, and I shall now put it. All those in favour of the motion will say yea.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On the point of order, if I might crave your indulgence, it does not appear that it requires the consent of the house. The rule says:
-if on any such motion a debate be desired, it will be transferred by the Clerk to the order of "Notices of motions".
Motions for Papers
I request Your Honour to ask the Clerk to transfer this to notices of motions, on the understanding that the government will provide an opportunity for debate, an undertaking which I might point out was given by the preceding government in exactly similar circumstances.


Mr. Speaker:: I ask the Prime Minister if he wishes to address himself to this provision of the rule:
All such notices when called shall be forthwith disposed of; but if on any such motion a debate be desired, it will be transferred by the Clerk to the order of "Notices of motions".
Now I raise the question, at whose request will the motion be transferred for debate? If anyone can give me any assistance on the subject I shall be glad to have it. If the Prime Minister or any member has anything to say on that point I would be glad to hear him.


Howard Charles Green: I might point out that reading the first part of rule 47, we find this:
Notices of motions for the production of papers which the member asking for the same intends to move without discussion, shall be marked by him with an asterisk and shall be placed by the Clerk on the order paper under the heading "Notices of motions for the production of papers".
The hon. member has put this question on the order paper marked with an asterisk, yet now he thinks he will get some advantage by changing his mind and having a debate on the subject. I suggest the rule was never intended to enable a member to make such a request.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to submit to Your Honour that on one occasion about two years ago a motion was made by a member of the C.C.F. party for certain documents relating to the Caughnawaga Indian reserve at the time I was minister. I invoked this rule, the motion was transferred, and the government of the day gave an undertaking that there would be an opportunity for debate, which opportunity was provided.


Mr. Speaker:: What does the hon. member say to the point made by the Minister of Public Works, that by placing the notice of motion on the order paper with a star he has elected not to have a debate?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I submit that it is provided in the rules that this transfer can be made. The important word is "transfer". It would have been quite acceptable to me to have no debate if the government had been willing to comply with the motion. Since the Prime Minister has refused the information to the house it does seem to me, sir, that then I can invoke the second part of the standing

Motions for Papers
order and ask to have it transferred for the purpose of having a debate on a matter which, as Your Honour will recall, relates to a document which the Prime Minister gratuitously brought before the house in a previous parliament.


George James McIlraith: I wonder if I might be heard on the point of order. I want to draw Your Honour's attention to the different language used in the two parts of standing order No. 47. The first part deals with the marking of the question when it is put on the order paper. The second part deals with the transfer when it is called. In other words there are two different points of time, and I think that completely answers the argument made by the Minister of Public Works.
I should like if I may, then, to read the standing order in the light of these remarks. The first part reads:
Notices of motions for the production of papers which the member asking for the same intends to move without discussion, shall be marked by him with an asterisk and shall be placed by the Clerk on the order paper under the heading "Notices of motions for the production of papers".
Then there is a period in the standing order. Then this part comes:
All such notices when called-
And I want to emphasize the words "when called".
-shall be forthwith disposed of; but if on any such motion a debate be desired, it will be transferred by the Clerk to the order of "Notices of motions".
In other words, the point I want to make is that two different points of time are envisaged. There is nothing inconsistent in a member placing the motion on the order paper with an asterisk and, when the motion is called, asking for a debate.


Mr. Harkness:: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I say that it seems to me that this rule is quite clear. It states:
All such notices when called shall be forthwith disposed of; but if on any such motion a debate be desired-
It seems to me it is quite clear that it is not the desire of the individual or the member who places the motion on the order paper which is meant, but rather the desire of the house. If the house desires a debate on it, well and good; it will be proceeded with.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I do not think you can read anything else into this clause except that what is meant is that it is the desire of the house that debate be held.


Howard Charles Green: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I say this. If the contention made by the hon. member for Ottawa West is correct, then on every single one of these notices of motions for the production of papers the member who puts that notice on the order paper can force a debate on it.


George James McIlraith: That is right.


Howard Charles Green: That would be a ridiculous situation if the house should have to debate every one of these notices of motions simply at the whim of the hon. member who happened to put it on the order paper.


Hazen Robert Argue: If I may, Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out what I feel would be the practical result of the request made by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate.


Mr. Speaker:: With all due respect to the hon. member may I say that I am not interested in the practical result. I am interested in what this rule means as it reads. If he will address himself to that point of order we shall dispose of it. We all know what the practical result will be.


Hazen Robert Argue: As to what the rule means, may I say this. The standing order reads in part: All such notices when called shall be forthwith disposed of; but if on any such motion a debate be desired, it will be transferred by the Clerk to the order of "Notices of motions".
I suggest that the hon. member who has made the request, because of the fact that the motion is in his name, is not in order in that request. I suggest further that this rule cannot be applied in order to bring on a debate merely by adopting it because, if we pass it, the motion will go to the bottom of notices of motions and would be No. 46. Those are private members' motions, and it would not come up for debate. Therefore the desired debate would not be achieved. I do not think either, with great respect, that the Prime Minister as such can himself say whether or not a debate may be held. It is up to the house at some future date to decide.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. member for the assistance he has given me. However, I am still finding some difficulty with this rule. I think it is open to any member to put a notice of motion of this kind on the order paper, under notices of motions, to which heading it will go if it is transferred at this time. As I understand the rule, the marking of the notice with an asterisk simply means that it is dealt with on routine proceedings with other matters that do not require an extensive expenditure of time, and where there is no debate. That is where we find it. If there is a change of mind and a debate is

required on the motion, this rule apparently permits the notice to be transferred to the general heading "Notices of Motions" and, as the hon. member for Assiniboia points out, there it will go to the bottom of the list where it will likely be buried for the rest of the session.
However, I think that was the intention of the rule. The only thing that puzzled me was whether the mover of the motion could in effect change his mind. The question really is whose request or whose desire is to be given effect to. As there has been a request for a debate on this motion, I think effect should be given to that request and that it should be transferred to the order paper under notices of motions.



UNDERPASS CONSTRUCTION, MILE 41.05, MONTREAL

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 9-Mr. Rouleau:
For a copy of all telegrams, letters, correspondence and other documents exchanged since August 10, 1953, between the Canadian National Railways, the city of St. Laurent and its solicitors, the transport commission of Montreal, the member of parliament for Dollard and the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada, concerning the application of the city of St. Laurent for the building of an underpass at the intersection of Decarie boulevard and the Canadian National Railways line at mile 41.05, L'Assomption subdivision, bearing file No. 26782.193 of the commission.
He said: Mr. Speaker, as I have obtained the information from the department, I wish to withdraw my motion with the consent of the house.
Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member leave to withdraw his motion, which is No. 9?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



RESOURCE ROADS PROGRAM, ONT.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 15-Mr. Benidickson:
For a copy of all correspondence since September 1, 1957, between the federal government and the province of Ontario respecting cost sharing of a roads to resources program.
Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I should be very glad to table copies of such correspondence, subject, of course, to provincial concurrence, once agreements with the provinces have been signed. I do not consider, however, that it would be in the public interest to table copies of such correspondence while negotiations are still being carried on.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house consent that this item stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion stands.
Inquiries of the Ministry



CARSON STROUD

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 16-Mr. Pickersgill:
For a copy of all correspondence exchanged since January 1, 1958, between the minister of northern affairs or any member of his staff and any person or organization in Newfoundland regarding Mr. Carson Stroud of Glovertown, Newfoundland.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 17-Mr. Pickersgill:
For a copy of any communications addressed to the Prime Minister by the premier of Newfoundland since February 1, 1958, regarding federal assistance in the provision of electric power and any replies thereto.
John George Diefenbaker: Subject to the usual reservations.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether I could ask the Prime Minister what reservations he refers to.


John George Diefenbaker: I am just quoting my hon. friend once more.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it that the reservation referred to is the one which has been expressed as to correspondence. Subject to this reservation, is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
BRIDGES	-

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Was the federal government a financial partner in the construction of the second narrows bridge in Vancouver? If so, can he inform the house whether there will be a federal inquiry into the reasons for the collapse of two sections of the bridge, with the resulting heavy toll in dead and injured?


Howard Charles Green: No, Mr. Speaker. The agreement
under the Trans-Canada Highway Act does not cover this particular bridge. Much as we regret this unfortunate accident, the dominion government has no jurisdiction.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. D. Cresiohl (Cartier):: I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister
1394	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry of which I gave him notice. Has any further consideration been given to establishing a release policy with regard to Hungarian, Polish and Roumanian assets vested in the custodian similar to the so-called victims' policy applicable to German assets, whereby individuals who prove that they themselves were subject to nazi persecution can have their property rights restored?


John George Diefenbaker: This matter is receiving extended consideration by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) and the Secretary of State (Mr. Courtemanche), and when a decision is arrived at it will be communicated to the house.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Kenora-Rainy River):: I would like to address a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that yesterday, shortly before the announcement of increased tariff protection on certain steel products, trading on the Toronto stock exchange in the stock of Page-Hersey Company, Canada's largest manufacturer of steel pipes and tubes, was according to press reports unusually heavy and was accompanied by a marked advance in price, does the minister feel that an investigation of the circumstances would be desirable?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Not at all, Mr. Speaker. I have no knowledge of this alleged activity on the stock	market and	I do	not know
whether the tariff action proposed last night, had it been known in advance, would have had any bearing on any activity in the stock market. The fact is, as everybody knows, that there has been newspaper speculation for days as to what action the government might propose in the light of recommendations made by the tariff board with regard to tariffs on pipes and tubes, which recommendations were made months ago on a reference directed to the board by the former Liberal government.



CRIMINAL CODE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Having in mind his interest in the humane treatment of animals, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Justice.
In view of newspaper reports to the effect that a certain Ontario chamber of commerce

intends to stage a program of bloodless bullfights for the August 2-4 holiday week end, would the minister inform the house if he considers the present provisions of the Criminal Code stringent enough to prevent any cruelty which might occur as the result of the introduction into Canada of this undesirable and exotic form of entertainment?


Mr. Speaker:: I would like to remind the hon. member to consider that he is really asking for a legal opinion, but I do not wish to prevent him from getting such a legal opinion if the minister is prepared to answer his question.
Kon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice): Mr. Speaker, I have an answer ready to this question because I appreciate the courtesy of the hon. member in having given me notice. I would, however, point out that I can neither give a firm legal opinion nor do I know what a bloodless bullfight is or might be.
My answer is therefore even more hypothetical in this case than is the hon. member's question. The Criminal Code makes it an offence for a person to wilfully wound or injure cattle, including bulls, and also makes it an offence for a person to wilfully cause or, being the owner, wilfully permit to be caused unnecessary pain, suffering or injury to an animal. It is also an offence for a person in any manner to encourage, aid or assist at the fighting or baiting of animals.
I have seen some of the newspaper reports to which the hon. member has referred, but I do not think it would be proper for me as Minister of Justice to attempt to express in advance any opinion on the question of whether a proposed performance of this kind would or would not contravene the provisions of the Criminal Code to which I have referred. I have no doubt that the local law enforcement authorities will, in accordance with the Canadian tradition in such matters, keep close watch on the situation and will be ready to take appropriate steps at once if, in the course of such a performance, it appears that any violation of the criminal law is involved.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Tucker (Triniiy-Concepfion):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Fisheries when the government intends to establish a floor price for Newfoundland salt codfish, as promised by the Prime Minister prior to March 31.


John Angus MacLean: A similar question was asked on May 29 last by the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Granger). The question and answer are to be found at pages 610 and 611 of Hansard, and I have nothing to add to the answer I gave at that time.



TELEVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I would like to address a question to the Minister of Transport arising out of a successful application made by radio station CHAB at Moose Jaw to the C.B.C. board of governors for permission to operate a television station. Could the minister say whether his department is likely to grant such a licence expeditiously, as the people in that area are anxiously awaiting the establishment of this station?


George Harris Hees: I am not aware of the particular instance to which reference is made, but I will look into the matter and advise the hon. member.



NATIONAL CAPITAL PLAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erhart Regier (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: would like to address a question to the Prime Minister. Does the announcement of the Prime Minister in regard to the supplying of money for the purchase of land outside the city of Ottawa to enhance the prestige of our national capital also include provision for removing out of the city of Ottawa many of the slum areas and fire-trap houses which now exist in the heart of the city?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I think I made it perfectly clear as to what was the purpose of the legislation to be brought before parliament, and I see no reason why there should be any agreement whatsoever with the suggestion that Ottawa is in the condition described by the hon. member.



INQUIRY AS TO EFFORTS TO FIND NEW


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Roy Tucker: would like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce if he would advise this house whether any steps have been taken to explore 57072-1-891
Hospital Insurance Act new markets for Newfoundland fish, in view of the fact that there is likely to be increased production resulting from the large number of unemployed persons returning to the fishing industry?
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade
and Commerce): Mr. Speaker, I was attempting to find an earlier question similar to this but I cannot locate it, though I feel sure it has been asked before.
Every effort is being made to extend the markets for Newfoundland fish. We are fully aware of the problems facing the fishing industry. A first class presentation of the facts has been made to us by a representative of the provincial government, and we have also heard from people in the fishing industry. We will be hearing from other groups, I think, this week or next, and we are getting all available information respecting the industry generally. We are aware of the fact that a number of people have returned and are now actively engaged in fisheries, and also that there is a surplus stock of fish on hand from last year's catch.
With these facts in mind every effort is being made to discover new outlets for Newfoundland fishery products, and these efforts will continue to be made as vigorously as is possible.



&quot;HANSARD&quot;


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. W. Murphy (Lambion West):: I would like to draw the attention of the house to a matter which might concern many hon. members. It is with respect to the printing of Hansard. If a member rises on a question of privilege during orders of the day, it occasionally happens that his remarks are printed on pages 1 and 2 under the classification "Contents". In that case they are not included in the bound edition of Hansard. I would therefore suggest that this matter be given consideration.



HOSPITAL INSURANCE ACT


Jay Waldo Monteith: the second reading of Bill No. C-30, to amend the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, section 1 (1) of this bill merely clarifies the view which has been generally accepted by both the provinces and the federal government

Hospital Insurance Act to the effect that drugs, biologicals and related preparations as provided in the agreement may only be considered as insured services when these items are actually administered in the hospital. It is obvious that if drugs were made available on a take-home basis the control of expenditures would become very difficult. The matter of control is as important to the provinces as it is to the federal government.
The suggested amendment will not, therefore, alter the present arrangements with the provinces in any way. It will merely clarify the existing situation. In explanation of subclause 2 of clause 1 of the bill I would point out that the original paragraph contained in the act relating to out-patient services, excluded drugs, biologicals and related preparations as well as accommodation and meals as a part of out-patient services. The provinces have requested that this amendment be made since it is considered that such services form an essential part of out-patient treatment. As in the case of inpatient services, however, it is proposed that drugs should not be provided on a take-home basis.
In so far as meals and accommodation are concerned it is felt the availability of these services on an out-patient basis will tend to deter admissions to hospitals. It is considered, therefore, that by expanding outpatient services in this manner the volume of in-patient services can be reduced in certain circumstances.
With respect to clause 2 of the amending bill I have already mentioned that five provinces have expressed their desire to commence operating provincial programs in accordance with the federal legislation as of July 1, 1958. The federal government would be precluded from making contributions to these provinces unless the present section 6 (2) 6f the act were amended. From the discussions which have taken place in this house it is obvious that the government's initiative in expediting the program is welcome.
Following my announcement last January of the government's intention to propose this amendment, provincial planning has been stimulated with the result that almost half of the provinces will be enabled to commence programs at least six months earlier than would otherwise have been possible. Prior to this debate some mention was made in the house concerning the costs to the federal treasury arising out of this amendment. While a precise determination of these costs is difficult without reference to prior experience, officials of my department estimate that the cost to the federal government of making contributions as of July 1 to the five

provinces which have indicated their readiness to commence on that date will amount to approximately $30 million for the remaining six months in 1958.


Mr. Romuald Bourque (Outremont-St. Jean):: Mr. Speaker, about two weeks ago when I made a speech in this house on this bill I deplored the fact that the minister up to that point had obtained the signature of only one contributing province which would take advantage of this bill. The minister has since announced that he has obtained the signature of the province of Newfoundland and that that province has now become entitled to the full benefits of the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act. I congratulate the minister on having obtained this signature and I hope he will succeed in obtaining many more so the act can come into effect on July 1 in respect of at least five provinces.
The minister mentioned a moment ago that five provinces have expressed a desire to come under the terms of this act. This is about the third or fourth time he has said they were desirous of doing so but I cannot understand why they do not sign an agreement. Surely the provinces have had sufficient time to sign and I cannot understand why they should delay. Up until last week only the province of Ontario had signed an agreement.
Another thing which we on this side of the house would like to have explained is how the plans are going to operate. I understand that Ontario has a limited plan which will include diagnostic services for in-patients only and not for out-patients.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, that is not so. Diagnostic services for out-patients in accident cases are being provided in the Ontario agreement.


Paul Joseph James Martin: But only for that; that is very limited.


Jay Waldo Monteith: That is not what the hon. member said.


Romuald Bourque: I stand corrected, Mr. Speaker. I was under the impression that in the Ontario agreement there was included diagnostic services only for in-patients. The minister says that is not so and I stand corrected. However, I believe that Newfoundland has a more complete health scheme than Ontario which includes diagnostic services for in-patients as well as out-patients. We on this side of the house are wondering therefore just what kind of schemes the provinces will have. Will it be a plan to cover the same services in each province or will each province have a different scheme? That is very important to the average person

because if a citizen in Newfoundland is going to receive more than a citizen in Ontario under this plan we should know why and what the differences are.
I have another question for which I would like an explanation. I read in this morning's paper that Manitoba, Alberta and British Columbia were intending to sign an agreement and would take advantage of the provisions of the amended act on July 1. If they have not signed as yet how can the minister tell this house that these provinces will have agreements in effect on July 1?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I said that the indications were that they would be; we have every expectation of that.


Romuald Bourque: Well, Mr. Minister, you have not signed them up as yet. I am sorry but as an old salesman I am keenly aware of the fact that unless you get a signature on the dotted line you cannot consider that you have made a sale and you cannot collect your commission on the transaction. If we are going to live on promises we will not get very far, you know.


Mr. Smith (Calgary South):: You have had lots of experience with that.


Romuald Bourque: You have already told us that three other provinces are going to sign. What about the other five provinces? As a member from Quebec I would be very much interested in knowing how far you have progressed in obtaining the signature of that province.


Jay Waldo Monteith: If you had been in the house on the debate on the resolution you would know about these things.


Paul Joseph James Martin: He was here.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the discussion is getting a trifle informal for such a serious matter. There will be an opportunity in committee to discuss the details of these clauses of the bill. If we could continue the debate and relate it to the principle of the bill and try to get into committee, it would be helpful.


Romuald Bourque: Mr. Speaker, I was under the impression that we could ask the minister questions on his statement at this time as to what the plans were and what progress had been made. We are very interested in having the plan put into operation.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will have an opportunity in committee to ask questions.


Paul Joseph James Martin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, if it could be understood that there would be no denial of the right to discuss the principle of the bill as well as the clauses, that could be done. In other words, this is a small bill and if we
Hospital Insurance Act could proceed with it at this particular stage of the proceedings on that basis we would have no objection but it could be done only on that understanding.


Romuald Bourque: Mr. Speaker, I am very interested in finding out if the minister had personally approached the premier of each province. As a member from the province of Quebec I was just wondering what the reaction of the premier of that province had been with regard to signing this pact. We have in this house a very large number of pseudo-Conservative members who belong to the Union Nationale and I am sure they must have something to say about this affair although we have not yet heard from any of them.
So far as British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan are concerned, I cannot see how the minister can say that he expects them to follow on July 1, because so far he has not been able to tell us that these provinces have signed. The closest he has come to that is that he has said they expressed a desire to sign. There is a great difference between signing and expressing the desire to sign. When we were in power and on the other side of the house the minister of national health and welfare at that time said that we could not include tubercular and mental cases. As I said before-and I have no answer to it yet-all those tubercular and mental cases which were in provincial institutions were under the care of the provinces. The contention of the previous government was that tubercular and mental cases were the responsibility of the provincial governments. At that time the opposition, now the government, maintained that they should be under the act. Of course, the Liberal government at that time felt-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member again but I do not see anything in the bill about the matter which he is discussing, namely tubercular and mental cases. It seems to me the principle of the bill is narrower than that and he is beyond the point of relevance when he attempts to discuss tubercular and mental cases.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I with
respect suggest to you that is hardly the case. The point the hon. gentleman has in mind is that when hon. gentlemen now on the treasury benches were on this side they thought that the measure introduced by the government was deficient in that it did not include certain insurable illnesses. What the hon. gentleman is now doing is pointing out this fact and indicating to the administration that it has the power and the opportunity of doing those things. It is not doing what it
1398	HOUSE OF
Hospital Insurance Act proposed when it was on this side of the house should be done. I have no doubt that the observation and the argument the hon. member is making are quite correct.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not questioning the correctness of what he is saying but I am questioning whether it is relevant to this bill which is an amending bill.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, it is an amending bill.


Mr. Speaker:: It is a bill amending an act passed by the previous administration. The fact that it amends certain sections does not open up a discussion of the whole act. As I remember the act, it excluded mental and tuberculosis cases. That is another clause of the act not affected by this bill. I would think that we would be going far afield if we permitted discussion of principles other than those involved in the amendment.


Paul Joseph James Martin: With great respect, I can very well understand Your Honour taking that position, but the hon. gentleman has made the argument that five provinces may sign before July 1, 1958. He has said he hoped that they would and that others might. Some of the provinces take a very strong position that tuberculosis and mental illness should be included and it may well be-I intend to ask pretty searching questions on this-that one of the reasons why they have not signed is that the present administration is adhering to the very practice and policy followed by the previous administration with regard to these exclusions. We would be precluded from discussing what is one of the essential elements in this whole matter of progress if the hon. gentleman and others were prevented from making that kind of observation.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not convinced, I must say, that we can broaden out into that. I will allow the hon. member to proceed. Perhaps he will not find it necessary to get too far afield.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not think there is too much danger of that.


Romuald Bourque: Mr. Speaker, you said a few moments ago that this was an amendment to the original legislation. There is little change in the legislation that the previous government introduced and this amending bill. It really is a tribute to the Liberal government for having introduced such a measure.
As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, I believe that tuberculosis and mental patients form part of the bill and their inclusion is a very important part of the bill because if they are to be left out-


Mr. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):: If it
forms part of the bill can the hon. member refer to any clause?


Romuald Bourque: I am coming to that if the hon. member will wait only a few minutes.


Mr. Small:: You are the ones who promised it 40 years ago.


Romuald Bourque: Forty years ago. That is before you had power. You were in power in 1930. If you thought it was such a good measure then you could have brought it in.
The opposition at that time made an issue of it, Mr. Speaker. They complained about the fact that we did not include tubercular and mental cases. I believe they had two votes on the matter at that time. Why did they not put it in this bill? If they thought it was such a good thing when they were in opposition why did they not include it in this bill? Not only did they make an issue of it in the house but they made it an election issue. It was one of the election promises of the government across the way. Today we see nothing in the bill about tubercular and mental cases. They talked a lot about it but they are doing nothing about it today.
I want to follow your ruling, Mr. Speaker. As I said, the government across the way when they were in opposition brought up all kinds of things when we tried to present this measure. When I read the bill I was surprised to find that they are not carrying out what they said should be done when they were on this side of the house. This amendment makes only a slight change to the legislation brought in by the previous government. I think it is a tribute to the Liberal government to find that now that these people are in power they see so little to change in the legislation originally presented by the Liberal government.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I, as you did a few minutes ago, fail to see anything about tubercular and mental patients in this bill. I would have liked to see something in the bill in that regard. Following your suggestion, I will refrain from getting into that phase of hospital insurance coverage. Needless to say, we are in favour of the principles embodied in the bill, the main part of which appears to me to be the advancement of six months in the application of it and the removal of the restriction which required a certain number of provinces representing a certain portion of the population to have such schemes in operation before any federal participation would take place.
I was very pleased to hear the minister, not only on the resolution stage but on second reading of the bill make reference to the expectation that five provinces would have

signed agreements and would be covered by July 1, with the added information that other provinces are contemplating establishing plans by way of legislation and that in the immediate future we hope to have another three or four at least, and I hope 10 eventually, participating completely in such a plan.
I think we might ask ourselves this question. Why was it that after the enactment of the legislation which this bill is intended to amend there was a sudden increase in interest on the part of the various provincial governments in instituting hospital insurance plans whereas in prior years some of them, at least so far as public knowledge is concerned, did not appear to be too interested in establishing hospital insurance coverage plans such as the one that has been in effect in my own province for a number of years? I think we can find the answer to that question very easily. The mere fact that the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act was placed on the statute books a few years ago indicated to the provinces that here was a source of financial assistance to them if they wanted to put hospital insurance programs into effect. It acted as a stimulus to those provinces to think in terms of providing provincial schemes. If it were not for the fact that the former Liberal administration introduced such a measure, even though it did not go far enough toward meeting the over-all problem of health care, whereby they would participate with the provinces, some of the provinces that are indicating interest today would probably not have either plans in effect or plans for enacting legislation within the next little while in order to achieve this purpose.
I am sure that it was only because the act was put into effect and the federal government indicated a desire to participate that provincial interest was stimulated to the point where, as the minister indicated, there will be five provinces participating, he hopes, by July 1, and in the not too distant future a number of other provinces, including the province of Quebec which has indicated interest. Therefore in the not too distant future, I hope within a year or two, all ten provinces will get into the picture because of the fact that the act was a stimulus to them. The result will be that we will have fairly uniform, all-inclusive hospital insurance coverage across the nation.
As I said earlier, the principle of the bill is acceptable. It is all right but it is lacking to a great degree. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will refrain from calling me to order for a few minutes and I will try not to say things that will cause you to call me to order. In dealing with the principle of the
Hospital Insurance Act bill I feel I must express our view that the bill is deficient in that, as has been stated by the C.C.F. for many years, it does not go far enough toward providing the type of all-inclusive health coverage that the people of Canada should have and that we should give to them.
Because the present act was a stimulus to a number of provinces to enact legislation providing hospital insurance plans, surely we can expect that if any leadership at all is shown by the government in providing for all-inclusive medical and dental care under the present act there will be an equal stimulus to the provinces to expand their present hospital insurance schemes in order that they will cover medical, dental and other care necessary under an all-inclusive health scheme. In that respect we think there is a great deficiency not only in the bill but in the original act. I can only hope that a Conservative government will be a little more speedy in its acceptance of ideas put forward from this corner of the house than was the former Liberal administration and will not wait until they may think it is politically advantageous to expand the act to provide medical and dental services and an all-inclusive health scheme. I trust that they will do so at the earliest possible moment so that we can provide leadership and stimulate the provinces to expand their schemes. In that way we will not merely be providing hospital insurance coverage or participating in paying bills for people who become ill but will be taking definite corrective measures in the first instance to prevent them from becoming ill and having to go to hospital.
I hope the few remarks I have made will be taken to heart by the minister and government. I know that it will not take place during this session but I hope that between now and the next session of the house the government will undertake a study and provide the necessary leadership in order that we may have an all-inclusive health plan in Canada.


Mr. J. F. Browne (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, in listening with great interest to the debate as it has developed and the arguments about the proposed amendments, I think it has become quite clear that about all that opposition members have been able to do is to say that we should go further. I think that view is perhaps shared by every member of the house, but on that basis I do not think it would make any difference to what length the government might go at a particular time because there would always be those who would say, "It would be nice to go further."

Hospital Insurance Act
In my opinion there is one thing we must consider particularly at this time when the budget has been brought forward, and that is cost. I think it is quite obvious to all of us that if we are going to urge the government to go farther in one direction we must be prepared to suggest curtailment in another direction or propose some other means of raising money for the purpose of going further with hospital insurance.
It gives me pleasure this afternoon to be able to suggest a new means of raising money for these purposes. It is a means not being used now by the government and I believe it would not cost the people of Canada or the government one cent more than they are paying now. It is something that is clearly desired by the people of Canada. I refer to a sweepstakes for hospital purposes. There have been many editorials in various newspapers.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I hope the hon. member does not propose to embark on a debate in support of sweepstakes because that has nothing to do with the bill.


John Ferguson Browne: Mr. Speaker, I think the question of financing should be an aspect of concern to all members. It is perhaps the main consideration behind the advancement of any social welfare measure. We must be concerned with the cost of doing these things. As many arguments have been put forward that we should go further, I think it is certainly fair to suggest a means of financing.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry I cannot agree with the hon. member. While costs and the means of raising the money are important, that is not what is before the house. The principle that is being discussed is the principle of a rather narrow amendment to the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act. I would ask the hon. member not to venture into the field of sweepstakes this afternoon.


John Ferguson Browne: Perhaps I have already made my point, Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as I say we should not continually urge the government to go further with these measures without suggesting some means of financing them.
Perhaps now that I have made the point, the government will give consideration to using that means to finance it.
(Translation):


Mr. J. P. Deschatelets (Maisonneuve-Rose-mont):: Mr. Speaker, I only have a few brief remarks to offer, first of all to point out that this unemployment insurance legislation


was originally brought forward by the preceding Liberal government and meets the urgent needs of the people of Canada.
When in 1948 Mr. Mackenzie King introduced his national health program, he pointed out that grants for hospital construction throughout the country were to be considered as the fundamental basis of a national health insurance program. In the years that followed, the former prime minister stated clearly, on more than one occasion, that the Canadian government's policy still consisted in supporting a contributory health insurance plan to be administered by the provinces. This was an excellent formula, one requiring no constitutional amendment, and which allowed the federal government to give financial assistance to provincial administrations, thus respecting provincial autonomy in the fields of public health.
It is a plan financed by all Canadians. The object of the hospital insurance act is to serve the interests of every province. Let us hope that all provinces will avail themselves of the benefits of the act and of the proposed amendment since it would obviously be unfair if the people of one province, who, in the last analysis will be called upon to pay for the plan in operation in another province, cannot enjoy the benefits of this legislation within their own province.
Now, with regard to this act and the proposed amendment, I would like to offer a few remarks about the hospital needs of the province of Quebec. Some years ago, the Quebec deputy minister of social welfare said that about 80 per cent of the citizens of our province cannot afford the costs of a prolonged stay in hospital. About a week ago, a delegation of the hospitals council, made up of 39 institutions, sought financial assistance from the city of Montreal. Dr. Turner, who was heading the delegation, said that the hospital problem is so acute that, unless they get immediate assistance, many hospitals will close down.
We have debts and salaries to pay, he said.
Under the circumstances, the people of the province of Quebec were entitled to expect a more positive and progressive stand on the part of the provincial government.
Since 1955, and 1956 too I believe, we have offered the provinces to join this plan and to get ready for it so as to make it available to the people of our province. Today, as far as the province of Quebec is concerned, we are no further ahead than we were at the time. Indeed, I shall quote a statement made by the premier of the province of Quebec, which I think has a bearing on this subject. It is from a Canadian Press report dated October

25, 1955. It shows in a few words how the premier of the province of Quebec feels about this hospital insurance plan. "The premier of the province of Quebec today discounted the possibility of the province joining in a national hospitalization insurance plan. It was stated by the premier that the system of charitable institutions now existing is better adapted to the people of his province."
And there we have the reason why on this 18th day of June 1958, the people in Quebec have no inkling as to when this legislation will apply to their province. I sincerely hope that authorities-busy though they be at the moment patching up certain gas leakage- will manage to find time to allow hospitals to benefit from this hospital insurance plan.
Mr. Speaker, I have therefore shown that this legislation is one of the most beneficial steps taken by the previous Liberal administration and that it meets urgent needs. Accordingly I hope that Quebec authorities will soon take positive steps so that, like other provinces, we might enjoy the benefits of this act. However, even if Quebec authorities do act, I believe that the loss of time of the last two or three years has been so great that, in due course, the provincial government will have to answer for its serious dereliction of duty in this regard.
(Text):


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Speaker, since remarks at this particular stage are confined to the principle of the bill, my remarks will have to be very brief. I do not believe there is too much principle about which to talk. Hon. members of the Liberal party to my left have made particular comments on the narrowness of the amendment before this house. I too, Mr. Speaker, feel that the amendment is indeed very limited, especially when we consider the important amendments that could have been made to this very inadequate act. Certainly, I feel the government did not extend themselves on this particular amendment.
However, I am afraid that I cannot agree with the conclusion to which members of the opposition came, that the only reason for the limitation of the amendment was the excellence of the previous bill, and they take this as a special tribute to the previous government. I fail to agree in that respect, and I would say that rather than taking it as a tribute to the previous government it is
Hospital Insurance Act more in the nature of discredit to the present government.
In line with that I feel that the first proof of the inadequacy of the bill itself is the fact that it had to be amended six months before it came into operation. I believe that is proof beyond doubt that the bill itself was not very good. I should like to remind government members, as they well know, that it took 40 years to take this first step. Certainly, when a baby ceases to creep and starts to walk, he should not start creeping all over again. It would be much better if he could improve his walking and start walking upright. I would suggest that we could have amendments of the nature of the one we have before us today every month for the next 40 years, and we would still be far from having an adequate health insurance bill.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I should like to make a few comments on this bill. Having been made aware of Your Honour's alertness today, I would suggest that Your Honour read yesterday's Hansard to see the circumstances under which, on behalf of those of us on this side of the house, it was generally agreed we would give quick passage to the resolution. If it had not been for that, I suppose we would still be discussing the resolution.
The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), in expressing his disappointment at the extent to which this amendment goes, forgot I believe the tremendous expenditures that are now being borne by all levels of government in Canada in the matter of health and welfare.


Frank Howard: But I remembered the expenditures that people make.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Quite so. I am not saying this critically. However, I think it is important to realize the extent to which *-even above that, if my hon. friend wishes to put it that way-progress in this very important field has taken place. I note that in the 12 years from 1946 to 1956-57 expenditures of the federal government in the field of health and social welfare rose from $41 million to $1,331 million. I note also that on a per capita basis the 1956 figures of health and welfare benefits paid by three comparable governments-the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada-show $121 million for Canada, $97 million for the United Kingdom and $138 million for the United States. From those figures it is apparent that our
1402	HOUSE OF
Hospital Insurance Act expenditures cover a wide range and, to put it in a very conservative way, certainly are comparable with those of other countries.
I believe it is not generally recognized how the cost of health benefits to the Canadian people through all of their governments, federal, provincial and municipal, compare with corresponding' costs in other countries. I know that comparisons are difficult to make but the best information available indicates that in 1956 benefits paid by all levels of government in Canada cost 6.5 per cent of the gross national product as compared with 8.5 per cent in the United Kingdom and 5.7 per cent in the United States. While I agree with the hon. member for Skeena who, in my opinion, the other day, made one of the best speeches in this debate, I do not think that it is objective treatment to overlook the great progress that has been made, as I am prepared to argue, within the last decade or so.
As the minister indicated, the purpose of this bill is three-fold. It is to bring in basically three amendments, two of which are relatively minor in character and are covered by one section of the bill and a third and more important one dealing with the conditions under which the federal government may begin to share with the provinces in the cost of their hospital insurance schemes.
I may say to the minister that so far as I am concerned little can be said about the first two amendments. As he indicates, the one is clarifying what was really intended and what I think is still implicit in the actual wording of the original measure. With regard to the other, that providing for meals and the like, I think that is a necessary step. I have looked over the section and I still think it could be argued that such provision is included in the present bill; but if the provinces find that it is desirable to have that provision clearly stated, of course there can be no exception taken for the reasons the minister has mentioned. Those who will take advantage of the diagnostic services within the hospital will require to spend some time in a hospital and that procedure will include necessarily, under certain conditions, taking meals in the hospital. Making that provision possible and authorizing the federal government to share in the cost of such provision is one way, as the minister has stated, of avoiding any abuse in the matter of bed occupancy. But with regard to the main amendment, I think that we must give some consideration to the circumstances-again I am not disagreeing with it-and to point out that the fact that this measure is now being introduced confirms the assertion made by hon. members on this side of the house that


the government has not prosecuted this particular matter, in so far as other provinces are concerned, with the vigour it is felt on this side should have been employed. As the hon. member for Skeena and the hon. member for Outremont-St. Jean (Mr. Bourque) pointed out, the minister has indicated that he hopes he will be able to sign agreements not only with the provinces of Ontario and Newfoundland but by July 1 with the provinces of British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan, three more provinces.


Jay Waldo Monteith: And Manitoba.


Paul Joseph James Martin: And Manitoba. I am sorry to have overlooked that province. He therefore hopes that by July 1 of this . year he will have signed agreements with six provinces. I can assure my hon. friend that I join with all other hon. members in expressing the hope that there will be no doubt that on July 1 that will be the case. But it is a little bit difficult to understand why there should have been any delay whatsoever in having agreements signed long before this with the province of British Columbia, the province of Alberta and the province of Saskatchewan. In the case of the province of Alberta I note that when Dr. Ross, the health minister from Alberta, was in Ottawa some time about the end of May he was reported as saying that one of the stumbling blocks was the requirement that the provinces provide both technical and professional costs for diagnostic tests. The principle involved, he thought, was that insisting on this requirement meant that the federal government was dictating levels of service.
I should be greatly interested in what the minister has to say about that matter because I am fairly familiar with that argument. Is that the only reason why Alberta has not been able to sign the agreement? Or is it because-as I think the minister last night suggested-some examination was still being made of the character of the scheme itself in Alberta? The minister now nods approval, that that is the real reason. I can understand that, although I wonder why that is the case in Alberta. Is it because of the necessary participation, under the Alberta act, of the municipalities in terms of sharing the costs? Or is it because the scheme covers only a percentage of the population of Alberta and consequently does not come within the condition of universal availability, the phrase envisaged in the proposal made by the federal government?
What about British Columbia? British Columbia has had a hospital insurance scheme in being now for a long time. What is the difficulty? What is the attitude taken by the province of British Columbia? The

minister last night, in the report that he gave, did not give us the reasons why British Columbia has not yet signed an agreement. I think the house should be given that information. It may be that arguments have developed which formerly were not thought to be valid but which might on reconsideration be thought to be valid today. I am not saying that is the case. In any event, my curiosity in this matter I think will be understandable when I say that we ought to be informed as to exactly why provinces with schemes now in being have not yet signed agreements with the federal government.
What is the situation with regard to Saskatchewan? That is a province which has had a scheme in being now for some considerable length of time, longer than any other province. It is a province that has acquired considerable know-how and experience with regard to this matter, and one that needs this additional money. Why has no agreement been signed with this province to date? We will be able to judge from the replies given by the minister with respect to the reason why no agreement has thus far been signed and as to what assessment we really should make of the likelihood of an agreement being signed before July 1. It may be that the minister will find very considerable support for the positions he may have had to take with respect to these matters. In any event, as he knows, for some time now I have been asking him in this house, both during the present session and more particularly last fall, as to the reasons why agreements have not been signed and were not signed last fall with any province and only now are they being signed with two provinces.
The same kind of interrogation might be pursued with respect to Manitoba, although the hon. minister says that Manitoba will be coming into the scheme, and I hope that the events of Monday last will not cause any delay in that particular.
I would like to know, for instance, why Prince Edward Island has not been able to come in and why is it that Nova Scotia, while announcing that it will come in by July 1, 1959, has not yet found it possible to sign an agreement? The same is true of the province of New Brunswick, that province having announced that it proposes to begin a scheme on January 1, 1959. Why is it, if that is the case, that that province has also not found it possible to sign an agreement up to the present time?
I do not say this in any critical way, and I hope the minister will not misunderstand me, but I take it that the reason for this amendment being introduced at this time is because the province of Ontario, having
Hospital Insurance Act decided to embark upon a scheme must not be put into the position where, having taken all the necessary steps to implement this huge undertaking in what is the largest province of Canada, it cannot be assured of a contribution being made to the cost of that scheme by the federal government at the starting date of January 1, 1959.
I take it that that is the main reason for this particular legislation, and I do not quarrel with that reason. As I have mentioned on another occasion, I indicated to Premier Frost in the spring of 1957 that if six provinces had not complied with the terms of section 2 of the main act, we would by the end of September have taken steps to make it possible to pay our share to Ontario as well to other consenting provinces in a manner different from that provided by section 2 of the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act. I think therefore it is a fair argument-as has already been suggested-that if the government had pursued this matter with vigour last fall, and if it had really urged the provinces as it is apparently now doing to sign these agreements, it would not have been necessary to bring forward this legislation. Instead of having six provinces sign this agreement by July 1, 1958, we would perhaps have had the actual signatures of two other provinces thereby making this scheme more nation-wide in scope than will now be the case. To show that this is not mere fancy, I would like to turn to what I said in this house on October 17 last, when we were discussing inter alia the matter of interim supply. I quote from page 81 in volume 1 of Hansard of that date, when in addressing the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Monteith) I said as follows:
Now, we are surely entitled to know whether any progress at all has been made in this matter. The province of Ontario has indicated that it proposes to implement its scheme on January 1, 1959, and when I last conferred with them in my own capacity as Minister of National Health and Welfare I was informed by the premier of Ontario that not later than the end of September he should be in a position to know definitely whether or not the federal government would be able, pursuant to the act, to provide the government of Ontario with its share of the cost of the operation of the Ontario scheme.
Unless some progress has been made I am afraid this situation is not calculated to give much encouragement. If Ontario is going to begin its scheme on January 1, 1959, unless it is to bear the full cost itself it must immediately know whether the other five consenting provinces will have conformed to the requirements of the hospital insurance act, since that legislation provides that the federal money shall be paid only when these six consenting provinces have schemes in being and in support of which the proclamation of the measures under which they operate has taken place. In other words their legislation must be in force and their scheme must be in force.

Hospital Insurance Act
And then later on I said-and this is significant:
If no agreements have been signed, well then, it is clear that Ontario's position, in so far as the starting date announced by the premier is concerned, is in great jeopardy unless the minister is prepared at some later date to suggest to this committee that there should be an amendment to the act to provide for payments on a basis not now envisaged by the hospital insurance act itself.
I think that clearly indicates and confirms the situation which I have just pictured. The reason for this legislation is, quite properly, in order not to embarrass the province of Ontario which has taken such steps. This legislation has become necessary but could have been avoided if this government had taken vigorous steps during last summer and fall to bring about the signing of an agreement with the six provinces which had consented prior to the election of June 1957 to the scheme introduced by the previous administration.
There is another point which I think should be made by those of us who are on this side of the house. That is with respect to those provinces which will now be the beneficiaries of this particular amendment. If it is justified for this government to now pay out money to the provinces of Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Alberta and British Columbia, how does the minister justify not having paid moneys out to Saskatchewan, to British Columbia and to Alberta long before this? By what principle does this government arrive at this particular type of payment to these provinces? It could be argued, in so far as the last administration is concerned, that payments were conditional upon the existence of six schemes being in force, but that condition does not appear in the present amendment. So how does the minister justify not having paid out this money in advance of this situation which has developed to those three provinces which had schemes in being long before July 1, 1958?
It is not for me to champion the cause of these three provinces, none of which is my own province, but as a citizen of Canada I believe we have a right to expect that all provinces will be treated on the same basis of principle and equity and I suggest that having refused to take this position from June 25, 1957 until the present time it will now be very difficult for the administration to explain to the provinces of British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan why it is now taking steps to provide for a sharing of costs by the federal government only as of July 1, 1958.
The minister does not find this to his liking, and possibly when he replies he will indicate exactly what he means when he expresses disagreement with my point of view. If I am


wrong, I would like to be told, but I am sure that is a perfectly defensible position and hon. gentlemen opposite who were on this side of the house argued that the existing provision in the act was not fair to those provinces which had schemes then in being. If it was unfair a year and a half ago surely under circumstances that are much less restrictive it would be difficult not to argue that the provinces of Saskatchewan, British Columbia and Alberta should have been reimbursed by the administration long before this.
The minister was good enough to table the agreement made with Newfoundland and the one made with Ontario. He will recall that when he announced the agreement with Newfoundland I asked him in this house whether or not the agreement with Newfoundland was on the same terms as that with the province of Ontario and the minister's reply was that both agreements were under the act. That was not my question as I indicated by my comment which went unnoticed and uncommented upon by the minister. I do find that the agreements are not the same. It is not that I am criticizing the differences in the agreements but I think it should be pointed out, as was remarked upon by the hon. member for Durham (Mr. Vivian) and the hon. member for Welland (Mr. McMillan)-and quite properly so-that the two agreements do not provide exactly the same benefits in the case of Ontario and Newfoundland. There is no quarrel in so far as the federal government is concerned. It is up to each province to decide the extent to which it wishes to take advantage of the federal legislation and I am not criticizing my hon. friend but it is interesting to point out that in the case of Ontario the province only accepts the diagnostic services program to the extent of in-patients and with regard to emergency cases in the category of out-patients.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Are you criticizing the province of Ontario for that?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Hospital Insurance Act the cost factor as well as providing incentive to efficiency and economy of operation.
The proposed federal contribution on a nationwide basis amounted to 50 per cent, as I said, of the total estimated shareable costs, or a minimum in the first year by the federal government, as I said, of some $180 million when all provinces were in. Therefore, the scheme is one that will cost the nation as a minimum in the first year of operation, assuming the participation of all 10 provinces, something in the neighbourhood of $400 million. Is that still the estimate of the government? It will be interesting to know whether or not that estimate is now higher. If it is higher-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have been allowing the hon. member a good deal of latitude in this particular matter but I think he goes beyond what is under debate in dealing with costs of the scheme and asking questions about the cost of the whole scheme.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Well, so far as the last observation is concerned I will not quarrel with you. What I am seeking to do is to ascertain from the minister the reason why some provinces have not yet come in. Undoubtedly, the cost involved is one of the reasons. For instance, I would like to know from the minister whether or not the allocations to the various provinces will continue to be the same. Under the scheme as originally proposed-and the formula still obtains-Newfoundland is actually to receive an estimated 72 per cent of the shareable cost; Prince Edward Island, 65 per cent; New Brunswick, 59 per cent; Nova Scotia, 57 per cent; Quebec, 53 per cent; and Manitoba, 51 per cent. On the other hand, British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Ontario were to receive slightly less than 50 per cent of their total costs. When the minister replies I would like to know-and this has a very great bearing-whether or not these figures have changed because of cost factors. If they have changed, did it in any way contribute to the attitude taken by any one of the provinces?
I think the house welcomes this amendment, Mr. Speaker, for the reasons that I have stated. We on this side of the house think this amendment could have been avoided if the government had pursued this matter earlier with the vigour which I know the minister himself would like to have pursued it. What are the reasons why we are in this particular situation today? What are the reasons for the attitude taken by the three provinces which have schemes in being? Why is it that they have not signed agreements up until the present time? The answers to these questions will not only 

satisfy my curiosity, which I think is understandable because I lived with this question for some time, but it will also give the house an indication as to what are the prospects, for instance, in the province of Quebec. The premier of that province said the other day that the hospital construction program of Quebec was a preparatory stage to the hospital insurance project being realized in the province of Quebec. Has the government received any indication, as was asked a moment ago by the hon. member for Outre-mont-St. Jean, from the premier of Quebec in this regard? Have there been any contacts between the Minister of National Health and Welfare and his opposite number in the government of Quebec, or has it been thought that the best way to deal with that situation was to do it vicariously through officials. The answers to some of these questions will be of great interest to the house and will contribute to the day when we shall have a nationwide scheme of hospital insurance all over this country.
This amendment is an amendment to an act introduced in this parliament in 1956, and the very fact that the government brings forward an amendment only in the terms that it does, without any provision to cover the things which it alleged on this side of the house should be included, such as those things referred to by other hon. members, is perhaps the best tribute to and confirmation of this matter that the previous administration could possibly receive.
(Translation):


Mr. Guy Rouleau (Dollard):: Mr. Speaker, I would not like to prolong this debate unduly but, considering the importance of this matter, and as a young member representing a new constituency where the average age is relatively low, I take this opportunity to make a few brief remarks.
When the hospital insurance program was introduced by the Liberal government and adopted by the house, a section was inserted in it to the effect that the plan would not be implemented until six provinces, representing half of the population of Canada, would join the plan. The aim of that section, as was explained by the then minister, the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) was to encourage the provinces to join in without delay and that section, as the present Minister of Health and Welfare (Mr. Monteith) has himself admitted, got results for he told us, on May 30th last, that all the provinces, except Quebec, were prepared to join. In fact, he stated that the province of Ontario was ready to join as from January 1st, 1959, while British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Newfoundland

were willing to implement that program from July 1, 1958. Moreover, he asserted that the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick were ready to come in as from January 1, 1959 while Prince Edward Island would do so a few months later.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare now asks us to repeal the said section and to replace it by another which would authorize the payment of contributions to all the provinces having a hospital insurance plan in effect on July 1, 1958. This amendment, Mr. Speaker, has become necessary because this government has shown no interest in the matter since it came to power on June 10, 1957. Indeed, since that time, this government has done nothing to encourage provinces to join in the hospital insurance plan, and the amendment moved today by the minister is in itself an admission of government inefficiency.
In view of the urgency and great importance of having the hospital insurance plan in force throughout this country, I cannot do otherwise than support the amendment moved by the minister. In the Canadian family, especially the average income family, illness is a tragedy. For instance, I know in my constituency a family man who has had some of his many children hospitalized on repeated occasions. He had to go heavily into debt to protect the health of his children and provide them with necessary care. Today he is desperate. Unable to pay his debts or to stand his predicament, he had a nervous breakdown.
Mr.' Speaker, as I said just now, illness is a tragedy for these families. Very often, when someone in the family takes sick, people put off sending the sick one to the hospital, because they lack the money. At times, the person dies as a result.
Mr. Speaker, a moment ago I mentioned the lack of interest of the present government in not encouraging provinces to join this hospital insurance plan. I wonder what it has done, since it has come to power, to encourage the provinces to do so.
To my mind it has done nothing and yet it has not lacked encouragement along those lines if we are to believe the hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Bissonnette) who on May 28, 1958, said, as can be seen on page 606 of the official report of the debates of this house:
I cannot help being interested in our federal hospital insurance act.
He added further:
I offer my full co-operation to the Minister of Public Health and Welfare (Mr. Monteith) -
Well, Mr. Speaker, I would say to the hon. member for Quebec West, as well as to all
Hospital Insurance Act members of the Union Nationale sitting on the government side of the house-


Mr. Theogene Ricard (St. Hyacinthe-Bagoi):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Guy Rouleau: -to kindly insist-[DOT]


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would remind the hon. member for Dollard that we are here as Conservative members and not as representatives of the Union Nationale and while there are no grounds for being ashamed of the Union Nationale, we were elected under the sponsorship of the Progressive Conservative party. The hon. member for Dollard is well aware of this and he should stick to that fact.


Guy Rouleau: Mr. Speaker, I fail to see how the hon. member could make it a point of order, and I don't know whether I should construe his statement as a denial of the policy of the premier of Quebec.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Not at all, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Habel:: Gas included?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order! I have to point out to the hon. member for Dollard that the Union Nationale party has nothing to do with this house, and that recently elected members to the federal parliament were labelled as Progressive Conservatives and sent here under the auspices of that party. Consequently, I would ask the hon. member for Dollard to refer to them as Conservative [DOT] members.


Guy Rouleau: Mr. Speaker, I shall gladly comply with your ruling. But I was also speaking about the co-operation which should exist between the federal government and the provincial governments, and especially the government of the province of Quebec which is ruled by the Union Nationale, and which, I understand, has friends amongst hon. members from that province in this house. I would therefore ask those hon. members who are thus on friendly terms-


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: What is wrong with that?


Guy Rouleau: -with the present government of the province of Quebec to urge the leader of that government to accept the hospital insurance plan and give the citizens of the province of Quebec the same benefits as are offered to the people of other provinces.
Just as much as people of other provinces, Quebec people need the benefits provided by that act passed by the Liberal party. The premier of the province of Quebec has no right to deprive them, the citizens of his province from the benefits of that act. In fact, did he not say, not so long ago, that there were too few hospitals in the province of Quebec to allow for the adoption of an

Hospital Insurance Act hospital insurance plan? Is he not the one who often says, at his weekly press conferences, that he provided for the construction of more hospitals in the province of Quebec than were built in any other province of Canada?
Well, if so many provincial governments felt that there are enough hospitals for the implementation of the hospital insurance scheme, I do not see why the Quebec government would not participate in the program put forward by the federal government. I do not believe that Quebec people, any more than people in other provinces, would take undue advantage of the implementation of an hospital plan. I make a special appeal to the present government and to Conservative members, since we must call them by that name,-I hope that it will please the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard) -and ask them to exert pressure on Mr. Duplessis, the premier of the province of Quebec, whom they respect and honour, to have him agree to join, as soon as possible, in the hospital insurance program so that the people of that province may enjoy the same benefits as their fellow citizens of other provinces.
Mr. Speaker, this hospital insurance plan would be a great deal healthier for the province of Quebec than natural gas.


Mr. Georges Valade (St. Mary):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to note the absence of the former member for Montmagny-L'Islet who would certainly be shocked by the remarks of some Liberals who believe themselves to be federalists, but who are more provincially minded than those whom they attack in this house.
Mr. Speaker, I have no wish to ape the opposition which, since the session started, has been indulging in provincial politics in the federal house. The matters we have to deal with here are somewhat different from those that are being talked about elsewhere and, because members of the opposition were reduced both in numbers and in quality at the last election, they should now begin to realize that it is a bad practice to indulge in provincial politics in the federal parliament.
If I may be allowed to do so, Mr. Speaker, and since our opponents have already raised the matter, I would like to deal with this health insurance plan in so far as it concerns the province of Quebec.

No one, I believe, is justified in criticizing the policies of the Union Nationale in the field of public health. It is one of the governments which have done most in Canada for the development, and the building of hospitals, and for the improvement of medical services-


Paul Joseph James Martin: With federal assistance.


Georges-J. Valade: With provincial assistance.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: With federal assistance.


Georges-J. Valade: However, when the hon. member was a member of the Liberal cabinet, I do not think he did anything, since 1911, to urge the province of Quebec to join in a hospital insurance plan. Now that this problem is urgent and concerns practically all Canadian taxpayers, our Liberal friends opposite spare no effort in trying to delay the passing of this measure and talk, not in the interest of their taxpayers, but for our friends in the press gallery.
Mr. Speaker, this question-


Guy Rouleau: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member who has the floor is imputing to me motives which I did not have, when he says that I spoke first to delay unduly the proceedings of the house and secondly for other reasons he just mentioned.
(Text):


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I must remind hon. members that we are currently discussing a bill which has nothing to do with federal-provincial relations between the federal government at Ottawa and the province of Quebec. To put the point absolutely in its true perspective, may I say that I believe the hon. member for St. Mary (Mr. Valade) should adhere in his speech to the matter being discussed which is the bill he has in front of him. I believe also that the same applied to the hon. member for Dollard (Mr. Rouleau) who in his speech undoubtedly concentrated more on federal-provincial relations between the government of Canada and the province of Quebec than he did on the bill. Therefore may I ask hon. members to discuss the bill under debate at present and leave federal-provincial relations in their proper sphere.


Georges-J. Valade: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for having given this opinion because I am sure if this matter had not been raised before by

our Liberal friends we would not have had any discussion of the provincial government. 1 am going to continue in English, Mr. Speaker, because I wish to be understood very clearly on this question by my friends from the other provinces and those from the province of Quebec. If I get up to speak on this question it is because I want to say to the minister that I am completely agreeable to a scheme of health insurance in Canada. However, I notice in the bill an implication of the law concerning that part of the bill which states that drugs supplied shall be administered in the hospital. I know that it never entered the minister's mind to cause the people to have any doubts concerning pharmacists. As a pharmacist, I should say we enjoy a very good standing in society. As a result of the amendment in this bill, there may be some people who would question the equity of it in relation to pharmacists.
We are authorized to distribute prescription drugs, pharmaceuticals and biologicals. It is for this reason I am speaking on this question. I should like to bring to the attention of the minister the fact that many of the patients who would benefit from this insurance plan are people who may sometimes have to leave the hospital for a period of convalescence or for other reasons. Perhaps these people would need drugs and certain substances in the treatment of their condition. At the moment these persons would have to go back to the hospital in order to obtain these drugs from the hospital itself instead of being able to procure them from the pharmacist.
While I agree with the general principle of the bill, I should like to bring to the attention of the minister that, in this particular respect, the bill may cause certain disagreements between the pharmaceutical profession and others in connection with the administration of these drugs. It is for this reason I have intervened in the debate, and I hope my observations will be given consideration.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: I must remind hon. members that if the minister speaks now he will terminate this debate.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, I think that probably the first thing I should say is to thank the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) for this fine bouquet which he sent across the floor to me a moment ago. Incidentally, I am not too sure whether or
Hospital Insurance Act not he expected I would wear it. I do appreciate it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I want to thank the minister for graciously accepting and wearing such a beautifully coloured carnation.


Jay Waldo Monteith: There have been many suggestions made during the course of this debate this afternoon, all of which I am very pleased to hear. Of course, I would point out that I have to disagree with some of the comments that have been made. The hon. member for Outremont-St. Jean (Mr. Bourque) indicated that he hoped there would be more than two provinces that would have signed by July 1. I think it was this member who indicated that a salesman does not feel he has closed a deal until he has a signature on the dotted line. I quite understand that approach. I would assure him, however, as I did earlier that I have every expectation there will be five provinces that will have signed by that date.
There were several speakers from the official opposition who took great pleasure in giving some credit for this legislation to the former government. I have no hesitation in agreeing that it was the former government that brought this legislation into force in April, 1957. I would point out, however, and I have mentioned this previously, that it is my firm belief that if the old government had been returned to power the federal government would not be participating in hospital insurance in any province in Canada until January 1, 1959.


Paul Joseph James Martin: A mere statement is not proof of what is said.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I think I could apply that to a lot of the hon. member's speech.


Paul Joseph James Martin: All my remarks were statements backed up with authority.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I would be glad to mention the status of the three provinces which the hon. member for Essex East queried. As he knows, there have been two agreements signed. In so far as Manitoba is concerned, the agreement is in readiness for signing. It occurs to me that there should be no reason to doubt the intent of the government of Manitoba as a result of Monday's events because it is obvious that when there was a change of government at Ottawa federal moneys were available for hospital insurance in Canada at an earlier date and I think that is an indication of what
1410	HOUSE OF
Hospital Insurance Act might well happen with the government of a similar party.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Is my hon. friend certain that the old government will not continue?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I am certain of that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister had better read tonight's newspaper.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I will be happy to do that if I can get out of here.
The Alberta legislation is being studied. As I indicated yesterday, we expect the minister and his officials from Alberta to be here tomorrow and the next day in consultation. So far as British Columbia is concerned, that agreement along with Saskatchewan's is before the government for consideration. Agreement in principle has been reached, and I have every reason to expect that those agreements will be signed by July 1.
The hon. member for Essex East tried to demonstrate that we were dilatory in forwarding the cause of this particular piece of legislation. Of course, I cannot agree with him. I think the exact words he used were that he did not want the house to consider that this would be fancy. Frankly, it did sound rather fancy to me, because it was quite a hypothetical argument he was building up. I can only repeat what I said before that there are two minor amendments in this bill for clarification purposes, and one primarily to get the federal contribution towards hospitalization in Canada under way.
I would mention that these are ten different schemes, or are very apt to be quite different in some respects. I do not expect that, necessarily, two out of the ten will be identical, if as and when ten are signed. As a consequence, there are bound to be differences, but whatever differences there are they will be according to the terms of the act. Under the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I think I will take my place. If there are any questions later in committee, I would be happy to answer them.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Rea in the chair.
On clause 1.
Mr. McMillan:: I should like to ask the minister whether the province of Ontario is taking full advantage of such diagnostic services as are ordinarily given in a hospital. Then 

under section 1, which deals with subparagraph (iv) of paragraph (f) of section 2 of the act having to do with the provision of drugs, I should like to know what is meant there by "when administered in the hospital". If a patient is brought in, for instance, for an X-ray, is he considered to be an in-patient while he is there, just while the X-ray is being taken? Then, in connection with certain diagnostic services, a person may come to the hospital just for X-ray diagnostic services. Such patients are often given dyes which are ordinarily supplied by the hospital and which must be taken at regular intervals outside. If the hospital supplied those particular dyes for the patient to take, would it be covered under this act?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, I feel that there has been somewhat of an attempt to leave the impression that the province of Ontario is not-what should I say-taking sufficient advantage of the terms of the federal act. I should like to repeat again what I have said on one or two occasions earlier in this debate, namely that the agreement with Ontario is fully in agreement with the terms of the act. I cannot go any further than that. As to the X-ray, either an inpatient or an out-patient comes under the terms of the act. I understand a technical term which the hon. member used means tablets, in other words. Am I right?


William Hector McMillan: Yes; or dyes.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I understand that these would be given only while the patient is in the hospital. That is one of the clarifications that we have in this bill this afternoon.


William Hector McMillan: In other words, these dyes would not be supplied to the patient, to be taken outside in a course of X-ray diagnostic services?


Jay Waldo Monteith: No.


William Hector McMillan: Is that right?


Jay Waldo Monteith: No; they would not be supplied.


Murdo William Martin: I think the minister does not do himself justice when he says that the province of Ontario, in so far as diagnostic services are concerned, has taken full advantage of the proposal made by the federal government and embodied in the act. He says that what Ontario has done is within the terms of the act just as the agreement with Newfoundland is within the terms of the act. Of that fact there is no doubt. But the question is this, and this is not being offered in criticism of the minister. The question is simply one of clarification. What Ontario does is the responsibility of Ontario

and the minister cannot be charged with any action taken by any provincial government. However, the question is this. Does Ontario take full advantage of the diagnostic services proposal? I submit that the minister is wrong in saying that it does so.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I did not say that. I said the agreement was completely within the terms of the act.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister keeps repeating that statement, but that answer does not at all address itself to the question. The fact is that Ontario only accepts diagnostic services for in-patients, in accordance with the terms of the amendment, in a hospital; and with regard to out-patients, it accepts the diagnostic services plan only in so far as emergency cases are concerned. The whole series of diagnostic services that are contemplated in the case of out-patients providing for people who do not go to hospital at all, such as provisions for the use of those modern instruments used by the medical profession to give good diagnosis, are not being accepted by Ontario in so far as this agreement is concerned.


Mr. Carter:: I have one question on which I should like to get clarification from the minister. It is understood that the agreement with Ontario is in some respects different from the agreement with Newfoundland. What is the position of the person who moves from one province to another?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I am sorry but I was getting some information while the hon. member was speaking, and I did not follow his question.


Chesley William Carter: I am wondering what is the position of a person who moves, say from Ontario to Newfoundland. In Ontario under the agreement he would be entitled to one set of benefits. In Newfoundland he would be entitled to a different set of benefits. Suppose a person moves from Newfoundland to Ontario or vice versa and requires services. What would the position be?


Jay Waldo Monteith: There will be reciprocal arrangements so that no resident of one province, when moving to another, will lose out on any benefits. He will be covered when he moves to another province.


Chesley William Carter: That does not clarify the
question completely. Suppose a person living in Newfoundland is entitled to more benefits than is a person living in Ontario, or to a different set of benefits. Then suppose the person moves from Newfoundland to Ontario. In that case can he get the full benefits that he would get in Newfoundland or is he restricted to the benefits of Ontario?
Hospital Insurance Act


Jay Waldo Monteith: I imagine he will
be restricted to the benefits of Ontario when he becomes a resident of Ontario.


Chesley William Carter: I am not speaking of a resident; I am speaking of a visitor. I am speaking in terms of a person who just comes on a short visit and requires these services.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I understand there will be three months' out-of-province benefits in that case.


Chesley William Carter: But just to what extent?
During those three months in Ontario, if he requires services, he cannot get the same benefits he would get if he were in Newfoundland. Is that true?


Jay Waldo Monteith: No. For the first
three months he will get the same benefits as he would have received in Newfoundland.


Frank Howard: The minister mentioned the word "resident" which indicates a qualification as to what is and what is not a resident. I wonder whether he would like to clarify that matter for me. For the purposes of this act, when is a person a resident of a province? Is he a resident after so many months or what is the situation?


Jay Waldo Monteith: As I understand it, Mr. Chairman, this may differ in certain provinces. In Ontario, for instance, a resident is a resident of that province immediately he comes into it, but there is a three month waiting period in respect to the availability of hospital insurance.


Frank Howard: That is in the Ontario act?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Yes.


Frank Howard: I would like to take that a step further. As I understand it, the qualifying period before a person becomes a resident may vary from one province to another. It may be three months in Ontario or six months in Manitoba, or something of that nature?


Jay Waldo Monteith: No, there will be no difference in establishing residence; there may be a difference in benefits during that first three months period.


Frank Howard: Perhaps I can put the question in more basic terms. I am thinking in terms particularly with respect to the plan we have in the province of British Columbia, which requires one year's residence before you can be covered. I should like to know whether it is the hope of this government in dealing with British Columbia that before the agreement is signed that province will reduce the one year qualifying period?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I understand there will be no province which has more than a three months' period and that while the

Hospital Insurance Act agreement has not yet been signed with British Columbia it is actually drawn up and ready to be signed.


Frank Howard: Then, as I understand it, this three month arrangement would be a uniform definition of residence across the country?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Yes, it is reciprocal and for the purposes of the act and the regulations a resident of a province means a person legally entitled to remain in Canada who makes his home and is ordinarily present in the province. It does not include tourists, transients or visitors to that province. The waiting period, however, will not be more than three months in any province.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I would like to pursue that a little further, particularly in view of the fact that this act provides for an agreement between the federal and provincial governments in so far as hospital insurance is concerned.


Paul Joseph James Martin: And diagnostic services.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: And diagnostic services. One can always rely on the former minister of national health and welfare to put a frame around it, although sometimes it is a bit too wide a frame for me.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is a very important part of the service.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I know it is. I have known of cases where the wives and dependants of service men who have served in Europe for some time, those wives and dependants having been born in British Columbia, upon their return to Canada have been deprived of hospital insurance owing to the present regulations in that province, namely, the one year residence requirement. This has proved to be of great expense to them, and I know of one case where a man incurred on behalf of his family some $1800 in hospital expenses shortly after he returned home. I know of another case where a wife was taken ill and there were expenses of $500 or $600.
It seems to me that when these men are engaged in the defence of this country and are sent overseas and their wives go with them there should be a federal responsibility. They are defending this country and performing a service for the whole of Canada, and it seems to me that under the new arrangements these wives and dependants who are returning from overseas will still be denied the immediate benefits of hospital insurance under this act, which is in effect in the province to which they will return. I would therefore ask the minister, in view of the fact that the federal government is responsible for the welfare of the forces and their
(Mr. Monteith (Perth).]

dependants and also of veterans, would it not be possible to have some clause written into the agreement between the provinces and the federal government providing for the serviceman's wife and his dependants receiving hospital insurance and diagnostic services immediately on their return to the province from which they left to proceed overseas?


Jay Waldo Monteith: The hon. member has referred to Briitsh Columbia, where I understand there has been a special arrangement in effect during the last two years to assist in taking care of that particular problem. I am given to understand that is the case, but this is essentially a provincial problem. I am concerned about it but actually there would be, as I understand it, a three month waiting period in whatever province is concerned.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Does the minister think it fair that servicemen who have volunteered to serve their country and who are removed from the country should be penalized on that account with respect to their wives and dependants when they return to their home province, and be denied the benefits of the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act for a period of three months? I believe that is a penalty resulting from voluntary service to Canada, and I think it is unjust.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I mentioned before that we are concerned with this problem and are continually studying it in an effort to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion.


Romuald Bourque: This afternoon when I was speaking, Mr. Chairman, I stated that the province of Ontario was signing for inpatients only with respect to drugs and diagnostic services, while the province of Newfoundland would extend that service to out-patients. The minister said this was not so.


Jay Waldo Monteith: No, I did not.


Romuald Bourque: I may be a little green in this matter and possibly may seem ignorant with respect to it, but I would like the minister to tell us just what he had in mind when he said I was incorrect. If the situation is as I outlined, then Ontario citizens will get very much less than the citizens of Newfoundland.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I think this is a similar proposition to the one mentioned a few moments ago. Newfoundland and Ontario have both signed agreements according to the terms of the act. Newfoundland has taken full advantage of all possible diagnostic

services. Ontario is having out-patient diagnostic services on an emergency situation basis.


William Hector McMillan: In reference to the reciprocal agreement which would apply when a person moves from one province to another, in replying to questions the minister said that if an out-patient under this act moved from Newfoundland to Ontario he would be entitled to benefits in the same way as he would in Newfoundland. How would Ontario be able to provide those benefits when it was not providing them to the other citizens?


Jay Waldo Monteith: The Ontario people would collect from Newfoundland for the extra services.


William Hector McMillan: Is there an arrangement to that effect between the provinces?
Business oj the House


Jay Waldo Monteith: This is a reciprocal agreement.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, will the house leader indicate what the business will be for tomorrow?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we shall conclude the debate on the NORAD agreement and then continue with consideration in committee of the hospital insurance bill. We shall then take the estimates of the Department of Public Works and, after we have concluded them, the estimates of the Department of Agriculture.


[Stage Direction]
It being three minutes after six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[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. Howard: How much money, if any, was spent as a result of the royal commission on coasting trade for
(a)	remuneration to the individual commissioners;
(b)	the staff of the royal commission; <c) travelling expenses of the commission, the staff; (d) other expenses not mentioned above?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):
Up to March 31, 1958, only (a) $48,367.00; (b) $78,226.03; (c) $19,006.33 and $13,591.83;
(d)	other expenses such as professional services; advertising; printing and office supplies; telephone and telegrams, $92,403.49.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE PAYMENTS TO FISHERMEN
Mr. McWilliam: 1.	What was the total amount of unemployment insurance benefits drawn by Canadian fishermen from the date they became eligible to the latest date for which figures are available?
2.	What amount was drawn by fishermen of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick respectively?
Answer by: Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Acting Minister of Labour):
1.	Amount of unemployment insurance benefit paid to Canadian fishermen to May 31, 1958, $8,138,250.
2.	Amount paid to fishermen to May 31, 1958; Nova Scotia, $1,516,827; New Brunswick, $938,812.

Thursday, June 19, 1958